punish but not punish

A French fries manufacturing plant has had a public relations nightmare. The Frito-Lay plant, which employs 210 people, saw 58 employees fired for disciplinary violations in the first nine months of the year. Bad mood permeates the factory. Despite the continuous disciplinary actions such as written warnings, unpaid suspensions, and dismissals, employees' violations have never been restrained. The workers in the factory were deeply indignant and hated by the endless warnings, reprimands, and dismissals, and were always looking for opportunities to retaliate. As a result, factory managers were frustrated.

A well-known and ingenious worker has a tricky idea to express his displeasure to the managers in charge of the factory. One day, he came to work with a stylus, surreptitiously removed the french fries from the conveyor belt running in the production and packaging areas, wrote nasty words, and then unknowingly put them back where they belonged. The french fries that suffered were only discovered when they ended up in the hands of customers.

News of this unique method of retaliation for management's harsh treatment of hourly workers quickly spread among employees. Other workers followed suit, and customer complaints rose. Frito-Lay's headquarters has received a growing number of letters from customers, annoyed by the nasty words they found on the boxes of French fries they bought.

Punishment does not keep employees engaged

What is causing these problems? On the surface, the plant looks like the 38 other plants Frito-Lay has opened across the U.S., producing snacks from potatoes and corn. But the factory's disciplinary system is completely obsessive. As employee problems increased, supervisors took more disciplinary action. Harsh regulatory practices have led to more employee disruptions and irregularities. Instead of solving the problem and improving performance, sanctioning caused more damage. The disciplinary system is meant to correct employee violations, but it actually fuels the fire. The traditional punishment system has failed.

The traditional punishment system has always pursued "equivalent punishment", trying to combine punishment and reform. But a myriad of problems make this still-common process anachronistic: it is an outdated and hostile method of disciplinary action. The trade unions concocted the traditional punishment system and applied it to the enterprises that were unwilling to have any punishment system at all. As a result, this approach reflects assumptions that tend to be hostile antagonisms between employees and management.

Also, the traditional approach is not a corrective process. Businesses often find that managers do not see the disciplinary process as a means of correction. In their view, following this process is just about producing enough paperwork to give them a valid reason for deciding to fire an employee.

The disadvantage of the traditional approach is not only its complete reliance on punishment, but also its lack of demands on employees. Punishments such as warnings, reprimands, and unpaid suspensions appear to be harsh measures to ensure that employees adhere to organizational guidelines. If someone fails to live up to expectations, punish him until he complies. But what the traditional system can achieve is to make people act according to the rules. You can punish people to obey, but you can't punish them to engage them.

Non-punitive Disciplinary Approach Promotes Responsibility and Respect

The failure of the traditional disposition process at Frito-Lay's factory led to a new approach to performance issues: non-punitive dispositions. The new system, which uses no punishment, reflects the belief that every employee, even a "trickster," is a mature, responsible, and trustworthy adult. If businesses treat them like adults, they will behave like adults.

The new process eliminates warnings, reprimands, suspensions without pay and focuses on holding individuals accountable and decision-making. The most striking manifestation of Frito-Lay's management's rejection of conventional thinking was the decision to remove the traditional final sanction step: dismissal without pay, and replace it with a bold new step: paid suspension.

The final sanction of the new system is to inform the employee that he will be suspended the next day and that he must return at the end of the suspension day to make a decision: either address the current issue and fully commit to achieving an impressive performance in all aspects of work Satisfied performance, or find another job. The company pays that day's wages to show the sincerity of wanting to see the employee correct and stay. "But if you decide to stay," the boss reminds, "make another mistake and you'll be fired." It's in his hands. The company accepts his decision: whether to fix it and stay, or find another job.

What was the result? A year later, the number of layoffs at the plant fell from 58 to 19; the following year it dropped to two. The atmosphere changed completely, and the dirty words and customer complaints disappeared. Frito-Lay promotes a non-punitive punishment system throughout the company. Other companies are racing to follow suit.

Today, more and more companies are ditching punitive measures such as warnings, reprimands, demotions, and suspensions without pay to deal with disciplinary issues. The results they achieved confirmed that the decision to change was the right one. For example, a General Electric plant in Vermont was one of several GE plants that took non-punitive action. In about two years, written warnings/reminders dropped from 39 to 23 and then to 12, the plant said. One year after GTE's telephone operations management implemented the approach, employee complaints dropped by 63 percent and disciplinary complaints dropped by 86 percent.

Proper Steps for Non-punitive Discipline

Non-punitive Discipline begins with an informal meeting. If these talks fail to produce results, further disciplinary measures will be taken. However, the difference between benign punishment and traditional punishment is huge.

First, "good engagement" is one of the formal steps of the system. One drawback of the traditional method of disciplinary action is that it does not recognize the vast majority of employees who are law-abiding. The most common complaint of all people about work is that when they perform well, they are rarely recognized. In addition to the annual performance review, which is the same every year, performance is only discussed when something goes wrong.

Making recognition a formal part of the system will remind managers that reinforcing good performance is just as important as combating bad performance. It also makes employees aware of business expectations that good performance will be recognized. Most importantly, it makes affirming good performance a formal corporate policy, not just the tedious and easily forgotten advice taught in manager training classes.

Another important difference between the traditional model and the non-punitive disciplinary approach is that the latter does not see dismissal as the final step in the disciplinary system, while the traditional progressive disciplinary model does. Rather, dismissal represents a failure of the disciplinary system. Non-punitive action treats dismissal as a step after the action has lapsed, which makes it easier for managers to understand the timing of action when the role of the coach is not achieving the desired outcome, rather than when the action has already been resolved. When firing employees, the disciplinary system is only seen as a way of firing.

When informal coaching processes and performance improvement discussions fail to resolve performance or behavioral issues, the first level of formal disciplinary action is a "first reminder," where the supervisor discusses the employee's problem and reminds the employee to pay attention to himself. Responsibility to meet the organization's standards and gain employee consent to return to satisfactory performance.

If the problem persists, the supervisor proceeds to give a "second reminder". The supervisor will meet with the employee again to get his agreement to resolve the issue. After the meeting, the supervisor formally writes the discussion into a memorandum and hands it to the employee.

The word "reminder" is not the same as "warning" or "rebuke", but instead draws the employee's attention to two things: first, to remind him of the specific gap between current and expected performance; second, to remind him Note that it is his responsibility to perform well and to do the job for which he was hired.

The use of "First Reminder" and "Second Reminder" also eliminates another annoyance created by the traditional system, the "oral" versus "written" question. If a supervisor gives a subordinate a "verbal admonition" or "verbal warning", is the measure documented? of course. Will the file be recorded? of course. In this way, doesn't the "oral warning" become a "written warning"? Simply referring to it as "first reminder" or "second reminder" can indicate different levels of action taken and describe the filing process, respectively.

Paid suspension awakens the conscience of offending employees

If the initial steps of formal disciplinary action are not successful in convincing someone to address a performance issue, decisive final action is required. The non-punitive approach provides an unintuitive, authoritative final step: leave the day to make a decision.

Whether paid or not, having a layoff as a final disciplinary step has huge advantages over other approaches as a "last step". Suspension allows both parties to have a "cold treatment" period to calmly consider the situation at hand. It gives supervisors and subordinates time to think. Suspension is also a tough stance, forcing employees to accept the prospect of unemployment, cool their heads, and resolve to correct their behavior.

Businesses that have adopted the non-punitive approach report that the use of paid suspension has yielded benefits that cannot be underestimated:

It shows goodwill. Most businesses consider themselves to be above-board employers and want everything they do in their employee relations practices to reflect and reinforce this view.

It turns resentment into guilt. Paying employees removes the resentment that usually comes with the final disciplinary step. It wakes up employees and holds them accountable for their actions and performance.

It applies to any position. The decision to leave is for anyone who behaves in violation of organizational norms.

It reduces hostility and workplace violence. Businesses must eliminate any practices that are more likely to anger employees.

It reinforces the corporate values. Most businesses pride themselves on being fair employers and want to be seen as a very attractive place to work. The use of "Leave Decision" and a focus on personal responsibility makes the disciplinary system a clear statement of the firm's commitment to ensuring the implementation of its values, even in the most difficult of circumstances.

The traditional punishment system catches the troublemaker and punishes it, leaving the company with a punished troublemaker. Rather than a punitive sanction system, the responsibility for performance management is shifted from managers to employees. Instead of berating employees for deviant behavior, managers insist that employees make a choice: fix it and stay, or leave. In this way, it not only emphasizes the requirement that everyone must abide by the corporate standards, but also takes into account the dignity of both parties.

This original text was adapted from the September-October 2001 issue of Conference Board Magazine with the permission of The Conference Board, Inc. Translated by Lian Qingsong.