HRM 5463 Module 4 Progressive Discipline Process Design Example

Same Absence, Same Step: A Fair and Documented Progressive Discipline Process for a Wisconsin Resort

Student Name

American College of Education

HRM5463: Employee Relations and Performance Management

Module 4 Assignment

Instructor Name

December 6, 2027

Introduction

My first three papers for this course kept running into the same complaint from our resort's staff: discipline feels like favoritism. Attendance problems are handled differently by each supervisor: one housekeeper receives a warning for a second late arrival while another is excused for five. A pair of supervisors admitted they skip discipline entirely, since nothing in writing backs them up. The performance plan and evaluation process from Modules 2 and 3 will not be trusted if discipline remains arbitrary. This paper designs a written progressive discipline process, focusing on attendance, the most common issue, and on how to make discipline consistent, documented, lawful and fair.

Why Fairness in Discipline Matters

Research shows that how discipline is handled shapes what happens next. Ball et al. (1994), studying employees who had been disciplined, found that their perceptions of whether the punishment was just, including whether it was consistent and appropriately severe, were related to their later performance and to their willingness to help the organization beyond their formal duties. Atwater et al. (2001) found that managers who administered discipline tended to see it as fairer and more effective than the employees who received it did. Together, these findings suggest that discipline perceived as arbitrary can make performance worse, and that supervisors are not the best judges of how their discipline is received.

Principles

The process rests on five principles. Consistency: the same conduct leads to the same step for every employee, regardless of department or supervisor. Notice: employees know the rules and the consequences in advance, in English and Spanish. Opportunity: except for serious misconduct, employees get a chance to improve before each step. Documentation: every step is written down with facts, not impressions. Review: decisions above the coaching stage are checked by human resources before they are delivered. The principles are written into the employee handbook and explained in each department's huddle when the policy starts. Each supervisor gets a single printed sheet of the rules to keep by the time clock, so the rules are at hand when a problem arises late in a shift.

The Attendance Policy

Attendance will follow a points system so that it does not depend on any supervisor's judgment. An unexcused absence earns three points, a no-call no-show earns six points, and arriving more than ten minutes late or leaving early earns one point. Points expire twelve months after they are earned, so a bad month does not follow an employee forever. Absences protected by law are never counted. Federal regulations bar employers from treating FMLA-protected time off as a negative factor in disciplinary actions or count it under no-fault attendance policies (Family and Medical Leave Act Regulations, 2025). The same protection will apply to absences for jury duty, military service, approved accommodations and leave required under state law.

The Steps

Progressive discipline will have four steps. Coaching is a documented conversation in which the supervisor names the problem, listens to the employee's explanation and agrees on what will change; for attendance, it occurs at six points. A written warning follows at nine points or for a repeated performance problem after coaching, and includes an improvement plan with dates. A final written warning follows at twelve points, or for continued problems, and states clearly that the next step is termination. Termination occurs at fifteen points or for continued failure after a final warning, and requires approval by the human resources manager and the general manager. At each step, the employee may add a written response to the record.

Serious Misconduct

Some conduct skips the progressive steps. Theft, violence or threats, harassment, working under the influence, falsifying records and deliberate safety violations, such as leaving a pool unattended during lifeguard duty, may lead to suspension pending investigation and, if confirmed, termination. Even then, the process requires an investigation: interviewing the employee and witnesses, reviewing records and documenting findings before a decision. Suspension during investigation will be paid if the employee is cleared. Listing these offenses in advance gives notice and prevents supervisors from treating ordinary mistakes as serious misconduct.

Documentation and Review

Every step uses a one-page form in English and Spanish recording the date, the specific facts, the rule involved, prior steps, what the employee said and what must change. Supervisors will describe behavior, such as arriving at 8:22 for an 8:00 shift on three dates, rather than characterizing the employee as lazy or careless. Human resources will review written warnings and above before they are delivered, checking for consistency with similar cases. HR will also review discipline data each quarter by department, sex and primary language, the same groups audited for ratings in Module 3, so that any pattern of harsher treatment can be found and corrected.

Delivering Discipline

How discipline is delivered matters as much as the rule. Meetings will be held privately, with an interpreter available for any employee who prefers Spanish, and a second manager present for written warnings and above. Supervisors will explain the rule, the facts and the next step, and will ask about circumstances such as child care problems or health issues that might call for support rather than discipline, including a referral to the employee assistance program. Supervisors will complete a two-hour training on these conversations, practicing with realistic cases before the policy starts.

Applying the Steps to One Case

Applying the policy to an anonymized banquet server from last year shows how it changes outcomes. Over eight months, the server had two unexcused absences, two late arrivals and one no-call no-show on the night of a large wedding. Under the old approach, the server received no warning until the wedding and was then terminated on the spot by a frustrated supervisor. Under the new policy, the first absence and both late arrivals would have produced five points and an informal reminder. The second absence would have reached eight points and a coaching conversation, where the server might have explained a child care problem and been referred to the employee assistance program. The no-call no-show would then have brought the total to fourteen points and a final written warning rather than termination, with clear notice of what one more lapse would mean.

Appeals and Measures

Employees may appeal any written warning, final warning or termination to the human resources manager within seven days, with the appeal decided by a manager outside the employee's department. Four indicators will show whether the process works: the share of discipline cases that are consistent with the written rules on audit, the number of appeals and their outcomes, attendance-related absences per month and the employee survey item on fairness, which was low in housekeeping and banquets. Results will be reviewed after the first year.

Conclusion

Research shows that discipline perceived as unjust can damage performance and goodwill, and that managers overestimate how fair their discipline appears. The resort's new process answers with written principles, a points-based attendance policy that excludes protected leave, four defined steps, clear rules for serious misconduct, careful documentation, bilingual delivery, HR review, bias audits and an appeal path. The final module will address conflict resolution and employee support.

References

Atwater, L. E., Waldman, D. A., Carey, J. A., & Cartier, P. (2001). Recipient and observer reactions to discipline: Are managers experiencing wishful thinking? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22(3), 249-270. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.67

Ball, G. A., Treviño, L. K., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 299-322. https://doi.org/10.2307/256831

Family and Medical Leave Act Regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 825.220 (2025).