Quite often when dealing with employers who are frustrated with their employees, one finds that they are having difficulties defining and, as a consequence, addressing the perceived transgression that a specific employee is supposed to have committed.
Probably the most common instance where this occurs is when employers struggle with the distinction between insubordination, insolence and a failure to comply with a legitimate instruction.
Failure to comply with a legitimate instruction
In terms of disciplinary consequences, a failure to comply with a legitimate instruction is usually the most benign of these three offences and, depending on the employer’s disciplinary code, will not normally warrant dismissal on the first offence.
Essentially, a failure to comply with a legitimate instruction is exactly what it says; simply put: an employee not carrying out a specific, lawful and reasonable instruction. Normally, to qualify as a “failure to comply with a legitimate instruction”, the employee’s failure to comply would not have been accompanied with any attitude or behavioural problems. In fact, the employee’s actions in this regard would most likely not have been intentional. Indeed, if it had been intentional, the employee’s actions would most likely be labelled as insubordination.
Usually though, one does not warn or in fact charge an employee with a “failure to comply with a legitimate instruction”. That’s primarily because on closer inspection this type of offence is usually attributed to a failure to understand the instruction, over eagerness, mechanical failure, carelessness or an inability to perform the task at hand. As a consequence, depending on the employer’s specific disciplinary code as well as the circumstances, this type of offence usually at most warrants a warning for either negligence or poor performance.
That said, a very serious infraction may warrant a charge of gross negligence which could potentially result in a dismissal if it is proven in a disciplinary hearing and justified in terms of the employer’s disciplinary code.
Insolence
Insolence usually refers to rude, disrespectful, or contemptuous behaviour or language by an employee towards a superior (usually an employer or manager).
It needs to be noted that here, there is definitely an intent and so while insolence is usually considered less serious than insubordination, it can still justify dismissal if it is serious or persistent. It is also worth noting that the audience, setting and manner in which an employee displays insolent behaviour towards a superior can play a role in determining the level of seriousness of the offence.
Further, insolence does not necessarily have to involve a refusal to comply on the part of the employee. This is ironic because many employers confuse insolence with insubordination. Unfortunately, that can be detrimental to their case since the two are distinguishable and in many disciplinary codes warrant different sanctions.
Insubordination
Insubordination is generally a wilful and intentional refusal to obey a lawful and reasonable instruction from a superior (usually an employer or manager).
Once again it needs to be noted that here, there is definitely an intent combined with a failure to comply with a legitimate instruction. Insubordination is a serious form of misconduct and can justify dismissal, especially if it is repeated or undermines the employer’s authority. Once again it is also worth noting that the audience, setting and manner in which an employee defies his or her superior’s instruction as well as the instruction itself and the consequences of non-compliance all play a role in determining the level of seriousness of the offence.
Insubordination also correlates quite closely with another very serious allegation, namely dereliction of duty. Broadly, dereliction of duty within the employment context refers to an employee who consciously or intentionally fails to do his or her duty.
What usually distinguishes dereliction of duty from insubordination is the fact that in instances of dereliction of duty one does not tend to see the wilful and intentional refusal to comply that accompanies insubordination, but more of a “silent” conscious failure to comply. Inevitably that makes dereliction of duty a much harder allegation for an employer to prove.
Because insubordination represents an elemental break in the definition of the employment relationship — namely the employee subordinating his or her labour to the employer in exchange for remuneration — most disciplinary codes will not exhibit a lot of toleration for insubordination. Further, it is worth noting that gross insolence is usually a dismissible offence on the first instance.
Conclusion
As an employer, it’s quite important to distinguish between these three concepts. It’s also important to realise that when you are called upon to make the distinction, something has generally gone wrong.
As an SMME business owner that normally means that you have either lost or are going to lose money. Unfortunately, if you get it wrong you will inevitably lose more. If you need a hand please feel free to give us a ring.
Key Takeaways
- Failure to comply with a legitimate instruction
- There must be an instruction given by a superior to a subordinate.
- It must be a fair and legitimate instruction.
- The employee must fail to comply with the instruction.
- The non-compliance is usually attributed to a failure to understand the instruction, over eagerness, mechanical failure, carelessness or an inability to perform the task at hand.
- The failure to comply cannot be intentional.
- This type of offence usually warrants a warning for either negligence or poor performance.
Insolence
There must be disrespect or rude behaviour displayed by a subordinate towards a superior.
There need not necessarily be a refusal to comply with an instruction for an employee’s behaviour to be labelled as insolent.
The audience, setting and manner in which a subordinate displays insolent behaviour towards a superior can play a role in determining the level of seriousness of the offence.
Insubordination
- There must be an instruction given by a superior to a subordinate.
- It must be a fair and legitimate instruction.
- The employee must refuse to comply with the instruction.
- The employee’s refusal must be intentional or deliberate.
The audience, setting and manner in which a subordinate defies his or her superior’s instruction, as well as the instruction itself and the consequences of non-compliance, all play a role in determining the level of seriousness of the offence.
FAQ’s
What is the difference between insubordination and insolence?
Insubordination is the deliberate refusal to follow a lawful and reasonable instruction, while insolence refers to disrespectful or rude behaviour towards a superior. They are related but carry different disciplinary consequences.
Can an employee be dismissed for insolence?
Yes, if insolence is serious or repeated it can justify dismissal. The seriousness is often judged by the setting, audience, and manner in which the behaviour occurred.
Is failing to follow an instruction always insubordination?
Not necessarily. If the failure is unintentional — for example, due to misunderstanding, carelessness, or inability to perform — it is usually treated as negligence or poor performance, not insubordination.
Why is it important for employers to distinguish between these offences?
Because each carries different levels of seriousness and disciplinary outcomes. Misclassifying an offence can weaken an employer’s case and potentially lead to unnecessary financial or legal consequences.
