Progressive Discipline Policy?

Our high school band director gave out demerits to students who misbehaved or failed to follow a band rule. For a couple of years I held the record for the most demerits ever accumulated in a single semester. Interestingly, I was among the very best musicians in that band. But I didn't particularly like that teacher, I got pleasure from getting under his skin, and was not particularly concerned with possible negative outcomes associated with the accumulation of demerits. 

Well-defined progressive discipline policies are popular in some circles and I run across them frequently when reviewing or updating employee handbooks. 1st occurrence=Verbal warning, 2nd occurrence=written warning, then suspension... If you have a policy like this, here are some thoughts on progressive discipline programs in general:

1. The larger the organization the more it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 5,000 employees and hundreds of managers and supervisors spread across multiple locations, ensuring consistency in the way employees are treated is an important risk management and cultural component.

2. The smaller the organization the less it benefits from a defined progressive discipline program. If you have 40 employees and you know them all by name and are based in a right-to-work state, why would you tie yourself down to a formal policy that may make it difficult for you to get rid of a problem employee? 

3. Virtually all research I've ever read indicates that positive reinforcement is more powerful and longer lasting than punishment in changing behavior. Demerits, occurrences, and other forms of documenting negative behavior are attempts at deterrence that often fail to change behaviors at all, and if they do, it often isn't for very long.  

Recognizing and/or rewarding behavior you want is going to be more effective over time than spending your energy punishing behavior you don't want. So, rather than giving demerits, occurrences or other forms of documentation for missing the target, try doing the opposite - some type of acknowledgement that an employee is doing what you want. 

One example might be that all employees who meet some defined performance goal are eligible for a drawing (rather than all who fail get an occurrence). Pursuit of this recognition will motivate some employees, but at the worst it'll be neutral to the others. For those it motivates, it'll be more motivating than a desire to avoid an occurrence and for those to whom it's neutral, it won't motivate them in the wrong direction. (Yes, some employees derive pleasure from seeing their supervisor frustrated like I did with my band director, and some enjoy seeing how much they can get away with). 

For you managers who say, "why should I give a prize to someone for simply doing what I hired them to do?" I ask, "why continue to use methods that don't work as well when the science is clear regarding how humans respond to punishment as a motivator?"    

Does this mean that you don't document bad behavior? Of course not. If your goal is to win unemployment hearings you must demonstrate that you made a good faith effort to communicate your expectations and the employee failed. But there may be times when you have an employee who behaves like I did in high school and doesn't want to row in the same direction as everyone else. There's no need to be trapped by your progressive discipline policy. My band director should have simply kicked me out of the band, or he should have made more of an effort to engage me. If you're in a right-to-work state, you should do the same with your problem child. Your "A" players will appreciate it.

Overworking "A" Players

Jane manages both Bob and Stan. Bob does high quality work and never says "no" when asked to take-on an extra work project. Stan, on the other hand, is just as capable as Bob, also does high quality work, but sends out clear verbal and non-verbal signals of resistance when asked to do anything extra. When Jane has an important project with a quick turnaround, who is she going to ask? Bob, of course. 

This is the plight of the Bobs of the world. They are punished for being good, efficient workers with a good attitude. The Stans of the world learn that they can be rewarded by being bristly, prickly or defiant. Managers who'd just as soon not have to hear the excuses or experience the huffs and the roll of the eyes will go to Bob just to avoid dealing with Stan.

Fortunately for managers like Jane, the Bobs of the world often score high S on the DISC profile and high S individuals often choose to stay with the devil they know rather than risk the devil they don't. Unfortunately for managers like Jane, high S individuals don't often show their emotions in an outwardly demonstrative way, so Bob could be highly frustrated but simply doesn't show it. When Bob really does reach the end of his rope, Jane is usually caught totally off-guard and is dismayed that she lost Bob and is stuck with Stan.  

This is the dilemma facing conflict avoidant managers. By going to their Bobs over-and-over to avoid dealing with their Stans, the eventually end up with a department made up mostly of Stans. 

The source of the managers' dilemma is the manager focusing too much on him or herself. When Bob submits his resignation, no doubt Jane's first thought will be, "how could you do this to me?" It's this same thinking that got her into this situation to begin with - "I don't want to deal with Stan." 

Jane could avoid this by focusing more on her team than herself. "I have this important project with a quick deadline. Bob will do it, but I went to Bob last time. Stan will huff and puff to try to get out of it, but I'm not going to reward that behavior - it's Stan's project!"

Being willing to engage in difficult conversations and standing your ground to protect your "A" players is part of a manager's responsibility. It's why Jane was promoted. Avoiding conflict hurts both the team and the organization - and ultimately the manager, herself. Another question you might ask when facing this dilemma - "who would I rather have leave the organization - Bob or Stan?" If the answer is Stan, then why are you coddling his counterproductive work behaviors?

And who knows, if you refuse to reward Stan's resistance, he might get it - and morph into a new Bob.  Now you have two Bobs on your team.