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.
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 variant perceptions" (Cole, 2008, p. 110). Atwater, Waldman, Carey & Cartier (2001) assert that in general, "employees tend to feel unfairly treated when severely disciplined" (Cole, 2008, p. 110). According to Ball et al. (1994), a field study of supervisors and their employees found that "when employees considered the discipline to be too harsh, it had a significant negative effect on subsequent job performance" (Cole, 2008, p. 110). Organ (1988) asserted that ...