ADVENTURES IN PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY: CORRECTIVE ACTION AS A PERFORMANCE TECHNOLOGY INTERVENTION

Dialogue: Discovering the Backstory

Susan Carter (gesturing for Maria to sit): “Maria, I just had a meeting with James. He’s asking us to create a course on corrective action and employee discipline. At first, I thought it was just about clarifying policies, but something bigger seems to be going on. Do you know anything about this? Is there some hidden back story I should know about?”

Maria Lopez (nodding, folding her arms): “I do, and it’s a mess. Let me show you something—it’ll explain everything better than I can.”

Susan (raising an eyebrow): “A mess? What kind of mess? Where are we going?”

Maria (standing): “The fourth floor of headquarters. You’ll understand when we get there. Trust me.”

The Meeting with the Supervisor

Maria led Susan through the maze of hallways to a small, glass-walled office on the fourth floor. Inside sat a supervisor, a stern-looking but very attractive woman in her early 20s with a tense posture. Her nameplate read Linda Grayson, Operations Supervisor.

Maria Lopez (knocking lightly on the door): “Linda, this is Susan Carter, VP of Training. Susan, Linda has a story you need to hear. It’s why we’re being asked to create this course.”

Linda Grayson (looking up, her expression weary): “Another person I have to explain this to? Fine. Come in, I guess. I feel like a crime victim telling the same story to an endless parade of police.”

Susan Carter (taking a seat): “I appreciate your time, Linda. I understand there’s a situation that’s raised concerns about discipline procedures. Can you walk me through what happened?”

Linda (sighing, leaning back in her chair): “Yesterday, I came back from lunch to find two of my employees—Jessica Harper and Monique Taylor—literally fighting in the breakroom. Hair pulling, punching, the whole nine yards. One white, one black. I was shocked. I followed the employee and supervisory handbooks to the letter: they indicate that the bank has zero tolerance for physical violence and that fights will lead to immediate termination. I terminated both of them on the spot and called security to escort them out. I told them their belongings would be mailed to them later.”

Susan (nodding slowly): “Sounds like you acted according to policy. So, what’s the issue?”

Linda (leaning forward, her tone sharp): “The issue? The next morning, James Bennett himself called me and ordered me to bring them back! Apologize, he said. Invite them back to work. Pay them for the time they missed. Can you imagine? After I followed the rules exactly as written—you might call it black letter law–I had to call those two and grovel!”

Maria Lopez (adding quietly): “It wasn’t just James. The CEO was behind this decision.”

Susan (startled): “The CEO? Why would he get involved in something minor like this?”

Linda (bitterly): “He’s worried about optics. Two women–one white, one black–in a physical altercation at work? If the firings hit the local news, it could be spun as a racial issue—‘Bank Employees in Racial Brawl.’ He wanted the situation smoothed over to protect the bank’s public image.”

Susan (frowning): “So, instead of supporting you for enforcing policy, the CEO and SVP of HR undermined you to avoid bad press?”

Linda (nodding, her voice rising): “Exactly! How am I supposed to maintain authority with my team when they know the company won’t back me up? What was the point of following the handbooks if those handbooks are useless when higher-ups get nervous?”

Reflection and Implications

After hearing Linda’s story, Susan and Maria stepped into the hallway.

Susan Carter (rubbing her temples): “Now I get it. This isn’t just about teaching supervisors how to enforce the policy. It’s about navigating the gray areas—when following the rules creates new risks, and when decisions need to align with broader organizational concerns.”

Maria Lopez (nodding): “Exactly. And it’s about trust. Supervisors like Linda feel abandoned. The training needs to address not just the ‘how’ of discipline, but the ‘why’—why flexibility might be necessary, why communication between supervisors and leadership is critical, and why emotional intelligence matters in these situations.”

Susan Carter (determined): “All right. We’ll build a course that doesn’t just parrot the handbook but teaches supervisors how to manage these complexities. Role-playing scenarios, case studies like Linda’s, and discussions on balancing policy with discretion. We’ll make sure this never happens again.”

Maria Lopez (smiling): “Good. Because if we don’t, Linda won’t be the last supervisor to feel betrayed. And that’s a recipe for disaster.”

So far in this case, the meeting with Linda Grayson illuminated the challenges of balancing policy enforcement with organizational optics. While the company’s disciplinary policies were clear, their rigid application created unintended consequences. The SVP’s directive to bring the terminated employees back reflected a broader concern for the company’s public image, but it also exposed a gap in trust between the bank’s senior leaders and front-line supervisors. Susan Carter’s task at this point was to create a training program that not only teaches the mechanics of corrective action but also addresses the nuanced realities of applying policy in complex organizations.

Dialogue: The Problem of “Shopping for Answers”

Susan Carter (leaning forward, trying to keep her tone neutral): “Linda, thank you for meeting with me again. I appreciate your honesty about how you feel unsupported, a view you expressed in our last meeting. But I have to ask—when you’re faced with a situation like this, who do you usually go to for guidance? Your boss in Operations? HR? Legal?”

Linda Grayson (crossing her arms, her expression frustrated): “That’s the thing, Susan. I can shop around if I want to. Depending on who I ask, I’ll get a completely different answer. It’s like there’s no single rulebook for this kind of thing.”

Susan (raising an eyebrow): “Shop around? What do you mean by that?”

Linda (nodding): “I mean I can go to the HR department, my own boss—the Chief of Operations—or the Legal Department. They’ll all give me different advice. HR will say, ‘Stick to the handbooks.’ My boss will tell me, ‘Just handle it quietly and don’t make waves.’ And Legal? They’ll ask a hundred questions, and their answer is always, ‘It depends—but make sure there is a paper trail for everything you do.’ To make matters worse, it is not always clear who I should talk to in HR or in Legal.”

Susan (frowning): “That sounds … chaotic. Doesn’t that leave you second-guessing every decision you make?”

Linda (laughing bitterly): “Exactly. I feel like I’m walking a tightrope without a net. If I pick the wrong advice or ask the wrong person and something blows up, it’s on me. But no one is willing to give clear, consistent guidance. Instead, they cover their own rear ends and leave me to deal with the fallout.”

Susan (scribbling notes): “Has this ever caused issues beyond this incident?”

Linda (nodding emphatically): “All the time. I’ve had cases where I followed HR’s advice, but my boss got upset because it created ‘too much paperwork.’ Then there was a time when Legal told me to tread lightly on a performance issue because they thought it might lead to a discrimination claim. But HR told me I needed to be firmer, or it would send the wrong message to the team. Who am I supposed to listen to?”

Susan (sighing): “That sounds exhausting—and unfair to you. No wonder you feel unsupported. It’s like the company is speaking in at least three different voices, and you’re the one left trying to make sense of it. It’s about as clear as reading tea leaves.”

Linda (shrugging): “That’s exactly it. I don’t think anyone realizes how much it undermines supervisors like me. And now, with this fight situation, I’m done trying to guess what the right move is. I just want consistency. I told the SVP of HR that, since there was no consistency in the application of corrective action, the next time I saw employees carrying bags of the bank’s money out the door, I would just hold the door for them!”

Reflection and Escalation

After leaving Linda’s office, Susan returned to her own, her mind racing with ideas for how to address the problem. She quickly dialed Maria Lopez, her Director of Training.

Susan Carter (speaking quickly): “Maria, we’ve got a bigger problem than I thought. It’s not just about training supervisors on the disciplinary process. The company is giving mixed messages at every level. Linda told me she can go to HR, her boss, or Legal, and she’ll get three completely different answers. No wonder supervisors are struggling.”

Maria Lopez (on the other end, her tone concerned): “That’s a huge issue. As a supervisor, I have had to deal with it for years. If there’s no unified management voice, training alone won’t fix it. What are you thinking?”

Susan (determined): “We need to address this at the leadership level before we roll out any training. I’m going to talk to James Bennett and push for some data gathering. Supervisors like Linda need clarity.”

Building the Foundation for Effective Training: Analyzing Real-World Challenges

As part of the initiative to develop a training program on corrective action and employee discipline, Susan Carter took a proactive approach. Recognizing the complexity of the issues supervisors faced and the importance of tailoring the course to their realities, she decided to involve the bank’s leaders directly in shaping the content.

Susan sent an email to all executives, managers, and supervisors across the company. In her message, she explained the purpose of the training she was developing and invited them to contribute their experiences by sharing the toughest “people problem” they had each encountered in their roles. The email outlined specific details she wanted them to provide:

1. What happened when you face the most difficult people problem in this organization?

2. What were the job titles of the individuals involved?

3. When and where did the incident occur (department, branch, or facility? Nation?)?

4. What actions did you take?

5. What were the outcomes of those actions?

6. How would you handle the same situation if it ever occurred again? Would you do the same as what you did, or would you take different action? Explain why you would answer as you do.

Susan was shocked at the overwhelming response. Approximately 90 percent of executives, managers, and supervisors took the time to respond, sharing detailed accounts of their most difficult corrective action experiences. The high response rate demonstrated not only a significant interest in the topic but also a recognition of its importance in addressing workplace challenges and improving consistent leadership practices.

Analyzing the Data

Susan and her team of trainers analyzed the submissions, categorizing the problems into 35 distinct types of “people problems.” These ranged from relatively straightforward issues, such as tardiness or attendance, to more complex and sensitive cases, including theft without clear evidence, sexual harassment, and various forms of discrimination.

Table 1 lists the 35 problem categories that emerged from the email responses.

TABLE 1 Results of Company Research on the Most Common Behavioral and Job Performance Problems Faced by Supervisors, Middle Managers, and Executives

View Fullscreen

Each case provided not just an example of the problem but also insights into how it was handled, the effectiveness of the chosen approach, and reflections on what could have been done differently.

Key Findings

The analysis revealed several key trends and challenges:

1. Inconsistent approaches – Similar problems were handled differently across departments, reflecting a lack of standardization in how managers applied policies.

2. Unintended consequences – In some cases, well-intentioned actions by managers exacerbated the problem, such as suspensions leading to increased resentment or intensified conflict.

3. Emotional toll – Many managers expressed the emotional difficulty of dealing with people problems, especially those involving termination, sensitive issues like theft, alcohol abuse, or drug abuse in the workplace.

4. Gaps in training – Supervisors often lacked the soft skills or emotional intelligence needed to navigate delicate conversations, such as addressing poor performance or handling interpersonal disputes.

5. Fear of escalation – Managers frequently hesitated to act decisively, worrying about legal implications, backlash from employees, or lack of support from senior leadership.

Implications for the Training Program

Based on the analysis, Susan’s team identified critical areas of focus for the training program:

1. Standardized processes – Reinforcing a consistent, step-by-step approach to corrective action across all departments.

2. Communication skills – Teaching managers how to handle tough conversations with empathy, clarity, and confidence.

3. Scenario-based learning – Incorporating real-life examples shared by participants into role-playing activities, allowing managers to practice responses to various challenges.

4. Balancing policy and discretion – Helping managers navigate gray areas where strict adherence to policy might not be the best approach.

5. Emotional resilience – Providing strategies for managing the stress and emotional impact of addressing people problems.

6. Collaborative problem-solving – Encouraging managers to seek guidance while ensuring that advice was consistent across HR, Legal, and Operations.

The overwhelming response to Susan’s email underscored the importance of addressing people problems comprehensively and consistently. By collecting and analyzing real-world examples, the training team was able to design a training course that directly addressed the challenges faced by supervisors, managers, and executives. This data-driven, collaborative approach ensured that the training was both practical and impactful. Ultimately, the initiative aimed not only to improve corrective action processes but also to strengthen trust, consistency, and accountability across the organization.

The Spreadsheet of “People Problems”

Susan compiled the 35 categories of employee problems on a spreadsheet, including real-life examples and summaries of how supervisors had handled similar situations in the past. The spreadsheet was sent to three key leaders in the organization:

• The Company’s Chief Legal Counsel, Rebecca Martin, responsible for ensuring that all actions complied with employment law and protected the organization from liability.

• The Chief of Operations, Michael Grant, whose focus was on operational efficiency, employee productivity, and maintaining harmony across teams.

• The SVP of HR, James Bennett, who oversees all employee-related policies and processes, with a strong emphasis on fairness, trust, and employee well-being.

In her email to the three leaders in which she sent the spreadsheet to each leader, Susan asked for their input: “What would you advise supervisors, managers, and executives to do when faced with each of these 35 problems? Your insights will help create a consistent framework for handling employee discipline.”

Divergent Responses

The three leaders responded within 2 weeks, each providing detailed recommendations for the 35 problem categories. (Each leaders also involved their direct reports in arriving at answers to each of the 35 problem situations.) When Susan reviewed their input, she was surprised to find no agreement at all among the three on how to handle any of the 35 issues. Their perspectives were shaped by their individual roles and priorities:

1. Rebecca Martin (Legal Counsel) – Her responses emphasized risk mitigation, compliance with employment laws, and avoiding potential lawsuits. Her advice often involved documenting extensively, conducting thorough investigations, and exercising extreme caution in taking disciplinary actions.

2. Michael Grant (Chief of Operations) – His focus was on minimizing disruption to business operations and maintaining team productivity. He recommended swift, decisive action to resolve issues and avoid prolonged distractions, often suggesting measures that prioritized efficiency over process. His first solution was to recommend terminating employees immediately with problematic behaviors or job performance.

3. James Bennett (SVP of HR) – James advocated for a balanced approach that considered fairness, employee morale, and the company’s cultural values. His responses often leaned toward coaching and progressive discipline, even in extreme cases where others recommended immediate termination.

For example, in the case of unsubstantiated theft, Rebecca advised managers to avoid any action without clear evidence to prevent legal claims, Michael recommended transferring the suspected employee temporarily to limit risk while investigating further, and James suggested using the situation as an opportunity for training on ethics and workplace trust.

The Path Forward

The upcoming meeting between Rebecca, Michael, and James served as a pivotal step in resolving the inconsistencies in leadership guidance. The goals for the meeting included:

1. Identifying Common Ground – Reviewing each of the 35 categories to find areas where alignment already existed.

2. Balancing Perspectives – Discussing where priorities diverged and finding compromises that balanced legal compliance, operational efficiency, and employee well-being.

3. Establishing a Unified Framework – Creating a single, consistent set of recommendations that executives, managers, and supervisors could rely on when handling employee behavior and performance issues.

4. Communicating the Framework – Developing a plan to communicate the agreed-upon approach to supervisors through the new training program, ensuring clarity and consistency moving forward.

The lack of agreement among the company’s senior leaders underscored a critical issue: without unified guidance, supervisors were left to interpret policies on their own, leading to inconsistency, confusion, and frustration. Worse, supervisors were clueless how their actions would be supported by the business. Susan Carter’s initiative to bring these discrepancies to light was a vital first step in creating a coherent framework for handling employee discipline. By addressing the gaps at the leadership level, First Horizons Bank would not only improve the effectiveness of its training program but also build a stronger foundation of trust and accountability across the organization. This process highlighted the importance of collaboration, communication, and alignment in navigating the complexities of people management in a large organization.

Building Consensus

The pivotal moment came when the Training Director, Susan Carter, facilitated a meeting with the company’s Legal Counsel, Rebecca Martin; the Chief of Operations, Michael Grant; and the SVP of HR, James Bennett. Their task was to review the 35 categories of employee problems identified from supervisor feedback and align their recommendations into a single, consistent framework.

Through open dialogue, debate, and compromise, the three leaders worked closely with Susan to resolve their widely differing perspectives. Legal concerns, operational priorities, and HR’s emphasis on fairness were carefully balanced to ensure that the final framework was both practical and legally defensible. This collaborative effort resulted in a unified set of guidelines that provided clear, actionable steps for handling each of the 35 employee behavior and performance problems.

Developing the Training Program

With the framework established, Susan Carter and her team designed a training program tailored to the real challenges faced by the company’s supervisors. The program included:

1. Policy Clarification – Detailed explanations of the company’s disciplinary policies, including the agreed-upon actions for each of the 35 problem categories.

2. Scenario-Based Learning – Interactive role-playing exercises that allowed supervisors to practice handling issues such as attendance problems, theft allegations, sexual harassment, workplace bullying, drug and alcohol abuse, and interpersonal conflicts.

3. Communication Skills – Training on how to conduct difficult conversations with employees, emphasizing empathy, clarity, and professionalism.

4. Ethical Decision-Making – Guidance on how to navigate gray areas and align decisions with the company’s values. Executives, managers, and supervisors looked to the Training Division as a central clearinghouse to deal with performance improvement issues. The Training Division morphed into a Human Performance Technology Division.

At first, attendance at the training program was mandatory for supervisors. However, the overwhelmingly positive feedback from participants caught the attention of the CEO, who recognized the program’s potential to strengthen leadership at every level.

Expanding the Program to Executives and Managers

The CEO ordered that the training program be expanded to include all executives, managers, and even Vice Presidents. The decision sent a clear message: no one was exempt from the need for alignment and accountability in handling employee discipline. Executives and managers embraced the training, praising its practical approach and real-world relevance. It was also a venue where managerial personnel could discuss emerging trends with workers. The CEO attended the training program and gave it rave reviews. And, to the CEO’s surprise, several members of the company’s Board of Directors—themselves CEOs from other organizations—made the requests to attend the training. Those requests were (of course) honored.

For many leaders, the program was a wake-up call. It exposed gaps in their understanding of company policies and highlighted the importance of a consistent, ethical approach to managing behavioral and job performance issues.

The Role of the Training Director as a Performance Consultant

As the program matured, Susan Carter’s role evolved beyond that of a Training Director. She became the company’s go-to performance consultant, a trusted advisor who worked with supervisors, managers, and executives to navigate complex employee issues (Rothwell et al., 2014).

When leaders faced challenging situations that fell beyond their training, they turned to Susan for guidance, confident in her ability to provide practical, consistent advice aligned with the company’s framework. Her office became a hub of collaboration, where leaders sought solutions to problems ranging from minor infractions to major ethical dilemmas. She even offered help to Senior Vice Presidents facing problems with their own direct reports—all Vice Presidents.

The Impact on the Organization

The ripple effects of the training program were profound:

1. Improved Performance – With clear accountability measures in place, employee performance improved across the board. High performers felt validated, knowing that their efforts were recognized and that poor behavior would no longer be tolerated.

2. Stronger Leadership – Supervisors, managers, and executives became more confident and effective in addressing employee issues, fostering a culture of fairness.

3. Reduced Legal Risks – By following the framework consistently and without favoritism, the company significantly reduced its exposure to legal challenges related to employee discipline.

4. Enhanced Morale – Employees appreciated the consistency and fairness of the disciplinary process, which reinforced the organization’s commitment to its values.

5. Operational Efficiency – Resolving chronic performance issues allowed teams to function more effectively, boosting productivity and reducing workplace conflict.

Susan Carter’s leadership played a pivotal role in this transformation, proving that with the right tools, guidance, and alignment, even the most complex challenges can be turned into opportunities for growth and improvement. First Horizons Bank emerged stronger, not only as an organization but also as a community of leaders united by a shared vision of excellence and integrity.