Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Managers’ Restorative Versus Punitive Responses to Employee Wrongdoing: A Qualitative Investigation

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

A growing body of literature has examined managers’ use of restorative practices in the workplace. However, little is currently known about why managers use restorative practices as opposed to alternative (e.g., punishment) responses. We employed a qualitative interview technique to develop an inductive model of managers’ restorative versus punitive response in the context of employee wrongdoing. The findings reveal a set of key motivating and moderating influences on the manager’s decision to respond to wrongdoing in a restorative versus punitive manner. The findings also suggest that managers’ personal needs and perceived duties in the aftermath of employee wrongdoing are generally more consistent with restorative responses than punishment responses, which helps explain managers’ use of restorative workplace practices.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Managers were asked to discuss two separate incidents in random order—one involving a punishment response and one involving a restorative response. A restorative response was described as “emphasizing repairing harm and restoring victims and third parties after being harmed by an offender, while also helping the offender by doing things like trying to reintegrate them back into the workplace.”

References

  • Aquino, K., Lewis, M. U., & Bradfield, M. (1999). Justice constructs, negative affectivity, and employee deviance: A proposed model and empirical. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(7), 1073.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ball, G. A., Treviño, L. K., & Sims, H. P., (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. The Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 299–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berg, B. L., & Lune, H. (2011). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences (8): London: Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J. (2013). The delivery of bad news in organizations: A framework for analysis. Journal of Management, 39(1), 136–162.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., Barclay, L. J., Tripp, T. M., & Aquino, K. (2016). A systems perspective on forgiveness in organizations. Academy of Management Annals, 10, 245–318.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., Tripp, T., & Kramer, R. (1997). At the breaking point: Cognitive & social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In J. Greenberg & R. Giacalone (Eds.), Antisocial behavior in organizations Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications pp. 18–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bies, R. J., & Tripp, T. M. (1996). Beyond distrust. In R. Kramer & T. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birks, M., Chapman, Y., & Francis, K. (2008). Memoing in qualitative research: Probing data and processes. Journal of Research in Nursing, 13(1), 68–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bottom, W. P., Gibson, K., Daniels, S. E., & Murnighan, J. K. (2002). When talk is not cheap: Substantive penance and expressions of intent in rebuilding cooperation. Organization Science, 13(5), 497–513.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowen, G. A. (2008). Naturalistic inquiry and the saturation concept: A research note. Qualitative Research, 8(1), 137–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradfield, M., & Aquino, K. (1999). The effects of blame attributions and offender likableness on forgiveness and revenge in the workplace. Journal of Management, 25(5), 607–631.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: Assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice, 25, 1–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, J., & Makkai, T. (1993). Can resident-centered inspection of nursing homes work with very sick residents? Health Policy, 24, 19–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Punishment from the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39(6), 1479–1512.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., Wade, K. J., & Ball, G. A. (2005). Organizational punishment from the manager’s perspective: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues: 17, 363–382.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlsmith, K. M., & Darley, J. M. (2008). Psychological aspects of retributive justice. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 193–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiansen, N. D., Rozek, R. F., & Burns, G. (2015). Effects of social desirability scores on hiring judgments. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 9, 267–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen-Charash, Y., & Mueller, J. S. (2007). Does perceived unfairness exacerbate or mitigate interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors related to envy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(3), 666–680.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cole, N. (2007). Consistency in employee discipline: An empirical exploration. Personnel Review, 37(1), 109–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: a meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 425.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowley, M. (2012). Control and dignity in professional, manual and service-sector employment. Organization Studies, 33(10), 1383–1406.

    Google Scholar 

  • Daly, K., & Immarigeon, R. (1998). The past, present, and future of restorative justice: Some critical reflections. Contemporary Justice Review, 1, 21–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dillon, R. S. (2001). Self-forgiveness and self-respect. Ethics, 112(1), 53–83.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dirks, K. T., Lewicki, R. J., & Zaheer, A. (2009). Reparing relationships within and between organizations: Building a conceptual foundation. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 68–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edmondson, A. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fehr, R., & Gelfand, M. (2012). The forgiving organization: A multilevel model of forgiveness at work. Academy of Management Review, 37(4), 554–688.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Miles, D. (2001). Counterproductive work behavior (CWB) in response to job stressors and organizational justice: Some mediator and moderator tests for autonomy and emotions. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, A. L., & Pagan, J. F. (2006). Organization culture as an explanation for employee discipline practices. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 26(1), 52–73.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, N., & Dietz, G. (2009). Trust repair after an organization-level failure. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 127–145.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gioia, D. A. (2003). Teaching Teachers to Teach Corporate Governance Differently. Journal of Management and Governance, 7(3), 255–262.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago, IL: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., & Aquino, K. (2010). And restorative justice for all: Redemption, forgiveness, and reintegration in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31(4), 624–628.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., Aquino, K., & Skarlicki, D. (2011). Opening a new conversation in organizational justice: A conceptual model of offender reintegration in organizations. Emerging perspectives in organizational justice and ethics. Research in Social Issues Management Book Series Charlotte: Information Age Publishing 75–104.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2010). Extending the horizon of business ethics: Restorative justice and the aftermath of unethical behavior. Business Ethics Quarterly, 20(03), 453–480.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2015). Restorative justice. In R. Cropanzano & M. Ambrose (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Justice in Work Organizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., Butterfield, K. D., Pfarrer, M. D., & Wicks, A. C. (2014). Individual and organizational reintegration after ethical or legal transgressions: Challenges and opportunities. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 315–342.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodstein, J., Butterfield, K. D., & Neale, N. R. (2015). Repairing interpersonal harm in the workplace: An exploratory study. Journal of Business Ethics, 138(1), 17–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M. (2012). Restoring the victim: Emotional reactions, justice beliefs, and support for reparation and punishment. Critical Criminology, 20(1), 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Darley, J. M. (2006). Restoration and retribution: How including retributive components affects the acceptability of restorative justice procedures. Social Justice Research, 19(4), 395–432.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gromet, D. M., & Okimoto, T. G. (2014). Back into the fold: The influence of offender amends and victim forgiveness on peer reintegration. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 411–441.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruys, M. L., & Sackett, P. R. (2003). Investigating the dimensionality of counterproductive work behavior. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 11(1), 30–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ho, V. T. (2012). Interpersonal counterproductive work behaviors: Distinguishing between person-focused versus task-focused behaviors and their antecedents. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(4), 467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., & Saundry, R. (2012). The practice of discipline: evaluating the roles and relationship between managers and HR professionals. Human Resource Management Journal, 22(3), 252–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karp, D., & Conrad, S. (2005). Restorative justice and college student misconduct. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5(4), 315–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kidder, D. L. (2007). Restorative justice: not “rights”, but the right way to heal relationships at work. International Journal of Conflict Management, 18(1), 4–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Light, R. J. (1971). Measures of response agreement for qualitative data: Some generalizations and alternatives. Psychological Bulletin, 76(5), 365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J., Feldman, M. S., Hatch, M. J., & Sitkin, S. B. (1983). The uniqueness paradox in organizational stories. Administrative Science Quarterly: 18, 438–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human Motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNemar, Q. (1947). Note on the sampling error of the difference between correlated proportions or percentages. Psychometrika, 12(2), 153–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, S. (2001). Analyzing service failures and recoveries: A process approach. International Journal of Service Industry Management, 12(1), 20–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morse, J. M., Barrett, M., Mayan, M., Olson, K., & Spiers, J. (2002). Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 1(2), 13–22.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., & Wenzel, M. (2014). Bridging diverging perspectives and repairing damaged relationships in the aftermath of workplace transgressions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 24(3), 443–473.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okimoto, T. G., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. (2009). Beyond retribution: Conceptualizing restorative justice and exploring its determinants. Social Justice Research, 22(1), 156–180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C. M., Andersson, L. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). “Workplace incivility”. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive work behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 177–200). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pearson, C. M., & Porath, C. L. (2005). On the nature, consequences and remedies of workplace incivility: No time for “Nice”? Think again. The Academy of Management Executive (1993–2005), 19(1): 7–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfarrer, M. D., Decelles, K. A., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2008). After the fall: Reintegrating the corrupt organization. Academy of Management Review, 33(3), 730–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinate attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99(2), 113–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi, I., Kistruck, G. M., & Bhatt, B. (2016). The enabling and constraining effects of social ties in the process of institutional entrepreneurship. Organization Studies, 37(3), 425–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reb, J., Goldman, B. M., Kray, L. J., & Cropanzano, R. (2006). Different wrongs, different remedies? Reactions to organizational remedies after procedural and interactional injustice. Personnel Psychology, 59(1), 31–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ren, H., & Gray, B. (2009). Repairing relationship conflict: How violation types and culture influence the effectiveness of restoration rituals. Academy of Management Review, 34(1), 105–126.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robinson, S. L., & Bennett, R. J. (1995). A typology of deviant workplace behaviors: A multidimensional scaling study. The Academy of Management Journal, 38(2), 555–572.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, D. (2003). AAccountability in restorative justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roche, D. (2006). Dimensions of restorative justice. Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 217–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanner, B., & Bunderson, J. S. (2015). When feeling safe isn’t enough: Contextualizing models of safety and learning in teams. Organizational Psychology Review, 9(3), 224–243.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schiff, M. (2007). Satisfying the needs and interests of stakeholders, Handbook of Restorative Justice 55, 228–246.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shnabel, N., & Nadler, A. (2008). A needs-based model of reconciliation: Satisfying the differential emotional needs of victim and perpetrator as a key to promoting reconciliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94(1), 116.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F., & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members: The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35(8), 1021–1030.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sitkin, S. B., & Bies, R. J. (1993). Social accounts in conflict situations: Using explanations to manage conflict. Human Relations, 46(3), 349–370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skarlicki, D. P., & Folger, R. (1997). Retaliation in the workplace: The roles of distributive, procedural, and interactional justice. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(3), 434.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soliman, F., & Spooner, K. (2000). Strategies for implementing knowledge management: Role of human resources management. Journal of Knowledge Management, 4(4), 337–345.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spector, P. E., & Fox, S. (2005). A model of counterproductive work behavior. In S. Fox & P. E. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive workplace behavior: Investigations of actors and targets (pp. 151–174). Washington, DC: APA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Procedures and techniques for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tata, J. (2002). The influence of accounts on perceived social loafing in work teams. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13(3), 292–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice perspective. The Academy of Management Review, 17(4), 647–676.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treviño, L. K., & Weaver, G. R. (2010). Advances in research on punishment in organizations: Descriptive and normative perspectives. In M. Schminke (Ed.), Managerial ethics: Managing the psychology of morality. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Ness, D. (2002). The shape of things to come: a framework for thinking about a restorative justice system. In Restorative justice: Theoretical foundations: 1.

  • Wachtel, T., & McCold, P. (2000). Restorative justice in everyday life, restorative justice in civil society: 117–125. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, M. U. (2006). Moral repair: Reconstructing moral relations after wrongdoing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walkowski, V. S. (2008). An overview of the attorney-client privilege when the client is a corporation. In V. S. Walkowski (Ed.), The attorney-client privilege in civil litigation: Protecting and defending confidentiality (pp. 1–56). Chicago: American Bar Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, L., & Murnighan, J. K. (2017). The dynamics of punishment and trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 102(10), 1385–1402.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, D. E., & Smith-Crowe, K. (2008). Deciding what’s right: The role of external sanctions and embarrassment in shaping moral judgments in the workplace. Research in Organizational Behavior, 28, 81–105.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., & Cameron, K. (2012). Do retributive and restorative justice processes address different symbolic concerns? Critical Criminology, 20(1), 25–44.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapf, D., & Einarsen, S. (2005). Mobbing at work: Escalated conflicts in organizations. In S. Fox & P. Spector (Eds.), Counterproductive Work Behavior: Investigations of Actors and Targets (pp. 237–270). Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zapf, D., & Gross, C. (2001). Conflict escalation and coping with workplace bullying: A replication and extension. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 10(4), 497–522.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses: A new focus for criminal justice. Scottsdale: Herald Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Marilyn Davies College of Business, University of Houston-Downtown, 1 Main Street, Houston, TX, 77002, USA

    Nathan Robert Neale

  2. Carson College of Business, Washington State University, Todd Hall, Pullman, WA, 99164, USA

    Kenneth D. Butterfield

  3. Carson College of Business, Washington State University Vancouver, 14204 NE Salmon Creek Ave, Vancouver, WA, 98686, USA

    Jerry Goodstein & Thomas M. Tripp

Authors
  1. Nathan Robert Neale
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kenneth D. Butterfield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jerry Goodstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Thomas M. Tripp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nathan Robert Neale.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Appendix

Appendix

Interview Protocol

Think back on the situation within the last year where one of your employees harmed or transgressed a colleague or another employee within the organization and you responded with punishment. Punishment is defined as “application of a negative consequence or withdrawal of a positive consequence” from an employee under your supervision. Do you feel comfortable with this definition and understand what I mean by punishment?Footnote 1

  1. 1.

    Background of the incident:

    1. A.

      What was the nature of the transgression? ______________________

    2. B.

      How long ago did this happen? ____________________________

    3. C.

      How long had you known the people involved? ________

    4. D.

      How long have you supervised or managed each of those involved? ________

  1. 2.

    Manager’s needs: Thinking about the same incident, let’s talk about what your needs were. If the following questions are not answered, ask-

    • What were your needs immediately following the transgression?

    • What were your needs as you responded to the transgression?

    • How did your needs change or evolve as this process unfolded?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Neale, N.R., Butterfield, K.D., Goodstein, J. et al. Managers’ Restorative Versus Punitive Responses to Employee Wrongdoing: A Qualitative Investigation. J Bus Ethics 161, 603–625 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3935-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3935-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation