Progressive discipline, which "proceeds from an oral warning to a written warning to a suspension to dismissal" (Cascio, 2003, p. 9) is a disciplinary process that relies on "responsive, corrective action rather than on severe disciplinary actions, together with increasing use of grievance procedures" (McCabe & Rabil, 2002, p. 34). As such, it is an effective means of disciplining employees from the standpoint of communicating what they have done wrong and what they need to do to amend it. It also prevents liability for wrongful termination in situations where the employee is progressively disciplined as a prelude to firing. It 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 their attitude for the better. Progressive discipline may also lead to a "termination trap," wherein the company finds itself with no recourse but to fire an employee, even if they would prefer not to ("Don't Fall," 2003). Therefore, a system of procedural justice that can reduce the need for progressive discipline is beneficial. This paper will examine the "ethical organizational due process" (McCabe & Rabil, 2002, p. 33), proposing a discipline process that includes specific steps that reflect the values of the organization and that can be used as an alternative to progressive discipline.
One of the most serious drawbacks of progressive discipline is its inherent Catch-22, that it "mandate[s] formality and preclude[s] any opportunity for informal resolution," thus proceeding inevitably toward dismissal of the employee if the offending behavior is not rectified ("Don't Fall," 2003). In addition...