Explanation : The “Hot-Stove Rule”
The “Hot-Stove Rule” of Douglas McGregor
gives a good illustration of how to impose
disciplinary action without generating
resentment. This rule draws an analogy
between touching a hot stove and
undergoing discipline. When you touch a
hot stove, your discipline is immediate, with
a warning, consistent, and impersonal.
These four characteristics, according to
McGregor, as applied to discipline are self-serving
and maybe explained as follows:
1. When you touch the hot stove, you burn
your hand. The burn was immediate. Will
you blame the hot stove for burning your
hand? Immediately, you understand the
cause and effect of the offense. The
discipline was directed against the act not
against anybody else. You get angry with
yourself, but you know it was your fault.
You get angry with the hot stove too, but
not for long as you know it was not its
fault. You learn your lesson quickly.
2. You had warning as you knew the stove
was red hot and you knew what would
happen to you if you touched it. You knew
the rules and regulations previously issued
to you by the company prescribing the
penalty for violation of any particular rule
so you cannot claim you were not given
a previous warning.
3. The discipline was consistent. Every time
you touch the hot stove you get burned.
Consistency in the administration of
disciplinary action is essential. Excessive
leniency as well as too much harshness
creates not only dissatisfaction but also
resentment.
4. The discipline was impersonal. Whoever
touches the hot stove gets burned, no
matter who he is. Furthermore, he gets
burned not because of who he is, but
because he touched the hot stove. The
discipline is directed against the act, not
against the person. After disciplinary action
has been applied, the supervisor should
take the normal attitude toward the
employee.