Understanding Variation in the Practice of Employee Discipline

• Date: 01 March 2003
• DOI: 10.1177/0734371X02250113
• Published date: 01 March 2003
• Subject Matter: Articles

10.1177/0734371X02250113 ARTICLE

REVIEWOFPUBLICPERSONNELADMINISTRATION/ March 2003

Pagan,Franklin/VARIATIONINEMPLOYEE DISCIPLINE

Understanding Variation in the

Practice of Employee Discipline

The Perspective of the First-Line Supervisor

JAVIER F. PAGAN

University of Puerto Rico

AIMEE L. FRANKLIN

The University of Oklahoma

First-line supervisors’ responses to employee-related problems can vary widely

from one supervisor to another. Assuming fair and consistent disciplinary activ-

ity is valued by organizations, then discovery of the factors causing supervisors to

respond differently to similar situations is a valuable activity.Using a case study

approach for four organizations in Puerto Rico, this article explores how factors

such as sector, union presence,and managerial and human resource department

support influence the choice of a discipline strategy. When present, some of these

factors were found to encourage supervisors to comply with formal disciplinary

policy. Organizations can use these findings to assess the degreeto which there is

consistency in these factors and take strategic action to assurethat first-line super -

visors receive clear and consistent signals regarding appropriate disciplinary

strategies.

Keywords: employee discipline; unions; first-line supervisors; discipline strate-

gies; public/private sector comparisons; supervisor behaviors

Formany organizations the question of how to deal with employee perfor-

mance problems such as tardiness and absenteeism is one that first-line

supervisors continually face. Individual supervisors employ different tech-

niques, sometimes actions outside those in the organization’s formal disciplin-

ary policy. Within one organization we found that many supervisors “coach

the employee and give additional opportunities for changing unacceptable

behaviors,” noting that human resource policy allows this approach. Other

supervisors favored applying a 3-day suspension, claiming this was also “con-

sistent with company discipline policy.” A third group of supervisors simply

61

Review of Public Personnel Administration,Vol. 23, No. 1 March 2003 61-77

DOI: 10.1177/0734371X02250113

© 2003 Sage Publications

chose to do nothing, claiming that they are “more interested in productivity

rather than measuring time.” Similarly, inconsistent actions by first-line

supervisors occurred in other organizations, as one supervisor described:

When I take disciplinary actions, they [the employee] realize they’ve done

something wrong. First, I talk with them and then I write a warning letter or

two. If things don’t change, then I can still file for termination. Other super-

visors will not do this, and will instead “look the other way.”

At a third organization, a common response was to “barter the lemon” [an

unproductive employee] to another supervisor, as this quote describes:

We have encountered many inefficient employees who simply don’t make

the grade, and we have tried getting rid of them, or even demoting them. But

to no avail. So we say “OK,” if this person doesn’t work well here, let’s try

putting him or her there [another division]. We have done that on several

occasions.

As these vignettes suggest, actions taken in response to employee-related

problems can vary widely from one supervisor to another. In some situa-

tions the formal disciplinary policies and procedures are observed; in others

the supervisor may choose from a variety of informal strategies for manag-

ing the problem employee. According to Bellizzi and Hasty (2000):

The severity of the discipline should be consistent with the nature of the

unacceptable behavior. At times, however, similar or identical behaviors are

met with different disciplinary actions and, in some cases, the cause of the

differential action is tied to the personal characteristics of the subordinate.

(p. 159)

The need for consistent discipline practices arises from two bases. First,

it is important from an equity perspective in terms of treating all employees

equally and abiding by relevant laws and collective bargaining agreements

(Kearney & Carnevale, 2001). Second, arbitrary discipline can lead to a

demoralized workforce and a loss of productivity (Ban, 1995). Assuming

that fair and consistent disciplinary activity is valued by organizations, then

discovery of the factors that cause supervisors to respond differently to simi-

lar situations is a valuable activity.

This case study presents qualitative findings from four organizations in

Puerto Rico. The results, although not generalizable in a statistical sense,

offer insight into the utility of existing employee discipline literature and

provide a foundation for deductive testing of the factors that influence the

62 REVIEW OF PUBLIC PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION/ March 2003