This study seeks to explore the incidence and severity of inconsistency in the application of disciplinary measures between supervisors, given the same disciplinary incident. Consistency is an important aspect of procedural fairness in disciplinary action, but it has received little empirical attention.
Four employee discipline scenarios were assigned at random to 130 real‐life supervisor‐employee dyads, who role‐played the scenario.
There was little consistency between supervisors in their decisions regarding disciplinary measures. Overall, having an informal discussion with the employee was the most common response. Only when specific instructions to impose a verbal or written warning were provided did most supervisors move beyond an informal discussion. Even when clear instructions were given, a substantial minority applied a less severe disciplinary outcome.
Even in this role‐play situation, where “real life” variables such as union grievances that could lead to the dilution of disciplinary action were not present, supervisors were generally lenient regarding employee discipline.
The trade‐off between the objectives of consistency and consideration of individual circumstances presents a serious challenge to practising supervisors.
This is a rare empirical paper exploring the issue of consistency in employee discipline.
