Progressive Discipline — Tip of the Week

For most of us, “progressive discipline” means following a series of disciplinary steps, with each step becoming progressively more serious. So, there’s an oral warning, then a written warning, maybe a second written warning, final written warning, suspension perhaps, finally termination. The idea is that an employer gives an employee a chance to change his ways before being fired.

I wonder sometimes if the discipline might be more effective if “progressive” had another meaning. Instead of going from one step to the next, “progressive” can mean moving forward, developing, making progress, advancing to something better, improving, or reforming. By moving from one step to the next, an employee becomes better.

In order for progressive discipline to be progressive, there must be more to it than issuing warnings and documenting misconduct. Instead of a cookie cutter, one-size-fits-all program, it becomes a process that addresses an employee’s performance, needs and potential in an individual manner. That takes time. That takes genuine interest in the employee’s situation. That takes the commitment to turning an underperformer into one of you best employees.

That’s what progressive discipline should be all about. It would save money by reducing turnover. It would make for a more productive workforce. It would turn what’s usually considered an adversarial process into something positive.

1. 

   Paul Weatherhead says:

   April 13, 2009 at 1:04 pm

   John,

   Wouldn’t it be nice if you could provide a completely unique approach to disciplinary action for each person. The problem is though in our litigious world if you are inconsistent in your application of discipline you have to explain why to a judge, jury, or labor arbitrator. Frankly, I’d feel safer with a well-trained supervisory team that was consistent in their application of discipline.

   In terms of terminology, instead of “progressive”, I’ve always felt better with the term “corrective”. After all, correcting unacceptable behavior is the goal of any kind of discipline.

   Paul
2. 

   Shawna says:

   April 13, 2009 at 2:42 pm

   That is why we have a “Corrective Action Policy” and a “Corrective Action Report” that clearly defines the performance or behavior deficiency and a communicates the expectation or plan to improve (with help and suggestions from the employee)

   Discipline is not a bad word. It is an ongoing event necessary to stay the course. Corrective Action is reserved for those who have strayed away from the clearly defined path.

   The message we communicate to our managers and supervisors is that we want to bring out the best in our employees, not set them up to be fired.
3. 

   John Phillips says:

   April 13, 2009 at 5:41 pm

   Paul and Shawna,

   Thanks very much for your excellent comments.

   I like corrective action better than progressive discipline, too. Regardless of what it’s called, however, the important thing is that it gives an employee who’s struggling for one reason or another a real chance to advance or improve and the employee believes that.

   Consistency is important, but the fact is that no two people can be treated exactly the same. There should be parameters of consistency within which HR and supervisors operate, but within those parameters, it’s important to take action that is most likely to help the employees who have strayed from the path or are just underperforming.

   Thanks again for your input.

   John
4. 

   ACU Frank says:

   April 15, 2009 at 9:35 am

   Here’s the reality – managing people is work. Trying to take the work out of it by treating everyone the same is just plain lazy. And just plain bad management.

   The best managers understand that treating people the same and treating them fairly are two different things. In your search for consistency, look at whether you use consistency in how, when and to whom you apply your rules – not whether you reach the same end for everyone.
5. 

   vonnie mcintosh says:

   June 10, 2009 at 4:48 pm

   For most of us, “progressive discipline” means following a series of disciplinary steps, with each step becoming progressively more serious. So, there’s an oral warning, then a written warning, maybe a second written warning, final written warning, suspension perhaps, finally termination. The idea is that an employer gives an employee a chance to change his ways before being fired.

   It would be great if a at will company would
   follow this. but some don’t. They don’t give oral warnings, written warnings,suspension,just terminations.Go to a lawyer and they tell you”It’s a “at will company, they can fire you for any reason.
   even if the complaint was unfounded.I worked for this company for almost 10 years. In the pass year we had 13 or more staff fired. that more then we have had in the lifetime of this company.the last one was fired for asking for a staff roster. they where a superviser. that was with the company for 10+ years.She was a good worker.The real reason she was fired
   The company heard that someone was trying to get the union in. and she ask for a staff roster,so it must be her that is trying to get a union in( It wasn’t her)Their message was loud and clear.But what they don’t understand, They just broke open a bee hive and let loose a lot of mad bees.
6. 

   John Phillips says:

   June 11, 2009 at 5:01 pm

   Vonnie,

   Thanks for your comment. The employment at will rule does give employers a fair amount of latitude in making termination decisions, but not unlimited latitude. There are many exceptions to the rule recognized in most states. Of course, a fired employee has to prove that he/she falls within one of the exceptions.

   If you or someone could prove what think has happened, that would be a violation of the National Labor Relations Act. I would imagine that the company has a different point of view on this, so it would be a matter of who could prove what.

   Thanks again for weighing in.

   John