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.