Punishment Theory and Industrial Discipline

Wheeler, Hoyt N.

doi:10.1111/j.1468-232x.1976.tb01120.x

Cited by 55 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Such adherence can also be helpful in justifying disciplinary actions in grievance and arbitration processes. According to a study by Wheeler (1976), the vast majority of cases going through the grievance and appeal processes are related to disciplinary issues and problem employees. As Klingner (1980) pointed out, "Procedures are developed to .…”

Section: Employee Discipline In the Literature And In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Organization Culture as an Explanation for Employee Discipline Practices

Franklin

Pagan

2006

Review of Public Personnel Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Employee Discipline In the Literature And In Practicementioning

confidence: 99%

Organization Culture as an Explanation for Employee Discipline Practices

Franklin

Pagan

2006

Review of Public Personnel Administration

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bakirci 2004;Bamberger and Donahue 1999;Rodgers et al 1986). This dearth contrasts with the vast body of work examining why managers discipline (e.g., remove privileges) (Church 1963;Solomon 1964;Wheeler 1976), how managers discipline (Kulik 2004;Trevino and Weaver 1998), and how transgressors behave after being disciplined (Johnson 1985;Trice 1990). The purpose of this paper is to begin filling this void concerning reinstatement.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Toward a Theory of Reinstatement: Seven Motivations for Reinstatement as Relationship Repair

McCarter

Caza

2009

Employ Respons Rights J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a long, interdisciplinary tradition of examining why organizations remove privileges from members as a part of disciplinary action. In contrast, little is known about why organizations return privileges after disciplinary action has occurred. Nonetheless, such reinstatement is ubiquitous in organizations. This paper provides a starting point for a theory of reinstatement by using the emerging theoretical domain of relationship repair. Treating reinstatement as relationship repair highlights the importance of causal attribution, social equilibrium, relationship structure, and power as means of relationship repair. The paper uses these four bases of relationship repair to develop a series of specific motivations for why managers might reinstate privileges.

show abstract

“…Eisenberger (1970) suggested that this does occur for rewards; the reinforcement effect is diminished as the cumulative magnitude of the reinforcements increases because individuals become satiated and additional reinforcements have declining marginal utility. If aversive stimulation is administered continuously (after every behavior), it seems conceivable that individuals might become immune to the aversive effects of the sanctions; they may "adapt to it" (Church, 1963;Hamner & Organ, 1978;Wheeler, 1976). Employees might realize that their boss will become angry when they do not file their paperwork, but by knowing it will occur 1 59 after every behavior, they expect and perhaps even ignore the aversive outcomes.…”

Section: Adaftation Theorymentioning

confidence: 97%