Exploring Informality in relation to Disciplinary Disproportionality of Black, Asian and minority ethnic employees

Overrepresentation of employees from Black, Asian and minority ethnic groups in records of formal workplace disciplinary processes in the English public sector is well established. A key causal mechanism identified for this disciplinary disproportionality involves avoidance of taking informal action by front-line managers (FLMs) for Black, Asian and minority ethnic employees. This results in either premature formal action, or a matter escalating and becoming too serious to be handled informally. This mechanism motivates the focus of this study on informal processes. The other focus, written policy and procedure, is informed by literature identifying the need for safeguards against prejudice and bias, and FLMs’ desire and need for guidance regarding informal action, and tendency towards following formal procedure in preference to it.

The research aims to explore organisational intentions regarding informal processes through the lens of HRM-signals that the documents send, and in relation to how policy might allow or deter differential use of informal action. The study thematically analyses disciplinary, performance, and capability policy and procedure documents, obtained by freedom of information request, from a representative sample of 128 English local authorities (LAs).

The study contributes empirically by identifying the HRM-signals sent by the documents in relation to informal action and the transition to formal action, and by categorising in detail the approaches to procedure that the signals represent. It finds by every criterion analysed, a lack of consistency and standardisation meaning that a large variety of approaches is taken. Methodologically, the utility of analysis of written policy and procedure is shown to be a rich source of data about organisational intentions, and how these can be interpreted in relation to potential mechanisms of unfair discrimination. A second methodological contribution is the value of the use of HRM-signalling as a theoretical framing for such analysis. Theoretically, the main contribution is the development of ways to conceptualise and model HRM-signalling delivered by written policy and procedure, the resultant intended processes, termed action pathways, and their potential to allow or deter unfair or inconsistent action and disciplinary disproportionality.