Consistency in employee discipline: an empirical exploration
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/00483480810839996 |
| Date | 21 December 2007 |
| Pages | 109-117 |
| Published date | 21 December 2007 |
| Author | Nina Cole |
| Subject Matter | HR & organizational behaviour |
Consistency in employee
discipline: an empirical
exploration
Nina Cole
Faculty of Business, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada
Abstract
Purpose – This study seeks to explore the incidence and severity of inconsistency in the appli cationof
disciplinary measures between supervisors, given the same disciplinary incident. Consistency is an
importantaspect of proceduralfairness in disciplinary action, but it hasreceived little empirical attention.
Design/methodology/approach – Four employee discipline scenarios were assigned at random to
130 real-life supervisor-employee dyads, who role-played the scenario.
Findings – There was little consistency betw een supervisors in their decision s regarding
disciplinary measures. Overall, having an informal discussion with the employee was the most
common response. Only when specific instructions to impose a verbal or written warning were
provided did most supervisors move beyond an informal discussion. Even when clear instructions
were given, a substantial minority applied a less severe disciplinary outcome.
Research limitations/implications – Even in this role-play situation, where “real life” variables
such as union grievances that could lead to the dilution of disciplinary action were not present,
supervisors were generally lenient regarding employee discipline.
Practical implications – The trade-off between the objectives of consistency and consideration of
individual circumstances presents a serious challenge to practising supervisors.
Originality/value – This is a rare empirical paper exploring the issue of consistency in employee
discipline.
Keywords Employees, Discipline, Role play,Decision making, Line managers
Paper type Research paper
The management of ineffective performance through various disciplinary actions has
been acknowledged as a ubiquitous reality in organization throughout the twentieth
century (Arvey and Ivancevich, 1980; Arvey and Jones, 1985; Ball et al., 1992, 1993,
1994; Miner and Brewer, 1976; Sims, 1980; Thorndike, 1913). As we begin the
twenty-first century, many have called for an increased focus on performance
management (Jamrog and Overholt, 2004), yet the area of employee discipline remains
under-researched and under-managed.
Over the past 20 years, Arvey and his colleagues have called for more research in
the area of punishment in organizations (e.g. Arvey and Ivancevich, 1980; Arvey and
Jones, 1985). The call has been answered by Trevino (1992) and her colleagues (Ball
et al., 1992, 1993, 1994; Trevino and Ball, 1992), but few others (Atwater et al., 2001a;
Atwater et al., 2001b; Brett et al., 2005; Podsakoff et al., 2006). Researchers have
gradually broadened their focus from the disciplined employee to the managers’
perspective on punishment (Butterfield et al., 1996), and punishment from an observers’
perspective (Atwater et al., 2001b; Niehoff et al., 1998).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/0048-3486.htm
The author extends her thanks to Martin Evans for his helpful comments on this article.
Consistency in
employee
discipline
109
Received 16 November 2005
Accepted 4 March 2007
Personnel Review
Vol. 37 No. 1, 2008
pp. 109-117
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0048-3486
DOI 10.1108/00483480810839996
To continue reading
Request your trial