Organizational Punishment from the Manager's Perspective: An Exploratory Study

Despite conventional wisdom that suggests that punishment should be avoided, punishment remains an important aspect of virtually all managers' jobs. Managers view punishment in many ways, ranging from an unpleasant but necessary part of the managerial role to an opportunity for instrumental outcomes (Buttertield et al., 1996). Organizational punishment has traditionally been studied in terms of correcting or modifying a subordinate's undesirable behavior (e.g., Baron, 1988). This "subordinate-centered" view is epitomized by the behaviorist definition of punishment: "punishment is the presentation of an aversive event or the removal of a positive event following a response which decreases the frequency of that response" (Kazdin, 1975: 33-34; Arvey and Ivancevich, 1980). More recently, researchers have begun to expand the focus beyond the manager-subordinate dyad (e.g., Arvey and Jones, 1985; Atwater et al., 2001; Liden et al., 1999; Niehoff et al., 1998; O'Reilly and Puffer, 1989; Schnake, 1986; Trevino, 1992). This work is built upon the notion that punishment is a social experience that involves not only managers and subordinates, but observers as well. For instance, Trevino (1992) theorized that observers are interested in punishment events because these events convey important information about standards of behavior, outcomes of misconduct, and workplace justice. Another stream of research has focused on the manager who delivers the punishment (e.g., Butterfield et al., 1996; Guffey and Helms, 2001; Hook et al., 1996; Rollinson, 2000). Empirical "manager-centered" punishment research has examined managers' attributions regarding poor-performing subordinates (Mitchell el al., 1981), managers' cognitive processes when punishing subordinates (Fairhurst et al., 1985), and factors that affect managers' disciplinary styles and use of punishment (Bellizzi and Hasty, 2002; Fandt et al., 1990; Fairhurst et al., 1985; Hook et al., 1996; Podsakoff, 1982; Rollinson, 2000; Rosen and Jerdee, 1974; Vest et al., 2003). Carlsmith, Darley, and Robinson's (2002) work on the lay psychology of punishment suggests that managers value both deterrence and 'just desserts" (i.e., people deserve punishment proportionate to the moral wrong committed) as motives for punishing others, but their actual punishment decisions tend to be driven by just desserts concerns. The present study continues in this manager-centered stream by examining how managers think about the fairness of the punishment they administer. We are also interested in the characteristics of a punishment event that are associated with those fairness perceptions (i.e., factors that affect a manager's perception that he or she has punished fairly). This topic is important for several reasons. For example, managers' perceptions of the fairness of the punishment that they deliver has implications for their own identity and reputation. Research has suggested that managers have a great deal to gain or lose in terms of their identity as fair managers and their reputation for fairness (Ball et al., 1994; Butterfield et al., 1996; Trevino, 1992). This is consistent with an impression management perspective on organizational justice, which assumes that fairness is a desired social identity and that managers strive to be, or at least to appear to be, fair (Greenberg, 1990a). A second reason pertains to the subordinate's response to unfair punishment. Research has demonstrated that unfair, arbitrary, or inconsistent punishment may trigger negative subordinate emotions, attitudes, and behaviors such as output restriction, trying to make the punisher look bad, and even sabotage (e.g., Arvey and Ivancevich, 1980; Ball and Sims, 1991; Parke, 1972). Managers therefore have a strong incentive to assess whether they have punished fairly, and to take appropriate steps depending on their assessment (e.g., discuss fairness issues with the subordinate and, if necessary, take corrective action). …