It’s a great irony that the discipline policy preferred by most companies is called “progressive.”
By Sue Bingham
It’s a great irony that the discipline policy preferred by most companies is called “progressive.” Since the word progressive means “making favorable progress or change” nothing could be further from the truth.
The progressive discipline policy is about punishment — not improvement.
Punishment expects employee performance to improve by treating the employee progressively worse.This senseless and de-humanizing process was created to protect companies from adverse legal rulings — and mostly on the advice of legal counsel. The irony is that a claim or charge can be adjudicated in favor of the employee not because of what the terminated employee has or hasn’t done, but because the company failed to follow the myriad details outlined in its own policies.
Most managers denounce their company’s progressive discipline policy as lengthy, over-engineered, and ineffective. For the bad apple who shouldn’t have been hired in the first place, this process takes far too long. And a small minority of abusers use the policy like a playbook, and keep ahead of the game by changing the performance issue that is violated. They also know the time required for the last warning to be removed — so they can do it again. Here’s how it works…
PROGRESSIVE DISCIPLINE POLICIES
Typically, progressive discipline policies are comprised of steps, with each step involving an employee and his/her manager and eventually witnesses. In each step, the communication is routinely one-way and parent-child, ending with the threat: “Failure to improve will result in further disciplinary action up to and including termination.”
• Step One is a verbal warning. That’s an interesting term — verbal warning — because it’s often documented. And the word “warning” is correct because the discussion ends with a threat. The angry employee then leaves (often after being asked to sign the written verbal warning).
• Step Two is just like step one but is now called a written warning. Again it ends with a threat (in a more serious tone) and the angry, dispirited, or apathetic employee again leaves after being asked to sign the warning.
• Step Three varies among companies. It may be a second written warning or an unpaid suspension from work. The employee is sent home (which seems much like sending a child to his room), and the employee and his family are being punished because the company is withholding pay.
• Step Four. Yes, some companies even have a Step Four — a third and final written warning. This is usually a tense and negative interaction between the manager and employee. It exists to create a paper trail that will hold up in an unemployment claim or court of law once the employee is terminated (at this stage the decision has already been made to fire the employee).
Punishment is not instructive. It cannot teach a new behavior or solve a problem. The improvement or desired behavior will never be permanently learned unless an employee and his supervisor work together to solve the problem.
In most traditional companies, equipment is treated better than employees. Using a progressive disciplinary approach is like banging on a machine to make it run better.
A BETTER WAY
Assume that the vast majority of employees are good people who want the company to succeed. They are adults; some own homes, raise children, and serve in their communities. If a problem develops and is brought to their attention, their desire is to solve it.
A performance coaching approach is based on this assumption. If a problem arises, those involved will want to solve it. This coaching meeting has an agenda the manager partially prepares in advance to be clear and concise about the problem. When prepared, the manager can state the issue, usually in under 15 seconds, and then ask, “What’s going on?” This turns the problem-solving conversation immediately over to the employee to discover the cause of the performance issue.
This is not a “step” process. This is an adult conversation that ends depending on how the employee responds.
• Cooperative: If the employee is cooperative (most are), he accepts responsibility and offers an action or commitment to address the cause — problem solved. The action or solution is not provided by the manager. The manager facilitates the employee’s plan.
• Uncooperative: The employee may be uncooperative, meaning he isn’t forthcoming regarding the cause, blames others, or simply avoids responding as an adult to the manager’s questions. When this happens, the manager reflects what she’s seeing and hearing. Most people become cooperative at this point. If not, the manager will ask the employee to go home for the rest of the day. Unlike a suspension, this time off is paid because the employee’s job that day is to decide about his employment. Is this a job he wants? Can he meet expectations? If so, he is expected to return with a sincere commitment statement or plan of action. If the employee determines the job is not for him, the company processes his resignation (A surprising number of people make the decision to change).
• Disrespectful: Occasionally an employee can go beyond uncooperative and become downright disrespectful. There is no room for disrespectful behavior in this process. The manager reflects what she’s seeing or hearing, and if the employee continues to be disrespectful, the manager ends the meeting. The employee is sent home and informed that the manager will call him in the morning to let him know if he still has a job.
In all three instances, the problem is solved — usually with fewer than two conversations.
This process does have documentation. When a manager lacks confidence that the improvement will be made, a letter is sent to the employee that documents both sides of the conversation including the employee’s plan of action. It is kept in a company file. When the employee’s response results in resignation or termination, a report detailing the conversation(s) is submitted.
With this approach, the legal process is now focused on the employee’s response and subsequent actions versus whether the detailed progressive discipline steps were followed by the company.
As competition for good people becomes more intense, companies that treat their employees with respect, and as adults, gain the advantage. Managers are then free to use the leadership, judgment, and communication skills for which they’re paid.
Sue Bingham is the founder of the HPWP Group, a master coach, speaker, and the author of Creating The High Performance Work Place: It’s Not Complicated to Develop a Culture of Commitment. She supports leaders as they achieve their vision of success, and designs common-sense systems that make people and organizations more effective. For more information about Sue Bingham, please visit: www.HPWPGroup.com.