UNIVERSITY OF GHANA SCHOOL OF LAW

NAME: BERNARD BEDIAKO BAIDOO

ID: 11361450

THE ROLE OF EFFECTIVE DISCIPLINARY FRAMEWORK ON PUBLIC

ADMINISTRATION IN GHANA

Abstract

Despite safeguards in place to guarantee that twelve weeks would be sufficient to end any
disciplinary case, the public sector takes too long to wrap up disciplinary proceedings. The
Public Services Commission which is in charge of maintaining the state's disciplinary laws and
regulations, served as the case study for the study described here. The performance agreement
of the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations includes discipline management as an
indicator. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the Public Services' disciplinary
management system. As disciplinary matters are not resolved within the allotted timeframe, the
findings often indicate non-compliance with the disciplinary system. Qualitative theme analysis
contributed to the research outcomes. The people there were all Public Servants. Interviews with
20 employees on the research need. The researcher amongst other things concluded that the
department's disciplinary policy framework is ineffective since deadlines aren't followed and
there isn't enough internal capacity to handle disciplinary matters. Direct referral of all
allegations of persuasion and interference to the Public Service Commission for review is
recommended.

Introduction
This study is limited to the Public Services Commission (PSC).
The Constitution of the Republic of Ghana, 1992 (hereafter referred to as the Constitution),
which outlines fundamental administrative norms and principles for public service, gives the
PSC, the country's department, its authority in section 195(1) of the Constitution. The
Constitution's Section 195 lays out the guidelines for the effective and efficient handling of
discipline. Employees have a right to a fair and speedy resolution of their disciplinary issues as
citizens. Through organizational and self-discipline, the goal is to foster and enhance excellent
ethics and integrity in public administration. The Public Administration Management Act 11 of
2014 (PAMA) places a strong emphasis on expediting disciplinary proceedings. Public
administration institutions are required to make sure that intervention measures are in place to
address systemic weakness in accordance with Section 15(4) of the PAMA. Building your
competence to start and carry out disciplinary proceedings in cases of misconduct or incapacity
as a result of subpar performance may fall under this category.
The PSC is responsible for maintaining the rules and guidelines governing labor relations in the
public sector. Each state department's Executive Authority is in charge of managing disciplinary
action, which includes making sure that disciplinary proceedings follow the established
timelines. The PSC has determined that it is important to address the organizational and human
resource issues that impede service delivery. The public service's disciplinary management
reports reveal a deterioration in adherence to the legal framework, protracted precautionary
suspensions, and delays in adjudicating disciplinary proceedings. Given this context, it was
necessary to alter the Public Service Act (PSA), of 2003. This shows that guidelines were not
followed, which led to poor organizational and human resource practices.
While certain clauses are out-of-date or in conflict with other laws, others have given rise to
legal challenges (PSA, 2008).
According to Denhardt, Denhardt, and Blanc (2014), the democratic norms and principles
entrenched in the Constitution serve as the rules for a disciplined public service. The ethos of
good governance is undermined by lax discipline management, which fosters acts of
insubordination and bad administration, results in a dysfunctional public service, and perpetuates
these behaviors. Effective personnel management is essential for the supervisor in a company.
Effective people management depends on the kind of individuals hired and chosen, which is why
the recruiting and selection procedures in the public sector have grown complex. Managers work
hard to choose and hire staff members whose polite behavior fosters a positive work atmosphere.
When providing government services, the recruits must be sensitive to the populace. Ramson,
Ramson, Govender, Naidoo, Govender, and Naidoo (2016) posit enlistment is a process where
applicants are attracted to fill vacant positions within organizations.

The possibility of ill-discipline and unethical behavior increases when competent and qualified
candidates are not hired, necessitating ongoing workplace evaluation. The study's focus is on
how moral principles and ethical principles contribute to institutional discipline (Geldenhuys &
Peral, 2020). An accountability benchmark between the executive authorities and the accounting
officers of predetermined performance criteria is the outcome-based performance evaluation of
service delivery (Wotela, 2017). Through performance monitoring and evaluation, discipline
seeks to foster obedience and instill a sense of self-control and self-discipline (Motseke, 2020).

Controlling discipline and low achievement are two connected ideas (Valcik & Benavides,
2012). The practice of enforcing organizational norms and standards and rectifying subpar
performance is known as discipline. To guarantee that employees are aware of the organization's
norms and procedures, a communication strategy must be implemented. One of the explanations
for why employees break the law is poor communication. It is the duty of managers to make sure
that staff members are instructed and informed of the rules. The education and promotion
campaign may be carried out while new hires are still on trial and during induction. Effective
communication techniques are necessary to attain effectiveness (Sebola, 2017).

To achieve overarching organizational performance improvement and personnel growth,

discipline management also includes reviewing employee performance. Top management can
use information that has been assessed to make important strategic decisions. Evaluation and
evaluation reports can also be given to employees. It's critical to keep staff members informed
about the organization's vision and mission.

Controlling discipline is a management issue, which has a political component in addition to

being a concern of the government. The government's service delivery initiatives are informed
and influenced by the political objectives of the ruling party. The goal of the service delivery
strategy is to make sure that government programs are implemented effectively, efficiently, and
economically. Therefore, effective discipline management rests on excellent governance, which
must meet the demands of both the government and its constituents. This implies that legislation
and rules must be properly understood and implemented. For the sake of compliance, it is
necessary to follow the established processes, procedures, and policy deadlines (Dorasamy
2010). According to Stevenson (2013), accountability is the driving factor behind high
performance, with little emphasis placed on dealing with attitude and worker disciplinary issues.
The state is described as a "life-term employer" because it is impossible to discipline and fire
inept staff. Employees must be aware of how their job fits into the larger institutional strategy
and whether their contribution is worthwhile in order to operate at their best. Assuring effective
data collection and information management is one of the essential management aspects.
Effective information management systems provide quick and simple accountability decision-
making. Ghana is a democratic country where citizens are held responsible for government
decisions.

Power and influence both have flaws (Zaaiman, 2020). In discipline management, authority
hierarchy is a crucial instrument for allowing flexibility and decreasing "transaction costs"
through expediting case resolution (Barasa, 2018). Process monitoring is made possible by
control power, which also offers corrective action or a backup plan for directional power.
Employers can enforce discipline through the use of disciplinary power. Employers use this
authority to punish improper behavior and behaviors that violate policies and procedures. It is
often referred to as a tool for reducing transaction costs and flexibility. The use of disciplinary
power is one method for dealing in deterring non-compliance (Barasa, 2018).

Organizations influence structures of power, values, and access to a variety of resources

(Zaaiman, 2020). The fairness of the disciplinary procedure and adherence to the established
deadlines are influenced by power. The disciplinary action must start within a fair amount of
time and must end according to the code. Role players become agitated when disciplinary issues
aren't resolved in the allotted period. By attempting to correct inappropriate behavior, the
supervisor plays a crucial part in handling discipline. This supports the management premise that
maintaining discipline is a management task. It undermines and compromises the power of
managers to refer disciplinary cases to the human resources division for handling. In-depth
training is required for managers and shop stewards to conduct disciplinary investigations. Their
involvement and knowledge of the procedure help determine how fairly discipline is
administered (Barasa, 2018). According to Stevenson (2013), supervision is one of the
fundamental necessities in management that relates to the strategies of effective and proper
management, and it serves as the nerve system of an organization.

The fundamental principles regulating public administration are effectiveness and efficient
disciplinary management (Ghanaian Constitution, 1992). According to common law principles,
the business owner has the authority to enforce discipline and make sure that workers are
performing to their full potential. A service level consent must be used to establish and agree
upon performance standards with personnel. Therefore, the employer has the right to take
disciplinary action for subpar performance. The employee may be fired as a result of the
disciplinary action, and in that case, fairness must rule. Employees must be given the chance to
put forth their defenses in response to the allegations in order to maintain procedural fairness.
Employees must be informed of their right to representation and given authorization to exercise
it (Denhardt et al., 2014). Dorasamy (2010) preserves that discipline results in good teaching and
learning, and as a result, promotes performance.

Effective supervision and healthy interpersonal relationships are prerequisites for effective
discipline performance management. According to the Public Services Commission (2012), it is
necessary to shorten the time it takes to resolve disciplinary matters. The study comes to the
conclusion that using common sense and exercising good judgment are essential components of
resolving disciplinary issues effectively. These characteristics are lacking, which accounts for the
failure to complete the disciplinary process within the allotted 90-day period. However, this is
only possible if optimal management practices are used and are supported by corporate policy,
pertinent government legislation, and regulations. Through case law, the study also demonstrated
that poorly managed disciplinary processes are not tolerated by the courts. This is predicated on
the idea that the disciplinary processes and procedures were used in a manner that was against
both the ministerial decision and the collective bargaining agreement (Public Services
Commission, 2012).

Every public institution or official must be held accountable whenever an administrative error
occurs, according to Mfene (2012), who also states that accountability is synonymous with
answerability. The state with this responsibility ensures that the government's mandate is
properly carried out. According to Price (2015), accountable governments, for example, have the
Disciplinary Code and Procedures.

According to the findings of different monitoring organizations, disciplinary proceedings are not
resolved within the allotted 90 days. According to the National Treasury (2015), the main issues
are not adhering to the statutory deadlines set forth and the underuse of reporting tools and
information management systems. Executive Authorities and department heads were given
instructions by the Minister for Employment and Labour Relations regarding the repercussions
of failing to collect labor relations data and how violations in this area would be handled in
accordance with section Public Services Commission Act.

The Public Services Commission's (2012) report on the management of precautionary

suspensions in public service served as additional inspiration for this research. The results
showed that there is typically non-compliance with the deadlines set forth in the relevant
prescripts. The Public Services Commission was created as a body to monitor and assess the
public service's hiring procedures. As a result, it is necessary to advance professionalism and
moral behavior through the observation and assessment of state operations (PSC, 2011). In
accordance with the 1992 Constitution, the Public Services Commission establishes discipline
management norms and standards for the public service. The Public Services Commission must
immediately assess the current disciplinary framework's applicability in figuring out why
disciplinary cases are taking so long to be resolved. This research attempted to establish the
challenges and causes of the delay in finalizing the cases.

Statement of the Problem

Due to ineffective disciplinary supervision, misconduct issues in the public sector take a long
time to be resolved. The public service typically takes longer than the required 90 days to resolve
disciplinary matters, which leads to needless lawsuits against the government. There are many
reasons why cases take longer to be resolved, including the involvement of legal professionals
who raise technical issues, postponements, the absence or incompetence of chairpersons,
prolonged suspensions, the lack of witnesses, and supportive legislative frameworks. This is due
to the knowledge and training gaps among line managers and human resource personnel.
Because officials who are suspended from duty are paid to stay at home, the inability to resolve
disciplinary issues within the allotted 90 days is problematic for service delivery. This behavior
amounts to audit inquiries for public entities and is in violation of the disciplinary system. The
public service discipline management structure is undermined and service delivery is
significantly impacted by the lengthy finalization of proceedings against officials. Therefore, the
goal of this study is to evaluate the efficiency of disciplinary management. The efficacy includes
obstacles and reasons why cases don't get resolved within the allotted time span.

Objectives of the Study

This study sought to investigate the effectiveness of the public service disciplinary framework.
The study specifically sought to:

1. Investigate whether public administration practices promote effective discipline

management.
2. Examine whether discipline management framework measures are effective in ensuring a
disciplined workforce.
3. Explore whether the Public Services Commission manage activities within the
confinement of legislative framework requirement.
4. Analyze the outcomes of monitoring and evaluation to improve the Public Services
Commission’s performance in the management of disciplinary cases.

Research questions
The following were the research questions:
1. How do public administration practices promote effective discipline management?
2. How effective are discipline management framework measures in ensuring a disciplined
workforce?
3. How does the Public Services Commission manage activities within the confinement of
legislative framework requirements?
4. What are the outcomes of monitoring and evaluation to improve the Public Services
Commission’s performance in the management of disciplinary cases?

Literature Review
The literature will review highlighted five themes—discipline management, norms and
standards, disciplinary procedure, disciplinary process, and forms of discipline—and
centered on the central idea of the study.
Norms and Standards
A disciplinary code must be designed in order to ensure the sustainability of discipline inside
an institution (Mfene, 2012). Employee behavior, performance, and conduct should be
observed and evaluated in comparison to the established standards. Employees who fall short
of the performance requirement must be given corrective actions to take, which may include
taking disciplinary action.
The employer must also assess if the level of performance has improved and whether the
corrective measures have produced the expected results (Sebola, 2017). The constructive
approach to punishment presupposes that staff members embrace and understand their
position as managers and supervisors in an organization. If workers are aware of the
established policies and procedures, they become motivated and productive. Employees must
be made aware of the performance standards and conduct by their supervisor (Mfene, 2012).

Discipline Management
For the organization to succeed, the order must be maintained during operations. Employees'
lack of discipline and general chaos have a negative impact on how well an organization
operates and achieves its goals. The upholding of discipline can be seen as a way to maintain
harmony and healthy working relationships (Sebola, 2017). The importance of discipline
goes beyond enforcing strict rules and regulations to also include maintaining a calm
workplace (Wotela, 2017). Constant communication between management and workers is a
requirement for positive discipline. Supervisors have a responsibility to see to it that workers
are aware of the expected behavior and performance standards (Mfene, 2012).
Forms of Discipline
Discipline is divided into formal and informal categories. No formal disciplinary
investigation ought to be conducted for less serious types of wrongdoing (PSCBC, 2003). In
the past, employers used an authoritarian and inconsistent technique known as the "big stick"
approach, which involved harsher sanctions. In this system, the employer sets the rules and
applies them unilaterally. Any violations are subject to penalties. The penalties imposed are
determined by the employee's position and level within the company. Threats and warnings
are used frequently to intimidate employees and are seen as an unjust management approach
(Ramson et al, 2016). This is a negative strategy when employees perform below par rather
than to the best of their abilities in order to avoid disciplinary action. This strategy's flaw is
that employees frequently try to "beat the system" and use it against the interests of the
company. This method is opposed by organized labor because it has a negative impact on
healthy employment relationships. Progressive discipline, which emphasizes corrective
behavior on the part of employees rather than punitive forms of discipline, is preferred
(Motseke, 2020).
Disciplinary Procedure
To ensure impartiality, the disciplinary hearing must follow the rules of procedure. As much
as feasible, the disciplinary process must take place on the job and be clear to all employees
(PSCBC, 2003). The process entails carrying out an examination to see if there are any
justifications for a sanction (LRA, 1995). The employer must promptly notify the employee
of the allegations and charges, as well as the right to representation, the conduct of the
disciplinary hearing, the imposition of the sanction, the consideration of the employee's
appeal, and the keeping of records (Wotela, 2017).
Disciplinary Process
Following these procedures will guarantee substantive and procedural fairness when handling
disciplinary issues. Giving the accused employee a chance to address the accusations of
misconduct and defend themselves is the first step in the disciplinary procedure (Sebola,
2017). The principal attendees at the hearing are the employer representative, the employee,
and the chairperson (PSCBC, 2003). The chairperson is in charge of keeping the hearing in
order and rendering a verdict of guilty or not guilty based on the evidence given. The
chairperson should be an impartial third party. All evidence must be led by the employer or
the representative of the employer, including calling witnesses, presenting documents, and/or
showing video (Small, 2017).
In addition to the issues of the study and the literature evaluation, the researcher discovered
the following researchers who studied disciplinary management in the public service:

 Barassa (2018) conducted a study on managers' and employees' perceptions of

disciplinary actions. The results showed that different types of wrongdoing received
different punishments and that implementing disciplinary measures can be difficult.
In order to improve service delivery, the research argued that workplace rules must be
reviewed and enforced.
 At three universities in Ghana, Small (2017) conducted a comparative study on
disciplinary codes and procedures. The Labour Relations Act of 2003's Schedule 8's
fair procedure and the disciplinary code's compliance were the main subjects of the
study. Different perceptions were found, and it was suggested that managers and
supervisors receive training on starting and leading disciplinary investigations.
 Research on disciplinary hearings under Schedule 8 of the Labor Relations Act 651 of
2003 was done by Valcik and Benarides (2012). The study examined how to handle
disciplinary proceedings fairly with regard to the Ghanaian Constitution, the 1995
Labour Relations Act, and the International Labor Organization (ILO) C158. The
 conclusions showed that disciplinary codes and procedures should not be viewed as a
rigid set of guidelines, but rather as a starting point from which certain flexibility is
allowed under specific conditions.

This study differs from the above, in that this study reveals the causes and challenges of
the disciplinary framework in the delay in finalizing the disciplinary cases within the 90-
day prescribed timeframe in the public service. A disciplinary management model is
developed to address compliance and monitoring of the implementation in accordance
with the applicable legislative framework.

Theoretical Framework

Given its ubiquity and the nature of the research, management theory is deemed relevant
for this study. This is illustrated, for example, in the discussion on employee reporting
lines for effective discipline management, where it is suggested that compliance
monitoring teams report to someone higher in the management structure than the head of
the group they are in charge of managing (Stewart, Piros, & Heisler, 2019). A limited
degree of control is consistently listed as the top management priority in the reporting
line. For efficient management, face-to-face communication is preferred (Watts, 2012).
This is in keeping with the idea that management is responsible for maintaining discipline
(PSCBC, 2003). According to Vyas-Doorgapersad (2011), the new public management
paradigm mandates that implementation be attentive to operational reality. The fairness
principle also governs how the discipline framework is put into practice (Sebolai, 2014).
This is carried out, in accordance with Goldman (2013), to resist authoritarian tendencies
and encourage fairness, equity, and recognition in management procedures by
maintaining objectivity in matters of the heart.

Position authority is less absolute in organizations, making it much easier or quicker to

win or lose it (Miles, 2015). Because management typically decides on the right amount
of punishment, delegations of responsibility to enable successful management of
discipline are the mitigating factors for positions of power (IFPO, Davies, Gilbride &
Hertig, 2015). Theories are utilized to provide clarification in order to better comprehend
events and foresee their viability (Ntaopane & Vermeulen, 2019). The intention is to
demonstrate the organizational benefits of leaders acting as architects of inspired change,
 expressing the organization's vision, and mobilizing support for that vision while also
making sure that tasks are completed. To do this, contemporary management theory will
be used.

Conceptual Delineation
Different concepts are used to explain workplace discipline management in order to
capture the steps and processes involved in handling employee behavior. The most
important ideas cover the disciplinary procedure, disciplinary hearing, and disciplinary
decision.
The "disciplinary procedures" are described in the "Disciplinary Code," which is the
result of mutually agreed-upon negotiations and collective bargaining (Odendaal, 2016).
The timelines that the Code specifies represent a commitment to dealing with punishment
quickly and act as a manual for completing this legal responsibility (Makhuzeni,
Barkhuizen, & Maubane 2015). Employers are required to inform the accused of the
charges when an employee is accused of misbehavior (Burke &1 Cooper, 2016).

The worker should be permitted to present evidence to refute the accusations. A

reasonable amount of time and assistance from a colleague worker or trade union
representative should be provided to the employee in order for them to prepare their
response. Following the inquiry, the employer must inform the employee of the decision
made and, if possible, provide written notice of that decision (LRA, 1995).

Without first alerting and engaging the trade union, discipline shall not be implemented
against a trade union representative, employee, office-holder, or official (Venter, 2017).

The 'disciplinary process' is a crucial checklist to show whether the employer needs to
take disciplinary action (Lemmer, 2017). To maintain discipline in the organization,
several aspects of the disciplinary procedure must be taken into account. First, a
disciplinary code must be created outlining general guidelines and expectations.
Employee behavior, performance, and conduct must be observed and evaluated in
relation to the established standards. Employees who fall short of the performance

1
requirement must be given corrective actions to take, which may include taking
disciplinary action. Last but not least, the employer must assess if the remedial measures
result in the anticipated outcome and if the performance level has improved (Nel et al.
2012).

The 'disciplinary hearing' gives parties a chance to present their case. The employer,
employee, and chairperson are the parties present at the disciplinary hearing. When
leading the disciplinary hearing proceedings and rendering a guilty or not guilty
judgement, the chairperson should be unbiased. Evidence must be assembled and led by
the employer. The employer must develop accusations, choose the employer
representative and chairperson, gather pertinent evidence, cross-examine the employee,
and prepare closing arguments and aggravating circumstances to support the sentence in
advance of the disciplinary hearing (Small, 2017). Employees must prepare
counterarguments and evidence in their defense, cross-examine witnesses from the
employer, and prepare closing arguments and mitigating circumstances. The chairperson
of the disciplinary hearing is only permitted to base his or her decision on the testimony
given during the hearing (Redelinghuys, 2017).

The decision made by the chairperson is the "disciplinary outcome." The punishment
must be administered consistently in a manner that is the same as or similar to how it has
been dealt with in the past with respect to the same employee and other workers who
engaged in comparable misbehavior (Finnemore 2013). Similar acts of misbehavior
warrant the same disciplinary outcome and consequence, notwithstanding the fact that
each case must be handled on its own merits (LRA, 1995).

According to Makhuzeni, Barkhuizen, and Maubane (2015), the disciplinary process is a

prerequisite for hearings to be successfully concluded under the law. The disciplinary
process is followed by the disciplinary procedure, which checks off each step taken and
certifies that it was followed through to the finish (Lemmer, 2017). The employer is
bound by the chairperson's decision (Finnemore, 2013)

Research Methods
Research is defined as the methodical process of inquiry used to gather and learn more
about a given subject or phenomenon. The aims are achieved through a variety of
research techniques. The way data is gathered and processed within the context of the
research process is referred to as research methodology. The tools, processes, and
strategies employed in the investigational process in order to carry out a research design
or research plan are referred to as methodology (Ramson et al, 2016). Research methods
are defined by Motseke (2020) as instruments that are used to collect data. Exploratory
qualitative research will be used to obtain data for the study. In social science and
behavioral studies, qualitative research methods are used to investigate, clarify, and
characterize a variety of phenomena and behaviors. This method can be used to
investigate unexplored areas in both new and/or old fields. It also acts as a link between
people, groups, institutions, cultural elements, and variety (Motseke, 2020). Prince (2015)
explains that a key component of qualitative research methodology is the researcher's
active participation in the phenomenon under study. The researcher's good contributions
in sharing experience, expertise, and cultural inspiration for the study are limited by the
lack of participation in the phenomenon.

Research materials used in this study included books from the library, journal articles,
information from the internet, and government documents, such as laws and
parliamentary acts. The research idea was put together using the available literature and
public records. The literature research, interviews, questionnaires, and document analysis
all will contribute to the study's conclusions.

The effectiveness of disciplinary management inside the Public Service, which is the
keeper of norms and standards for the management of discipline in the public sector, is
the exclusive focus of this research study. The disciplinary structure for the public sector
is the main topic. The Public Service Act 103 of 2003, Public Service Regulations, the
Labour Relations Act 651 of 2003, the Disciplinary Code and the Public Services manual
all provide the legal and disciplinary framework that is applicable.

The survey was only given to Public Servants and involved staff members as well as
senior managers who are in charge of disciplining, overseeing, and evaluating employees.
 The Public Service Commission (PSC) and the Department of Planning Monitoring and
Evaluation (DPME) issued restricted reports as part of the disciplinary proceedings.

The following were some of the study's further limitations:

• Restrictions related to the Covid-19 epidemic.

• Online connectivity and gatherings.

• The presence of statisticians.

• The availability of interview subjects.

• Answers to questionnaires.

The Chairperson of the Public Services Commission will be contacted with a request to conduct
the study, and the participants' permission will be requested. This will be accomplished via a
letter and an informed consent form that was filled out by each participant. The nature of the
research endeavor and the involvement will be both explained in the informed consent form
(Denhardt et al, 2004). The Human Resource Management and the participants will be made
aware of the authorized letter of request for authorization to conduct the research with the target
group. During the process of gathering data, participants filled out a consent form. Participants
will not be obliged to include their personal information on the questionnaires in order to protect
their privacy and confidentiality. Participants will be made aware that their participation is
optional, that they can decline to answer any questions, and that they may leave the study at any
time without providing a reason (Denhardt et al, 2004). At the University of Ghana (UG), the
researcher will ask for ethical clearance. In accordance with UG's ethical policy, ethical
clearance will be given for the researcher to perform the study.

Data Analysis

The literature review, as well as the actual data from the interviews, survey, and documentation,
are analyzed and interpreted in this chapter.

Question 1: How is compliance to the disciplinary policy framework in the department?

According to interviewees CD1, DDG1, and DDG3, there is a lack of compliance with deadlines,
which renders the disciplinary policy ineffective. It is fairly specific regarding the number of
days that it can expire before, for example, according to CD1:

When discipline is applied, for example, there are precise timescale requirements. I believe it is
vital to map out timeframes, but given the context in which we work, it is challenging to adhere
to the timetables. As a result, I believe that the public service in particular struggles with
deadlines.

Interviewees DD2, DD3, CD1, CD3, and DDG3 felt that the policy is not effective. There is a
perception that when an employer imposes disciplinary punishment, officials turn to outside help
for their disciplinary procedure. To ensure improvement, the policy needs to be tightened in a
few key areas. CD3 said during the interview,

"I don't think very effectively. I believe that there doesn't seem to be much interest in putting the
framework and policies into action. However, I've seen one example when a person was
penalized and the procedure is taking a long time, the second interviewee DDG3 remarked. That
has actually been going on for a year or more at this point. Therefore, it appears like it's not
particularly time-effective based on the one instance I have experience with”.

Participants DD1, D1, D2, DDG1, and DDG2 thought the department's disciplinary procedure
was effective, though. Interviewee D2 offered some affirming assertions, including the
following:

"I believe the policy is successful in and of itself. However, I believe that those who are actually
putting it into practice are the ones who are doing it incorrectly.”

Another participant's statement:

“It indicates that the framework is successful at managing workers in the workplace.”

Interviewee DDG2 concurred and said:

“When consistently and rigorously applied, it is effective, but when inconsistencies are found,
problems arise since the execution may be contested on procedural grounds.”
Insofar as it clarifies the procedures that must be followed for effective discipline management,
interviewees DD3, and DDG1 believed it to be somewhat effective.

But he also believes that every policy inevitably faces implementation problems brought on by a
variety of variables. D1-the-interviewee said:

“Therefore, I believe that it is, as I said, to some extent effective, but I believe that effective
implementation is hampered by a variety of circumstances that prevent the department from
adjudicating disciplinary matters.”

According to interviewee DDG1, it has also been observed that managers appear to have poor
knowledge of their role in regulating discipline, and as a result, they frequently delegate this
obligation to labor relations.

As a result, it was determined that managers needed to be trained or reminded of the policy's
provisions as well as their respective roles in its successful implementation.

The interviewees offered a variety of opinions on how disciplinary issues are resolved.
Interviewee DDG1 thought that it was impractical to finalize disciplinary actions within the
predetermined specified periods. Interviewee comments:

“So, in my opinion, the deadlines set on departments to enable them to complete cases on time
are unfair because cases are not all created equal. Some are more complicated than others, and
I believe that the current disciplinary frameworks are unfair when they take a one-size-fits-all
approach to time limits.”

According to interviewee DDG2, cooperation to swiftly resolve disciplinary issues necessitates

increasing actions. Regarding this, the interviewee remarked:

"As an example, let's look at the turnaround time for disciplinary procedures."

Interviewee CD2 attributed the delay in disciplinary case resolution to procedural issues, saying:

“Due to the complexity of the case, there have been some postponements of the proceedings.”

In support, interviewee DD2 stated the following

“Additionally, there is a challenge to comply with the 90-day deadline set forth in the resolution
or to finalize the matter.”
Regarding the delay, interviewee DD1 stated the following:

"A hearing must be concluded in ninety days, and we are aware of examples in which
individuals have been suspended for longer than a year or even two years. As a result, the PSC
has been conducting intervention workshops to try to identify the problems these individuals are
facing. Why aren't you concluding these cases right now? The issue of capacity, where we don't
have enough trained individuals to chair these hearings and finalize them on time, has been
brought up as one of the training chairpersons' responsibilities, in my opinion.”

In agreement, interviewee DD1 said:

"I think there are certain concerns, but the goal is still to shorten the time it takes to conclude
disciplinary matters since it affects...When they recall, the witnesses are present, and the
evidence doesn't disappear, you can be sure that they must be on time and that the accused
person must still reply to the claims.”

DDG3, the interviewee stated:

"In my opinion, you should make sure to complete everything within the deadlines specified by
the framework because doing so would help ensure a fair hearing and the gathering of relevant
evidence. Therefore, it's crucial to have the person removed from the situation because doing so
permanently would be too much.”

According to Dare (2020), audits and sanctions are the primary compliance-enforcing tools used
in many nations. Consistency in practice fosters equity and guarantees fair treatment at work
(Botha, Schultz, & Bezuidenhout, 2018).

Question 2: How effective are the monitoring and evaluation measures on the conduct of
employees?

Monitoring and assessment serve as the second factor in defining the qualitative construct of this
theme. Interviewees' opinions on the efficiency of the monitoring and assessment procedures in
the PSC varied.

The interviewee CD1 believes that monitoring and evaluation strategies are successful.
"I'm saying that in terms of measures that would have been implemented after such action was
taken, I think it is effective."

Contrarily, interviewers DD1, DD2, DD3, D2, D3, CD2, CD3, DDG1, and DDG3 insisted that
the department does not currently have any monitoring or assessment activities listed.
Interviewee D3 made the following comments:

“It's an afterthought, but there isn't a clear M&E framework in place that can be rigidly
followed to say this is what we're going to employ. Just as an aside, the department does it.”

In support of this, interviewee DD2 stated that they regularly compile data and analyze it to
determine the number of employees who have engaged in misconduct as well as the types of
behaviors that constitute misconduct.

"I've never heard of the monitoring procedure or the monitoring process in place."

According to interviewee DDG1, attendance cannot be tracked merely for the sake of tracking;
rather, it should be a component of performance management. As a result, when someone is
subject to a disciplinary procedure, for instance, because of their poor attendance, they must
show what has been done to address that behavior.

People should ideally avoid going through disciplinary procedures so that progressive discipline
can be used to improve their behavior. As the closest point of origin, it is unknown how effective
it is at the level of the individual manager. DDG1-the-interviewee said:

“As a result, monitoring becomes highly challenging because it is impossible to centrally

monitor everyone in a department. Therefore, what I've noticed in PSC is that there is
occasionally a belief that HR or management ought to be able to keep an eye on employees'
behavior. Since that is the responsibility of each and every management, it is essentially
impossible. Since we don't oversee behavior for its own sake.”

This interviewee's assessment was as follows:

“We don't have an organizationally defined monitoring system for those kinds of things,
therefore we must first establish what those measures are and what those monitoring processes
are.”
The monitoring and assessment measures, in the opinion of interviewee DD3, are ineffective.
The respondent asserts that supervisors are in place to keep an eye on and assess employee
behavior.

"So, I guess a supervisor who manages employees provides that function of monitoring and
evaluating a worker's conduct, but they are also guided by the Code of Conduct that the workers
are expected to follow."

Interviewee DDG2 offered assistance, saying that in her opinion, the employer should pay close
attention to this issue. The interviewee went on to say that workers and unions should be aware
that monitoring and evaluating conduct is not an unfair act by the employer, but rather a
requirement to record the employer's areas of excellent conduct, areas of poor conduct, and areas
of improvement in order to identify interventions. Interviewee comments:

“So, despite the fact that I believe the Disciplinary Committee framework adequately explains
what must occur, I would say that the policies in that area are not effective in my opinion. And if
you look at it from other frameworks, such as your PMDS and other similar ones, management
of leave, and all of that, the measures are there, but they are frequently not implemented strictly
because keeping track of those things requires a lot of labor and simply because supervisors
tend to avoid conflict and confrontation with subordinates.”

Interviewee CD2 stated that she is unsure and unaware of any monitoring and evaluation
procedures within the PSC because the department is occasionally reminded to submit in
accordance, such as when a nil suspension report is provided rather than citing the single current
case in its database. The department is reminded that although the report indicates there are no
incidents of suspension, there actually are cases. Interviewee comments:

"... and I think the supervisor should play a role in the monitoring and evaluation measures on
the conduct of employees," the author continued.”

Interviewee DDG3 emphasized that the topic of progressive discipline is disregarded and that he
has frequently witnessed management disregard malfeasance in the government. The respondent
specifically mentioned that this is the reason he has only seen one case in PSC. Interviewee
comments:
"I thought management was avoiding this. Managers are not performing the duties they should
be performing, and I don't think there are any genuine measures in place to look at employee
behavior. However, I do believe that managers are aware of it but are hesitant to take action or
confront the issue."

In support, interviewee CD3 said the following:

"I believe that we struggle to evaluate or keep tabs on people's behavior. We all do it, then. We
have a disciplinary code and everything, but management and supervision aren't always
watching over people's behavior, in my opinion.”

Wotela (2017) states that a monitoring and evaluation system is complex, as it needs to be
contextualized and respond to all the requirements of an organization’s need for M&E. In
support, Kabonga (2020) states that monitoring and evaluation cannot be underrated as they
unearth the scenarios and rectify them. In confirmation, Levin (2017) states that evaluation is
also a component of Results Based Management (RBM), and within the context of public
programs it is part of a management approach that aims at clarifying the roles and
responsibilities of public servants.

The perception of the Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT) in relation to

discipline management performance improvement is the sub-variable of the norms and standard
topic under monitoring and evaluation. The majority of those surveyed felt strongly that MPAT
added value to the monitoring and assessment of discipline management even if it had since been
terminated.

Interviewee CD1 believes that MPAT significantly improved compliance.

As proof, the participant stated:

“However, I do believe that when there was an MPAT, there was a little bit more commitment
from, let's say, a labor relations viewpoint to adhere to deadlines.”

Interviewee D2 stated that MPAT was effective, which is corroborated by the following
statement:

"I believe MPAT was helpful there when it was effective because at least it was another tool
where they could report it to the outside organization where they will manage them in terms of
adhering to the laws. However, since there is no longer an MPAT, this is why you see people
suspended for an excessive amount of time before being charged. It will therefore be wise if the
MPAT can return.”

Interviewee CD2 concurred, saying:

"I believe the MPAT was a good thing, even for ethics management, because it forced
departments to pay attention to it because they would be found wanting and it would be a public
thing where people are now saying that this department did not really perform.”

Interviewee DD3 said that she did not find MPAT to be useful, only a tool. The tool never
offered ways or resources to help the department perform better. It was for the best that it was
stopped because the appraised regions served no useful purpose. According to this participant:

"No, it was never truly effective. It was never successful. Therefore, it did not have the desired
effect. That would explain why, for whatever reason, it faded away. However, it never produced
the desired effects, so it’s better that it's gone now.”

Interviewee DDG1 concurred with the following statements.

"The problem with MPAT, unlike your AG, is that while it served the purpose of highlighting the
departments' performance, in some ways perhaps not necessarily on disciplinary management,
departments found it to be a very frustrating process because it was seen to almost be a
duplication of what the AG is monitoring as well in departments. But perhaps the department
would be more diligent in addressing issues than they would with the MPAT because the AG's
conclusions carry so much more weight. But I believe that the fact that you also have your PSC
and your foresight systems for managing discipline, where reports are issued on the monitoring
of discipline, greatly muddied the situation. As a result, in my opinion, the adoption of MPAT
only served to increase departments' compliance fatigue.”

The majority of the indicators, according to interviewee DD1, were excellent in terms of analysis
and the conclusion of cases in less than 90 days. Interviewee comments:

"I believe that MPAT was a brilliant idea that we were unable to properly implement. Because it
was a response from the departments that people look at it when the financial...time of the [sic]
comes. However, it was in support of our efforts to help you complete your ninety days.
However, I believe that the implementation and communication were inadequate.”

Interviewee DD2 supported this claim by making the following statements:

"Yes, it helps because that's where you can gather data, analyze it, and come up with
interventions and measures," the speaker said. Additionally, it enables the employer to create
models and strategies and intervene in troubled regions.”

Following are some observations provided by interviewees CD3, DDG2, and DDG3 regarding
the function of MPAT in the observation and assessment of discipline management.

DDG 2 stated:

“Having said that, I must be completely honest with you and say that the MPAT has a 50/50
impact in that departments that are concerned about their performance in each and every one of
the MPAT indicators do work to improve, for instance, the turnaround time to complete
disciplinary procedures.”

Interviewee DDG3 said:

"I believe it was effective in the absence of other tools, but I also believe it was more of a
compliance tool, and sometimes one needs to go a little further into the underlying causes of
non-compliance. While this one will simply state if you have complied or not, which is crucial
and you should make sure you do, the reasons for compliance, in my opinion, were insufficient
and required further investigation. But during the time it was in place, I believe it served its
purpose and made people aware of the departments that were in fact breaking several rules,
including discipline management. But I think it was useful and, like I said, in the absence of
anything else I think it was very useful, and they’ve basically discontinued now and I think if we
don’t urgently get something else in place that’s similar there is gonna be trouble. We’re gonna
experience some trouble there.”

Interviewee CD3, in agreement, stated that:

"Obviously, I can't be objective while discussing MPAT, but at the very least, it substituted the
administrator tasks of corporate service and placed them on the executive's desk of the
department. Therefore, I believe that in that way at least, people were required to periodically
evaluate their adherence to and performance in relation to these policies. However, I believe
that the impact did gradually diminish over time and eventually disappear. However, at least we
were able to speak with the executive, and it's clear that there have been some relapses
and...what do you call it? Regression when we discontinued MPAT.”

Evidence, according to Tully and Ishmail (2020), is a crucial component for MPAT to support
the standard relating to evaluation and its connection to the government strategic management
process, which is necessary for assessment. According to Tirivanhu, Olaleye, and Bester (2017),
MPAT is a structured, evidence-based method for evaluating management practices with the
goal of enhancing national and provincial departments' performance and service delivery. The
emphasis is on the direction of the underlying presumption that MPAT enhanced management
techniques, which are a prerequisite for raising public service delivery and performance. By
creating performance standards, it encouraged effective management practices throughout the
public sector. According to Ngumbela (2015), departments now have a better understanding of
the minimum requirements for governance and accountability thanks to management practices
using the Management Performance Assessment Tool (MPAT), which was approved by Cabinet.

Question 3: Why is it necessary to periodically review the disciplinary policy?

Response:

Interviewee DD2 said:

"I've realized that a review is necessary because the current procedure is an outdated one that
we still find value in using, and because the legislation is always evolving. Therefore, a review is
necessary to bring it into compliance with our recent legal revisions.”

According to interviewee D2, the policy should typically be revisited at least every three to five
years, or as needed. According to the interviewee's affirmation,

"I believe that the periodic review would likely have to be taken into consideration after
examining whether there have been changes in what is viewed as right and what is viewed as
wrong."

In support, interviewee CD3 said:

"I think it's definitely because we're changing other policies and even the [sic] are being
amended and changing, as well as the work environment changes, so...I think it's important that
it's [sic] quite regularly to just make sure that it's up to date. As well as we...the sense I have is
we're losing most of our CCMA cases and it's because of procedures. So, maybe we should look
at whether or not that's the case.”

Interviewee D3 agreed that discipline management is a living organism, supporting the periodic
assessment. The interviewee asserts that it is important to be on par with other standards from
developing nations so that changes can be made as needed. This interviewee made the following
comment:

“For instance, the COVID-19 scenario we are currently dealing with is not taken into account
by the majority of government initiatives. There can therefore be a lot of misbehavior. We must
instruct staff on proper online behavior because, for instance, the majority of our
communication, training, and meetings now take place online.”

Interviewee DD1 concurred and stated:

“This is very crucial. Let's give an illustration. Our current set of rules dates back to 2003. Since
there was no social media at the time, people may not have known what to post or what to do,
therefore the policy does not apply. However, this does not mean that if you use social media or
other forms of communication improperly, you won't be held accountable.”

The interviewee also claimed that COVID-19 exists and that positive employee attitudes are
present at work. These are what enable the disciplinary code to address new technical concerns
that emerge when advancements and advances take place in the workplace and allow for existing
examples to do so.

According to Olaitan and Ojetunde (2020), discipline is a strategy for behavior modification
meant to decrease the frequency of negative behaviors and enhance the frequency of positive
behaviors that are helpful to public service. In order to prevent occasional stoppages during a
pandemic, Pietersen (2020) highlights the necessity of evaluating the terms of service in working
arrangements like working from home. To prevent future pandemics, workplaces should be
designed with measures that will discourage overcrowding going forward, even after COVID-19.
Moodley and Shumba (2018) concur that social and human rights imperatives are incorporated
into the review and standardization of the policy and legal framework.

Interviewee DDG1 asserted:

“Since we haven't discussed that disciplinary structure, as far as I know. I am aware that the
appropriate branch has been asked to do that. I'm not sure how far along we are, but I believe
we urgently need to evaluate that structure in order to make it possible for departments to
handle matters in a timely manner.”

Interviewee DD2 argued in favor of the need for a policy review and said the following:

“Reviewing the code is helpful since you can then identify any gaps or weaknesses it has and
make the necessary corrections.”

Interviewee DDG3 recommended that learning sessions might be held in between to assess what
has changed and determine whether the policy is still applicable after two or three years. If it is
seen to be still relevant, it may be left in place, but what important is how frequently policies
should be reviewed. According to the interviewee:

"I believe it's critical that you evaluate it frequently in the sense that...it's a science, a
disciplinary process, a field of competence, and there are a lot of new advancements occurring
as time goes on. Therefore, I believe that in order to stay current with new advances, this should
be done at least every two to three years to ensure that you aren't genuinely slipping behind.”

Interviewee DDG2 posited that:

“However, I would say that it is crucial to review the disciplinary policy every five years, taking
into account the findings of studies on the extent to which the code is consistently applied and, if
not, why, as well as the conclusions and lessons from cases where the code has been contested in
court or through bargaining councils.”

Additionally, interviewee DDG2 reiterated the following ideas:

“Because you connect your policy to culture and culture changes, I believe it's crucial to review
any policy at least every three years. If your policy is not revised, you can overlook things
because new individuals, new ideas, and new situations—like the current pandemic—are
entering your systems.”

Finally, interviewee D3 went further to support the idea that the policy should be regularly
revised to reflect new information. The subject of the interview said:

"Since the framework that is currently in place was, I believe, when was it? If I'm not mistaken,
it was in 1989, and the current year is 21. Therefore, in my opinion, it does not cover the
majority of what was...the discipline evolves."

According to Chirisa, Mlambo-Simba, and Matamanda (2018), it is crucial to assess the current
policy framework in light of the complexity of urban issues as well as the constantly shifting
requirements of people. Gray (2018) describes the significance and effect of reviewing policies,
emphasizing how out-of-date policies put an organization at risk because they may not be in
compliance with new laws and regulations. A review ensures that policies are effective and
consistent, and routine reviews.

Disciplinary management

The purpose of the questions on disciplinary management was to get data from the respondents
on how management affected discipline results and how line managers felt about the labor
relations unit's guidance.

Questions:

1) How does management interfere with disciplinary outcomes?

2) What is your perception about labour relations unit’s advice to line managers on the
management of discipline and finalisation of disciplinary cases?

Question 1: How does management interfere with disciplinary outcomes?

Response:

Responding were three interviewees. According to interviewee DD3, as part of the management
process, management does have an impact on the results of disciplinary actions. Interviewee
CD1 stated the following:
"Since discipline is a management responsibility, a manager has a significant impact on the
discipline process. I believe the specified progressive discipline does provide managers with
some form of direction regarding how to advance with a certain discipline. However, it also
depends on the type of misconduct being dealt with. If it is more serious in nature, managers
may choose to implement discipline in the form of a formal written warning or even a final
written warning instead of going through the progression. Therefore, I believe that managers do
have a significant impact on the type of punishment used.”

According to interviewee D2, managers have an impact on how the disciplinary process turns
out. The participant in the interview said:

“I think they have got an influence on the outcome. They like to interfere and changes the
outcome.”

Interviewee DD3 said:

"...the management perspective on that particular issue has a significant impact on the outcome
of any disciplinary proceeding. Consequently, the influence is very much present.”

Interviewee D3 stated that managers do not take ownership of managing discipline. Discipline is
a managerial duty that is, however, improperly delegated to human resources (HR). The
participant in the interview stated:

"So, I think they want to be seen as being, I don't know, safe or they delegate to HR instead of
them dealing with these employees who are directly reporting to them, if they see any act of
misconduct being committed."

Interviewee DD1 agreed and said:

"As I said, my experience has been that this thing is outsourced and when managers come to
labor relations it's when they said we are looking at this outcome."

None of the interviewees D3, CD2, CD3, DDG1, DDG2, or DDG3 had ever been influenced.
Interviewee DDG1 indicated that the department's nominated chairpersons are often considered
to be independent in the majority of circumstances. When a disciplinary procedure has a result,
the chairman typically decides on it, and the head of the department is then compelled to carry
out that sentence. The supervisors, who are the ones who started the disciplinary procedure,
would take part in it as witnesses to testify about the allegations that would have been made
against the employee. DDG1 the interviewee reiterated:

“Therefore, I haven't noticed any instances of management having an unfair impact on the
results of disciplinary procedures in my experience.”

"I haven't come across any influence, that people were influencing the presiding officers, so not
that I'm aware of," interviewee CD3 said.

Interviewee DDG2 in support stated:

“The practice is to make sure that internal officials are not used as presiding officers in cases,
so in instances of cases that I'm aware of, and perhaps at least those that I have been involved in
as part of the supervisory or overseeing, managers that requested the institution of a
disciplinary process do not influence anything. We therefore make an effort to rely on the
impartial advice of outside labor relations experts, many of whom come from other departments,
who have been shown to be efficient and just in handling such issues.”

According to interviewee DD2, using legal representation is considered as the standard rather
than the exception. This individual acknowledged the conduct of political meddling and stated:

"I've seen a lot of political interference coming from politicians, where departments are being
told to suspend certain people without following the proper procedures."

According to Mosito and Molapo (2015), the manager might be required to disclose the reasons
for his choice in order to provide support for it.

Such a choice, though, need not be unreasonable; rather, it should strike a balance between
individual rights and sound public policy. According to Zaaiman (2020), influence instead
indirectly influences the likelihood of choices, which has an impact on other players in a variety
of ways, including on their behavior on the outside, inside, and in terms of how policies are
implemented and moral obligations. According to Nwali (2018), management is the practice of
working with and through others to accomplish organizational goals in a productive and moral
way.

Question 2: What is your perception about labour relations unit’s advice to line managers on the
management of discipline and finalisation of disciplinary cases?
Response:

The second factor is how line managers perceive the guidance given by the labor relations unit to
them. Participants have stated two opposing opinions: first, that managers overlook labor
relations, and second that they offer suitable guidance.

CD1 mentioned the following during the interview:

"I'm certain the labor relations unit provides appropriate advice, but I believe, generally,
managers do not like to heed the counsel that is given to them, or sometimes they just try to push
their accountability to the labor relations unit."

Interviewee D3 indicated that:

“As of right now, I believe we have the appropriate individuals providing the appropriate
counsel to managers.”

Interviewee D2 noted that managers often override labor relations officers and that the advice
given by the unit is subpar. This is due to the department's junior-level employment of labor
relations officials. The participant in the interview stated:

"Ja, 'cause, remember, it's a labor relations officer who's supposed to advise your supervisor
and the supervisor takes advantage of the rank and they don't take it, hence they will always
have a lot of grievances in the PSC," the speaker continued.”

In concurring, interviewee DD3 said:

"I believe that even though the internal labor relations unit advises management on certain
topics, management ultimately uses its own discretion to make decisions that may go against the
labor relations unit's recommendations."

This interviewee further stated:

“We frequently have disagreements because you will give such advice and it will not be followed
or put into practice. Sometimes it is not taken seriously. I am aware that the department used to
complain about management interferences while we were doing assessments or compiling data.
Therefore, it demonstrates that the labor relations section is not given significant consideration
whenever they offer such advice.”
Participants' impressions of the counsel given by the department's labor relations officers vary.
CD2-the-interviewee stated:

"I'm not sure if the labor relations unit's counsel is fully trusted in the PSC. Some people hold
the opinion that the employer is more at fault than the employee. However, I also believe that it
is unknown, there is no internal communication regarding the recommendations of the labor
relations unit, or there are no cases...And perhaps because PSC is a small department, little is
known about how people are reprimanded, what happens to them, or how labor relations were
involved and what guidance they provided. So, I am aware that there are these two groups, one
who feels more on the side of the employer, and the others who believe that enough is enough
and they will trust their own judgment.”

Participant DDG1, during the interviews, made the following remarks:

"I believe that our labor relations section has not performed particularly well in labor relations
on advising managers. I believe that things are getting better simply because we've highlighted
lack of counsel as a concern. Managers, in my opinion, have not received adequate advice
regarding their management responsibilities generally, but particularly with regard to
controlling behavior and conduct.”

According to Botha, Schultz, and Bezuidenhout (2018), the South African public service's labor
relations practitioner should counsel line managers on the organization's labor relations strategy
and make sure that interactions with unions are cordial. The employer shall act on sound counsel
or guidance, correction, and consultation, according to Bester (2019). According to Tladi (2021),
who agrees, labor relations officers at all occupational levels in the public sector play a
significant role in managing all internal disciplinary processes in accordance with the principles
of the public service disciplinary code and procedures.

Participants acknowledged that management's influence is a helpful move to aid in the resolution
of cases, even if it does not interfere with the disciplinary procedure. In the aim of fair
disciplinary management, the influence is directed by moral and ethical principles. To ensure
justice and adherence to the disciplinary system, the labour relations unit's knowledge and
counsel are essential.

Forms of discipline management

Questions:

1) How does training and employee awareness impact on discipline management?

2) What impact does precautionary suspension have on discipline management?

Question 1: How does training and employee awareness impact on discipline management?

Response:

Interviewee D3 in this regard said:

"If employees are informed and then on par with what is happening and they have an
understanding of what is a misconduct, what is a grievance, I think in the department we will
have less serious misconduct cases and employees will know the conduct of the...what is
expected of them as employees in the department, in relation to management and in relation to
fellow employees, to understand what is not accepted in the workplace so that they may refrain
from committing"

In support, interviewee DD3 stated the following:

"Like you're saying, I've hinted at this, but I just want to emphasize the problems that it then
empowers an employee to know their rights whenever they're subjected to a disciplinary
hearing, to completely understand what is required of them and what to expect as well in
participation in that type of process. Since they will be enabled, this will negate management's
ability to influence the outcome once employees are empowered.”

Interviewee CD2 agreed and said:

"I consider it to be incredibly crucial. Knowing your rights both as an individual and as a
supervisor, the procedure, and alternative dispute settlements will help you better control your
environment for output and service delivery. People won't know it if you don't provide that
training or knowledge. In addition, management should receive training as well as staff.”

The vast majority of interviewees stated that supervisors should receive training to help them
better grasp their role in discipline management. Regarding this, interviewee DDG1 said:

"I believe it is crucial because, as I previously stated, you cannot assume that employees are
aware of your expectations. Therefore, I believe that training is crucial on two fronts: one, it
helps individuals understand what is expected of them up front, and second, it helps you declare
with certainty that they understood what is wanted of them when it comes time to discipline them
formally. However, I believe it's also crucial, as I mentioned using the example of PSC, so that
managers are aware of their responsibilities regarding discipline.”

Interviewee DD1, in support said:

"It's very important, and, as I speak to you, as PSC, we have trained approximately 217
individuals in conducting disciplinary hearings and acting as initiators, but the training we
targeted line managers because, as I have said, this disciplinary procedure is for line
managers."

Interviewee DD2 agreed, stating that:

“As you are aware, a person must have knowledge of the act or wrongdoing for which they are
being accused in order for charges to be brought against them. It is highly significant. It is
based on moral standards of justice and lawfulness. Therefore, starting the training process
makes it easier to manage discipline effectively.”

Person training within an organization, according to Skosana and Mukonza (2019), also means
that the person is actively working, as they are learning and will become more productive as they
grow more skilled. Regulation, standardized training, and professional qualification, according to
Callaghan (2018), are ways to relatively standardize performance in the function and reduce the
opportunity for distinction. According to Joseph-Obi (2019), training and awareness are a way to
prevent workplace conflicts and to help with their settlement.

Question 2: What impact does precautionary suspension have on discipline management?

Response:

Interviewee CD1 said:

“However, the individual who is placed on suspension is typically unhappy since it feels as
though they are being found guilty before they can even make their case.”

Interviewee DD2, in support, said:

"So, suspension with caution. If there is any intervention, I believe it is more often utilized to
punish a person than just to help both parties.”

Interviewee DDG2 concurred and said:

“Therefore, in my opinion, and from where I'm standing, these precautionary suspensions have,
for the most part, not provided value but rather damaged the disciplinary process.”

Interviewee DD3 said:

“It has a negative effect since you often discover that people are suspended as a precaution
simply to get rid of them.”

In support, interviewee D3 said the following:

"Precautionary suspension is good when it's used to keep employees away from witnesses in a
case, but sometimes I find that it's used as a punishment to employees."

Interviewee CD2 stated:

“Discipline management has a history of being employed as a tool to disarm and silence
opponents. If done incorrectly, it simply reinforces people's bad perception.”

Interviewee DDG1, in support said:

"So, I believe that for the purposes for which it was designed, it is good, but we are aware of
instances in which the precautionary suspension was utilized for purposes other than those for
which it was intended. Therefore, as long as it is utilized for what it was intended for, everything
is good. The issue arises when it is not used...or when it is used for purposes other than those for
which it was intended throughout the full process and value chain of a disciplinary procedure.”

Interviewee DD1 said:

"If they don't like you, they'll suspend you, which defeats the point of a precautionary
suspension."

Interviewee DD2 said:

"Since I've already indicated it takes too long and hinders service delivery because it's not
monitored, I'll reiterate that. There is no method to track how long a precautionary suspension
of an employee has lasted or whether it was within the allotted time. Additionally, there is a
great deal of ignorance regarding adherence to the days or number of days mentioned in the
disciplinary code.”

Interviewee DDG3 said:

"This is always a challenge in my opinion. I can see why preventative suspensions are taken to
prevent witnesses and evidence from being tampered with, but I also believe that doing so has an
adverse effect on service delivery because it removes someone from their place of employment.
However, I occasionally have a problem with how long these preventative suspensions are in
place. Therefore, the discipline management stipulates that it must occur within 90 days and
blah, blah, blah, but it never does. Because it always takes a while, it costs money, and given the
state of the economy right now, I don't think our government can afford that.”

In support, interviewee CD3 said:

"I believe that if it's truly required, we're probably just suspending individuals too quickly, to put
it mildly. If you believe someone would have a detrimental impact on the atmosphere or even the
investigations, you may want to suspend them, but I believe we keep those suspensions for far
too long.”

Suspension is a disciplinary action that has serious repercussions for employees, according to
Makhuzeni, Barkhuizen, and Maubane (2015). There seems to be a trend toward using
suspension as a last resort, particularly in the public sector, and it is almost always used when
any type of misconduct is alleged. As a result, departments must ensure rigorous adherence to
deadlines and endeavor to reduce costs associated with personnel who are on precautionary
suspension. According to Goldberg and Wilkinson (2019), a precautionary suspension's fairness
is assessed based on whether it has a legitimate justification and whether it disadvantages the
employee.

Disciplinary procedure

Question: What measures should be considered to enhance fair implementation of the

disciplinary framework?

Response:
Training and awareness campaigns were mentioned by interviewees DD2, D2, D3, CD1, CD2,
DDG1, and DDG3 as elements that should be taken into account to facilitate equitable
application of the disciplinary framework. Training and education promote the fair application of
the disciplinary framework. Regarding this, interviewee CD1 said:

"In my opinion, the first and most important step should be to make sure that both managers and
employees are adequately trained to understand the disciplinary framework, so that when an
employee steps out of line, he would know that it is outside what is considered to be the norm,
and so that a manager would then also have the understanding through such awareness sessions
that this is what the manager needs to implement if the employee then does not comply or
conform. To keep people focused on what is right and wrong and what would happen if the
wrong is not addressed, it is therefore necessary to implement both training and ongoing
awareness campaigns.”

CD3-the-interviewee said:

“First and foremost, I assume, we need to raise awareness and ensure that everyone
understands what the framework and policy entail, but I believe that we also need to teach
managers and supervisors in the skills necessary to manage workers. Then discipline is merely
one of the instruments and tools at their disposal. Therefore, I don't believe the public sector has
effective management and oversight skills.”

Interviewee D3 backed up the aforementioned claim by saying that in order to instill awareness
and comprehension among employees and supervisors, training or advocacy on discipline
management needs to be provided. D3 the interviewee said:

"But if we as a department could begin there by offering training to say this is what misconduct
means, this are the kinds of misconducts, and this are the sanctions in terms of what you can use
based on the misconduct conducted," From then, we gauge success based on the cases of
committed wrongdoing that we get from the department's labor relations. As a dipstick, we
utilize it to gauge the success of our training.”

Interviewee DD3 concurred, saying that holding workshops and educating staff members will
assist make the disciplinary framework's implementation effective.
"I believe it is critical for staff to receive ongoing education. For instance, I've never attended a
meeting where the disciplinary structure was discussed and employee participation was sought.”

According to interviewees DDG2 and D2, a neutral institution is necessary to oversee

implementation and guarantee equitable application of the disciplinary system. Following is
interviewee D2's explanation:

“Maybe if the Public Service Commissions could keep an eye on the PSC's implementation, it
might work better.”

Interviewee DDG2 said:

“Even within the PSC office, it has been discovered to be useful in cases when it is used properly
in the sense that investigations would be carried out and suitable consequences would be handed
out in regard to the wrongdoing for which an employee would have been found guilty.”

Interviewees CD3 and DDG3 stated that matters should be handled uniformly and similarly.
DDG3 substantiated during the interview as follows:

Interviewee CD3 stated as follows about the procedure:

“It's important because, in my opinion, it's heavily process-driven. Therefore, it goes without
saying that if we don't follow the proper procedure, the efficacy of the system and the policy
won't be as well. Therefore, I believe it is essential that all managers and supervisors have some
knowledge of the procedures.”

According to Prins et al. (2019), good management fosters an effective partnership between
policies and their implementation. According to Mokomane and Potgieter (2020), training is the
process of helping employees acquire the necessary abilities to successfully carry out their jobs
and broaden their existing knowledge. The provision of training is essential since it acts as a
means of inspiring and motivating personnel to be dedicated to the organization. According to
Venter (2016), employers should conduct awareness campaigns on the application of disciplinary
frameworks.

In this situation, a neutral institution must be involved in implementing the disciplinary

framework. To administer and maintain discipline objectively, participants must have a shared
understanding and communicate frequently. To ensure that the disciplinary framework is
implemented effectively, the role players need an appropriate management approach. The
managers should make sure that they carry out their duties and refrain from giving other people
extra work.

Disciplinary processes

Question: Why is it necessary to involve managers and shop stewards’ representation in

disciplinary processes?

Response:

“The manager would likely be the one to apply the discipline, so it is equally important for the
manager and the employee to be heard. Of course, the employee would have the right to
representation through a shop steward, so I think it's extremely important to involve both
managers and shop stewards in disciplinary processes. The disciplinary procedures include
that.”

Interviewee CD3 said:

"I believe it to be essential because I believe that involving the labor is to ensure that it's fair
and that everyone is treated fairly and those things."

Interviewee DD1 said:

“And some people can't be reminded, while others aren't. We'll get far, I believe, if we apply
discipline consistently.”

Interviewee D3 echoed this sentiment, saying that representation is essential for preserving order
and labor harmony inside the organization and ensuring that managers and shop stewards
cooperate. The interviewee said the following:

“Therefore, it is essential that they both participate so that organized labor may ensure that
their members are not subjected to unfair treatment. And as managers, we must be recognized as
champions for a disciplined workplace while simultaneously remembering the need to create ties
with organized labor and maintain a peaceful and harmonious work environment.”

In concurrence, Interviewee DD3 said:

"That is absolutely required since they then serve as both the audience and the representation of
the alleged misbehaving employee. Therefore, their participation and involvement are crucial
and absolutely important since, in the absence of their involvement, the impact we discussed in
the preceding issue tends to take control of the disciplinary procedure. That is the existing
situation, in my opinion, and it should be preserved. The official shall be represented by the shop
steward during the disciplinary procedure.”

Shop stewards, according to interviewee DD1, are only there to ensure that the disciplinary
procedure is fair. The respondent insisted that since this is a management prerogative, managers
do not need shop stewards to carry out their duties.

"And shop stewards are workers' advocates. The legislation of a prescripts that you work in sets
the boundaries within which you must function. The previous resolution one from the year 2003,
which states that the employee has the right to representation of a fellow employee or union
representative, and as a result they must be present, is used in disciplinary in the public service
for levels one to twelve. It's not a matter of whether you want to grant them the right or not;
rather, it is a right. Managers must be in charge since they are the ones who start the discipline.
Without managers, it is impossible to maintain disciplined labor relations because there won't
be any eyewitnesses to the events. Although managers first argue for discipline to be a labor
relations function, it is actually their function that is supported by your labor relations, just like
any other corporate services function, and HR then supports the line manager.”

According to interviewee DDG1, in order to effectively represent the employee, the labor
representative should be completely knowledgeable about disciplinary procedures. Sometimes a
worker's lack of competence works against them. Interviewee comments:

"I suppose it will vary for a management. The manager must be involved in the disciplinary
procedure if they are the ones who started it since they must present proof of the claims they
would make against an employee. Shop stewards, in my opinion, are crucial because they speak
for the workers who would have been charged.”

Interviewee DDG2 said:

"Perhaps let me begin by saying, remember, often a disciplinary process would be...let's say
most disciplinary processes would be initiated on the request of a line function management,
because discipline management is a management function, which means the supervisor, on the
whole, would be involved or the overseeing manager, and so forth, unless if referring to
instances of misconduct that are generally seen within the context of the organization and on
matters where the sup Therefore, managers need to be more involved to the extent that they are
participating in the process.”

This interviewee DDG2 further said:

“As far as involving unions is concerned, there really doesn't seem to be a problem from where
I'm standing because different officials have varying degrees of self-representation ability. For
someone without a background in labor relations or law, the disciplinary process may seem a
little technical and legally complex.”

Interviewee DDG2 further stated the following:

"Let's say it is absolutely critical because it would address the problems I hinted at earlier to say
every employee from the DG, in some cases, you are the employer in another, you are the
employee who could be charged with misconduct, but by the same token it is important in
understanding that discipline management or the implementation of the disciplinary code is not
meant to be punitive but is instead meant to be development, corrective."

Fairness requires that both parties have representation at the disciplinary hearing, according to
Farhm-Arp (2015). Maloka and Peach (2016) concur that the applicant and respondent are
permitted to provide arguments in response to misconduct claims at the pre-dismissal
disciplinary hearing. In agreement, Deon (2015) asserts that fairness requires consideration of
both the worker's position and interests as well as the employer's in order to make a fair
judgment.

Norms and standards, discipline management, forms of discipline, disciplinary procedure, and
disciplinary process were the five themes that were covered in the qualitative study. These
themes serve as an example of how discipline is handled in the public sector. The
interconnectedness and interdependence of the themes demonstrate how the disciplinary
framework is uniform monitoring and evaluation are the cornerstone of successful disciplinary
management (Wotela 2017; Kabonga 2020; Levin 2017).
Research findings

The results of the responses gleaned from the interviews were examined by the researcher. The
findings show how respondents expressed themselves in regard to the theme analysis of the
study's emerging variants.

Norms and standards

The researcher examines if discipline management framework measures are successful in

ensuring a disciplined workforce in this section, which deals with the second purpose. First, the
researcher comes to the conclusion that the department's disciplinary policy framework is
ineffective since deadlines aren't followed and there isn't enough internal capacity to handle
disciplinary matters. This may be ascribed to the short timetables and the technological issues
that came up during the procedure, which are factors in the delay in case closure. Discipline
hearings are delayed as a result of the aforementioned technicalities.

Compliance with laws is essential since it lowers accusations of unfair labor practices and fosters
a climate that is productive at work, assert Landis and Grissett (2014).

The other implication is that the effectiveness of the policy depends on how well it is put into
practice. Managers must ensure that the policy is applied consistently as part of the
implementation process. To ensure the policy's implementation is successful, a clearly defined
process should be followed.

Second, it appears that monitoring and assessment are nonexistent in the department based on
how well the measures are applied to employee behavior. The participants also reaffirmed the
inefficiency of the monitoring and assessment system and the need for improvement. Monitoring
and assessment are the responsibilities of managers and supervisors.

Thirdly, when asked why it's important to evaluate the disciplinary policy on a regular basis, the
participants emphasized how important it is for the policy to be updated in order to stay current.
Economic changes, particularly the effect of the Covid-19 epidemic on the workplace, changes
to the law, rulings in labor law, and precedent, are cited as the review's foundations. Therefore, it
is crucial that the policy be evaluated frequently.

Disciplinary management
In this section, the researcher addresses the first goal, which is to ascertain whether procedures
used in public administration facilitate efficient disciplinary management. This variable covered
managerial impacts and perceptions of labor relations guidance.

The participants responded that management has an impact on the disciplinary process in
response to the first question on how management affects disciplinary results. It is customary for
managers to exert some control over the disciplinary procedure because it is an employer-
initiated process. However, the disciplinary hearing's chairperson is in charge of the procedure
and is charged with acting impartially while making decisions.

Participants stated that labor relations practitioners provide excellent service, but managers
disregard their advice because of the lower levels at which they are appointed in response to the
second question about the perception of labor relations advice on the management of discipline.

Forms of Discipline Management

This part examines whether the PSC manages activities within the constraints of the
requirements of the legal framework, which is the third purpose. This variable covered two
topics: staff awareness and training, as well as suspensions as a precaution. All participants agree
that training and employee understanding of the Disciplinary Code and Procedure are essential
components of disciplinary management when asked the first question about why these things
are required. The participants agreed that it will be considerably simpler to apply disciplinary
action within a department if both parties are aware of the rights and wrongs.

In response to the second question about the effect precautionary suspension has on discipline,
every interviewee stated that it is not employed for the intended purpose. Participants also said
that employees are subjected to precautionary suspension as a form of retaliation and to settle
disputes. According to the participants, this approach undermines the rationale behind cautious
suspension and renders punishment management ineffective.

Disciplinary procedure

The assessment of monitoring and evaluation results to enhance PSC performance in the
management of disciplinary cases is the fourth objective, which is the subject of this section.
This variable covered how the disciplinary framework should be used fairly. It provided a
solution to the query regarding the steps that had to be taken to improve the impartial application
of the disciplinary framework. Participants stated that the necessary intervention methods to
achieve a fair application of the disciplinary framework are training and awareness campaigns.
With knowledge of the disciplinary structure, the employees and management are exposed.
Conducting advocate training on fundamental disciplinary management ideas and principles,
such as acts of misbehavior, employee rights, sanctions, and the appeals procedure, is one of the
important interventions. Through frequent evaluations of the fair application of the disciplinary
framework, this intervention promotes consistency.

Disciplinary process

The fourth objective, which is to assess the results of monitoring and evaluation to enhance PSC
performance in the management of disciplinary cases, was the subject of the researcher's
discussion in this part. The variable covered how managers and employees were represented
during the disciplinary procedure. Participants said that representation guarantees justice and
consistency in the application of discipline when asked why it is vital to have managers and shop
stewards' involvement in disciplinary processes. According to the participants, representation
fosters relationships and mutual understanding that are beneficial to an impartial disciplinary
procedure.

Recommendations

On occasions where there has been influence or interference, it is advised that staff file formal
complaints. Direct referral of all allegations of persuasion and interference to the Public Service
Commission for review is recommended. The Minister for Public Service and Administration
should receive the findings and recommendations for implementation (PSC, 1997). The Public
Service Commission should inform Parliament and the State President about the state of
influence and interference with disciplinary management in the public service every two years
after receiving the implementation and outcome reports (PSA, 1994).

The developed PSC sanctioning rules, which include the delegates for labor relations, should be
institutionalized by the department. The department has to hold seminars and raise staff
awareness on how to use authority delegations. All appeals, with the exception of those
involving dismissal, should be given to designated managers who are not involved in the
disciplinary procedure of cases being reviewed by the Executive Authority.

The department should institutionalize the PSC sanctioning rules, which include the delegates for
labor relations. To teach staff members how to use authority delegations, the department must
host seminars. The designated managers who are not involved in the disciplinary process of
cases being evaluated by the Executive Authority should receive all appeals, with the exception
of those requiring dismissal.

References
Barasa, L. (2018). Corruption, transaction costs, and innovation in Africa. African Journal of Science,
Technology, Innovation and Development. 10(7), 811-821.

Denhardt, R.B., Denhardt, J.V. & Blanc, T.A. (2014). Public Administration: An Action. Seventh edition.
United States of America: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Department of Public Service and Administration. (2017). Ministerial Directive on the capturing of
Labour Relations (LR) related cases on the Persal System. . Pretoria: Government Printing.
Dorasamy, N. (2010). The impact of the global crisis on ethical leadership: A case study of the South
African public sector. African Journal of Business Management. 4(10), 2087-2096.

Govender, N. and Reddy, P.S. (2020). An evaluation of Thekwini Municipality’s regeneration

programmes on littering and dumping. African Evaluation Journal. 8(1), 1-8.

Mfene, P. (2013). Public Accountability: A professional basis for the South African Public service.
Administratio Publica 21(1), 6-23.

Motseke, M. (2020). Managing ill-discipline among learners in disadvantaged schools. Africa Education
Review. 17(3), 22-36.

Price, A. (2015). State Liability and Accountability - Part iii: Reflections on Themes in Justice Langa’s
Judgments. Acta Juridica. 2015(1), 313-335.

Public Services Commission. (2012). Annual Report. Accra.

Ramson, P., Ramson, P., Govender, P., Naidoo, K., Govender, P., and Naidoo, K. (2016). Recruitment and
retention strategies for public sector optometrists in KwaZulu-Natal Province, South Africa.
Original research. African Vision and Eye Health, 75(1), 1-10.

Sebola, M. (2018). The South African public service and the ethical problematiques: the discipline and
practice - talking different tongues – research. African Journal of Public Affairs. 10(4), 57-67.

Small, A. (2017). Enforcing a disciplinary code in the workplace - labour matters. Farmer’s Weekly.
2017(17013), 26-28.

Stevenson, A. (2013). The Public Sector: Managing the unmanageable. London: Kogan Page Limited.

Treasury, N. (2015). Average PERSAL report on disciplinary cases. Pretoria.

Valcik, N.A. and Benavides, T.J. (2012). Practical Human Resource for Public Managers:A Case Study
Approach. New York: Taylor & Francis Group.

Wotela, K. (2017). Towards an outcomes-based approach to a ‘research strategy, design, procedure and
methods’ chapter for business and public administration research. Journal of Public
Administration. 52(1.1), 223-246.

Zaaiman, J. (2020). Power and influence: assessing the conceptual relationship. Koers:. Bulletin for
Christian Scholarship. 85(1), 1-14.