Progressive Discipline Models

Progressive discipline is not necessarily the optimum solution for dealing with employees that a company wishes to keep, however. Many employees feel stressed and pressured by progressive discipline, which makes it difficult for them to focus on improving their work. In addition, while progressive discipline pinpoints specific behaviors that the employee must improve, it is neutral or negative with respect to changing his or her attitude for the better. A perception that discipline is too severe could backfire. Klaas and Dell'omo (1997) and Posthuma, Dworkin and Swift (2000) note that "Although progressive discipline is a generally accepted principle, perceptions of the fairness of specific levels of severity often vary and labour arbitrators are routinely required to resolve disputes between managers and employees regarding such var

. . .
is the norm. This is far more effective than simply instructing employees to provide excellent service and then changing nothing within the organization to facilitate the achievement of that objective. Thus, if the organization is geared for outstanding service and the culture supports such service, it will not only be less likely for employees to fail to deliver it, it will be easier to get them back on track if they do fail. Moreover, the consistency of asking for something that has already been established as a precedent in the organization will increase credibility with the employees. A second key and an excellent alternative to progressive discipline that integrates values is informal social control. Norms for the way employees should behave should be established within the organization, and these become, according to Jaworkski (1988), "a method of social control...which is used as a nonmediated influence mechanism" (Lusch, Boyt, & Schuler, 1996, p. 181). An organization's culture "may be thought of as a potential social control system" (O'Reilly, 1989, p. 12). O'Reilly (2001, p. 12) points out that "When we care about those with whom we work and have a common set of expectations, we are 'under control' whenever
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Laufer Robertson, Don't Fall, Boyt Schuler, McCabe Rabil, According Ball, Chiaburu Lim, Dworkin Swift, Retrieved November, , progressive discipline, Carey Cartier, social control, customer service, social controls, don't fall, boyt schuler, boyt schuler 1996, retrieved november, schuler 1996, lusch boyt schuler, superior customer, o'reilly 1989, alternative progressive discipline, don't fall 2003, superior customer service,
Approximate Word count = 1997
Approximate Pages = 8 (250 words per page)

More Essays on Progressive Discipline Models