INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 724

Effectiveness of Incentive-Based and Disciplinary Interventions In

Reducing Employee Tardiness

Dr. Joel D. Comaling

Abuyog Community College Abuyog, Leyte, Philippines

DOI: https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.140300076

Received: 11 March 2025; Accepted: 15 March 2025; Published: 25 April 2025

Abstract: Employee tardiness is a recurring work problem that impedes operations, reduces productivity, and raises costs for

companies. As a reaction, companies use incentive and disciplinary interventions to drive punctuality, but it is not known whether

these countervailing measures are effective. Some use rewards in the form of bonuses and promotion, and others use penalties in the

form of deductions from pay and warnings, but few empirical studies are comparing their relative effectiveness in the same setting.

This research attempted to do this by assessing which intervention, rewards or penalties, is most effective at preventing employee

lateness. Existing literature has shown the effect of punishment and incentives in isolation, i.e., Johnson et al. (2020), who

demonstrated that economic incentives enhanced punctuality, and Martinez and Rivera (2019), who demonstrated that severe

punishment cut down on lateness but lowered job satisfaction. But their comparative effectiveness has never been contrasted within the

same organizational setting. This research utilized qualitative research with thematic analysis of secondary data through attendance

records, HR reports, and previous research results. Findings indicate that the two interventions have little impact when used

separately; although incentives can make one punctual, it is short-lived, and harsh disciplinary action has the likelihood of leading to

resentment and disaffection. An optimal approach in terms of reward is more effective in instilling punctuality in the longer run.

Consequences of the study find implications in organizational management with the yield of evidence-based recommendations for HR

managers to create attendance policies in a better manner.

Keywords: employee tardiness, punctuality, incentives, disciplinary interventions, workplace productivity

Introduction: Punctuality is a vital determiner of the productivity of work, having an immediate impact on operational

effectiveness, collaboration, and organizational culture. Lateness by staff regarding persistent tardiness in arrivals interferes with

workflow, lessens overall productivity, and contributes to raised operation costs. As a way to curb this, organizations use diverse tools

ranging from reward-based motivation to punishment. Theoretical models like reinforcement theory (Skinner, 1953) provide insights

that behavior can be changed by positive and negative reinforcement and hence there is a need to discuss how incentives and

punishments can influence employee punctuality. While reward schemes are used by some organizations to motivate employees to arrive

on time, others issue harsh punishments to discourage chronic tardiness. But whether these mutually opposite measures are effective

or not is questionable.

Various research has been done on employee punctuality prevention. For example, Johnson et al. (2020) discovered that attendance

bonuses, or financial rewards, greatly enhanced employee punctuality in the service sector. In addition, Lee and Chen (2018)

identified that praise-based rewards, or public acknowledgment and career advancement, created a punctuality culture. On the other

hand, Martinez and Rivera's (2019) study pointed out that strict disciplinary measures, such as verbal warnings and salary deductions,

also decreased tardiness but sometimes did so at the expense of decreased job satisfaction. Although these studies present evidence of

the direct effect of incentives and disciplinary measures, none of them compare their relative effects within the same organizational

setting, and thus the literature does not have such a link.

This research aimed to fill this void by testing the relative efficacy of incentive and punishment interventions in curbing worker

lateness. While prior research has documented the effectiveness of each separately, few empirical data exist on which of the two is

more effective within a specific organizational context. Other variables like worker attitude, work climate, and business environment

are also untested in assessing the long-run efficacy of these interventions. Through this research, we want to know more about the best

way to control lateness and improve work discipline.

The overall goal of this study is to compare and assess the efficacy of incentive-based and disciplinary interventions on the reduction

of employee lateness. More particularly, the research questions are: "Which intervention—rewards or penalties—is more effective in

enhancing employee punctuality?" If a quantitative approach is applied, the hypothesis to be tested is: "Incentive- based interventions

are more effective than disciplinary measures in decreasing employee lateness in the long term."

This study has implications for researchers and practitioners. For organizations, the study will provide evidence-based information on

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 725

the most successful intervention approaches, guiding policy development to improve employee attendance and productivity. For

literature, this study will add to the existing body of knowledge on workplace behavior change by filling a research gap. In addition,

human resource practitioners can use the findings to create employee management policies that strike the best balance between

motivating employees and disciplining them. Ultimately, this research aims to help organizations build a more efficient and timely

workforce, thereby improving overall operational performance.

II.

Problem Statement:

Employee tardiness is a chronic problem that interrupts production flow, slows down productivity, and adds overhead expenses in

many industries. Though prior studies have considered the usefulness of reward- and penalty-based approaches individually, little

empirical support exists to analyze their relative influence in the same corporate setting. This research endeavors to fill the void by

determining which method—reward or penalty—is better suited to alleviating employee tardiness and maintaining on-time production.

Specifically, this study will answer the following research questions:

How do incentive-based interventions impact employees' punctuality in the long term?

What effect does disciplinary action have on eliminating chronic tardiness?

If used in the same company context, where punishment--reward--intervention is more efficient at reducing worker lateness?

III.

Literature Review

An incentive can be defined as simply an inducement or encouragement that motivates people to perform an act or behave in a

particular manner. It is either cash in terms of bonuses or lowered costs, or it is neither money nor the lack of something, like

appreciation, promotion, or inner contentment (Milgrom & Roberts, 1992). Incentives are applied everywhere in nearly every domain

of economics, business, learning, and psychology for guiding choice and behavior (Gneezy et al., 2011).

An incentive is needed when people or businesses need to be motivated to bring about desired behavior, especially where intrinsic

motivation is not enough (Gneezy et al., 2011). In economics and business, incentives are important in linking individual behaviors

with wider goals, for example, enhancing productivity, stimulating innovation, or instilling compliance with regulation (Lazear, 2000).

In education, incentives can improve student performance, particularly when presented in a way that fosters long- term motivation as

opposed to short-term rewards (Deci et al., 1999). And, in public policy, incentives are employed to promote actions that are best for

the common good, such as tax incentives for the use of renewable energy or fines for environmental infractions (Thaler & Sunstein,

2008).

Incentive providers are often organizations, governments, employers, or institutions that want to affect behavior or promote certain

behaviors. Employers in the workplace give incentives to workers to maximize performance, motivation, and job satisfaction (Lazear,

2000). Governments give incentives to individuals and companies in the form of subsidies, tax reductions, or social welfare to encourage

economic growth or socially desirable behavior (Thaler & Sunstein, 2008). Schools also utilize incentives like scholarships and

academic awards to encourage students to perform well (Deci et al., 1999).

The recipients of incentives differ based on the situation. In the workplace, workers are offered incentives in the form of

commendations, elevation, or bonuses (Gneezy et al., 2011). Companies offer customers incentives such as loyalty points or discounts

to push buying habits (Schindler, 1998). Citizens and companies are offered financial or regulatory incentives to perform desirable

behaviors, such as the use of renewable energy or less pollution, in public policy (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979).

Disciplinary interventions are systematic acts taken to correct or manage negative behaviors, commonly in the school, workplace, or

other organization. Disciplinary interventions span the spectrum of spoken words of caution and improvement action plans through

authorized punishment such as suspension or dismissals (Grote, 2006). Disciplinary interventions exist to instill norms, enforce order,

and compel persons or groups of persons to uphold sanctioned levels of conduct (Robbins & Judge, 2019).

Disciplinary actions are used to rectify misconduct, increase accountability, and enhance overall performance. In the workplace,

disciplinary actions are used to counteract absenteeism, unprofessionalism, or non-adherence to job specifications (Dessler, 2020). In

schools, disciplinary actions are used to foster an enabling learning environment by resolving behavioral problems among students

(Skiba et al., 2011). In wider social or legal contexts, disciplinary actions are used to ensure compliance with laws and regulations and

prevent unethical or harmful behavior (Tyler, 2006).

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 726

Disciplinary measures and incentives are both behavior-changing tools but by different processes. Incentives promote good behavior

by rewarding it, and disciplinary measures discourage bad behavior by punishing it (Gneezy et al., 2011). Successful institutions and

organizations take an integrated model in which incentives are used to encourage good behavior and disciplinary measures are used to

discourage bad behavior (Podsakoff et al., 2006). This combination ensures that individuals are both motivated to perform well and held

accountable for their actions.

Employee tardiness is the repeated or sporadic inability of an employee to come to work or start his or her work within the given time.

It is a type of absenteeism, and it impacts productivity, creates disorder in work timing, and can result in disciplinary action if not

countered (Henderson, 2017). Chronic lateness also affects team performance and organizational efficiency, especially when it compels

other employees to do extra work (Robbins & Judge, 2019).

Different reasons account for employee tardiness. Personal and lifestyle factors, such as motivation deficiency, time management

problems, and insufficient sleep, may cause habitual lateness (Blau, 1994). Environmental factors also influence this, such as a non-

engaging working environment, dissatisfying job, or rigid work schedule, can lead to workers becoming less likely to be punctual

(Mathis et al., 2020). Extrinsic factors such as transportation problems, traffic, and family obligations also contribute to lateness by

workers (Koslowsky et al., 1997). Organizational culture is also directly involved in this, as laissez-faire attitudes towards promptness

or non-existent policies aid a culture of habitual lateness among workers (Gellatly & Luchak, 1998).

Organizations can take a few steps towards minimizing and curing employee lateness. Clear guidance on attendance, the expression of

performance expectations, and having a consequence for habitual lateness encourage punctuality (Dessler, 2020). Employers also

apply rewards and positive reinforcement like attendance bonuses or public acknowledgment to encourage workers to improve

punctuality (Gneezy et al., 2011). Flexibility in work options such as working from home or flexible schedules enables workers to take

care of personal obligations without neglecting performance (Golden, 2012). Addressing root causes through one- on-one

conversations with chronically late workers can have the ability to identify the root issues and provide proper assistance (Robbins &

Judge, 2019). If chronic tardiness continues, organizations may need to resort to progressive discipline, including verbal warning,

written notice, and, as a final resort, dismissal (Henderson, 2017).

IV.

Materials and Methods

The study utilized a mixed-methods strategy, combining qualitative and quantitative methods in order to examine the effect of incentive-

based and punitive interventions on employee punctuality. The study utilized semi-structured interviews, document analysis, direct

observation, and statistical analysis to develop an in-depth understanding of employee behavior, motivation, and institutional policies.

The research was carried out in some institutions of higher learning, such as Abuyog Community College, and other government and

private colleges within Leyte. The larger sample population provided an opportunity to make a more reliable comparison of

punctuality interventions across varying organizational settings. Faculty members, administrative staff, human resource staff, and

department heads were purposively sampled to guarantee that participants have first-hand experience of the intervention on tardiness.

To enhance data validity, the sample size was increased until saturation of data was achieved.

Semi-structured interviews were used to collect data to enable respondents to describe freely their experience of reward and

punishment. Interviewers questioned respondents on fairness perceptions, behavior change, and compliance with policies in

institutions. Attendance registers, memos, and policy books were analyzed for cross-validation of interview results and to determine

trends in punctuality before and following interventions.

Apart from qualitative techniques, non-participant observation was also carried out to measure the employees' timekeeping behavior.

Observation was organized around arrival and departure time and aligned with attendance policy adherence. The technique allowed

actual-time punctuality patterns to be recorded without interfering with normal workplace processes.

A statistical component was incorporated in an attempt to make the research findings robust. Regression testing was applied as a

criterion for measuring intervention approaches with correlation to punctuality enhancement. Comparisons of percentages of post-

intervention and pre-intervention rates of tardiness were measurable proof of the impact. Quantitative analysis augmented the thematic

trends experienced with the qualitative data even further.

To explain external factors in punctuality, other variables like commuting problems, home work flexibility, and psychological impacts

of punishment were investigated. Data on these variables contextualized lateness beyond strict compliance with corporate rules.

For thematic analysis, qualitative data were examined with thematic coding to determine recurring themes like levels of motivation,

compliance patterns, patterns of resistance for discipline, and side effects of intervention. Quantitative data were also incorporated to

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 727

support these themes to provide a general overview of enforcement strategies for punctuality.

For the sake of validity and reliability of the study, methodological triangulation was employed through cross-validation of interview

results, documentation, observations, and statistical information. Multi-source validation ensured accuracy and appropriateness of

results within various work settings.

For practical application, the research provides brief policy guidelines and cross-case analyses to guide HR managers and

organizational leaders in formulating effective punctuality intervention programs. Through the synthesis of best practices across

institutions, the study provides actionable recommendations for improved institutional performance through optimized reward-and-

punishment mechanisms.

Results and Findings

The following comprise the themes that emerged from the responses to the interview questions given to the respondents:

General Perceptions of Punctuality

Tardiness as a Widespread and Systemic Issue

Lateness is an endemic and organizational problem in most companies, which affects overall effectiveness and professionalism. It is

not a one-off slip but a habitual issue where some workers turn up late continuously. While there are employees who can manage to turn

up no matter what time, there are those who deliberately disregard work times, cultivating the culture of neglecting or turning a blind

eye to lateness. The degree of this issue differs by occupation, with some occupations requiring strict adherence to scheduling and

others providing greater flexibility. But when lateness is a habit rather than the exception, it disrupts the work setting and erodes

organizational discipline. The reasons for tardiness are multifaceted and often complementary.

Common Causes of Tardiness

Workers most commonly cite personal obligations as a main reason, especially those juggling work and child care or household

chores. Extrinsic causes, in the form of unexpected road traffic, also have their role, so it's difficult even for willing employees to

arrive on time. Inefficiency in managing time also is at play here, with employees not planning effectively enough their mornings,

overestimating travel times, or keeping things slow till they are unnecessarily late. Moreover, those employers that institute flexible

schedules inadvertently teach employees to be late when they expect to have a generous toleration window. Side business also

distracts some employees since they are more engaged in their business activities than being prompt on their core work. On a deeper

note, lateness is normally caused by overall lack of awareness and motivation, especially in workplaces where employees are

demotivated, underappreciated, or not caring about the working aspect. Negative effects of habitual lateness reach far beyond the

individual employee and advance to various levels of productivity. One late arrival can delay the whole process, rearranging

meetings, requiring other staff to reconfigure their work and causing a disruption of teamwork.

Negative Impact on Productivity

In business and office setups where teamwork is critical, one late staff member can be in a position to delay the productivity of the entire

team. The issue is particularly pernicious in the classroom, as the teacher is a role model to the students. When teachers are late, they are

communicating that punctuality is of no concern, disparaging the very discipline in which they are responsible for disciplining students.

This is not only a threat to professional integrity but is also creating a situation where lateness is accepted as opposed to being

discouraged. Even when the disruptions are flagrant, few organizations have punctuality policies. Official attendance policies can be

presented in formal policy statements like faculty manuals or employees' handbooks, but they are inadequately communicated or

enforced inconsistently. Some employees do not know that there are formal attendance policies, and this is a serious breakdown on

the part of management in workplace discipline.

Weak Enforcement of Punctuality Policies

Without explicit rules and frequent reinforcement, punctuality is simply an expectation not reinforced, and workers believe that tardiness

will not be noticed or punished. A second source of interference is managerial reactions to being late. Managers generally do not

actively monitor worker attendance, and the interventions that are done are sporadic at best. Warnings, pay deductions, and other

corrective actions are generally given randomly, lessening their value as deterrents. Some workplaces try to deter lateness through

reward-based systems, like presenting certificates of perfect attendance.

Ineffective Management Response and Monitoring

The problem is that the rewards are not enforced and temporary. Positive reinforcement without a stern consequence does not push the

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 728

employees to keep working on their punctuality. More aggressive and formal management is needed to manage tardiness. Workers

themselves recommend to supervisors that more aggressive measures be instituted toward imposing punctuality, namely confrontation

of chronic late arrivals, more strict application of rules, and formal keeping of absence-breaking records. Punctuality can never be

made simply a matter of discretion but, instead, it must be well entrenched within expectations supported by tangible policies, regular

checking, and strong sanctions. Organizations need to make attendance policies clearly explained, consistently enforced, and

supported by systems of accountability that promote punctuality instead of accepting habitual lateness. By creating a system where

punctuality is promoted and enforced, businesses can increase productivity, professionalism, and overall efficiency.

Need for Proactive Management and Clear Policies

For controlling tardiness, there must be a more active and formal style of management. Employees themselves recommend that

supervisors are more actively involved in enforcing punctuality, such as direct interaction with chronic latecomers, stricter

enforcement of rules, and formal recording of violations against punctuality. Punctuality should never be done as a recommendation but

as a mandatory standard imposed through explicit policies, ongoing surveillance, and effective consequences. Organizations need to

ensure that attendance policies are properly communicated, consistently applied, and supported by responsibility procedures that foster

punctuality instead of allowing habitual tardiness. Through such a culture of value for punctuality and enforcement, organizations can

increase productivity, professionalism, and overall efficiency.

Section 2: Effectiveness of Incentive-Based Interventions No existing incentive-based interventions

The lack of incentive schemes in the workplace has contributed to an environment where being punctual is neither rewarded nor

cultivated. Employees work in an environment where punctuality is viewed as something to be expected and not as a desired behavior

that should elicit praise. There is no external motivation for employees to value being punctual over a sense of duty, where there is no

tangible reward for being punctual. This lack of incentives may create a culture of presumed punctuality and tolerated habitual

lateness, where instead of actively discouraging it, it is simply tolerated. In those organizations where no systematic motivational

programs have been established, the issue of tardiness is an unresolved problem.

Unclear effectiveness

Because no incentive programs exist, there also is no concrete evidence as to whether or not they would be effective in changing

employees' behavior. Companies that have never tried running attendance-based incentives have no data on which to form a judgment of

whether such programs would produce long-term gains in punctuality. Companies that do try running incentives— either as bonuses,

additional leave credits, or public acknowledgement—do have some evidence with which to judge the effect. Without any incentive-

based treatments, though, debating just how well they work necessarily must be theoretical. This unpredictability precludes justifying

management in awarding incentives before they take effect.

Personal motivation matters

Despite the debate regarding external motivators, individual discipline plays an important role in employee punctuality. Some

employees have a good work ethic and respect schedules whether they get rewarded for this or not. For such employees, being on time

is a strong value and not a learned behavior that must be conditioned. Conversely, other employees are not self- motivated and need

outside stimulation to be consistent. This contrast highlights the truth that although some are self-starters and automatically tend to

show up on time, others may need organized rewards that encourage desired behavior. In the absence of a reward system, externally

motivated workers have little reason to abandon habits of chronic lateness, and punctuality is a personal attitude, not a company

policy.

Skepticism about incentives

Even if rewards were implemented, however, there are doubts whether they would succeed in the long term. There is fear that rewards

would induce only short-term compliance but not a deeply ingrained culture of punctuality. If workers are instructed to earn an

incentive for being on time, there is a chance of losing the motivation as soon as the incentive is withdrawn. Moreover,

overdependence on incentives carries the risk of fostering resentment among workers who have been habitually on time without the

need for some extrinsic stimulus because they will feel overlooked or unfairly treated. Considering such issues, institutions doubt that

reward-based interventions would address the cause of lateness in particular or even serve as a temporary cure for more pervasive

issues related to workplace discipline and responsibility.

Section 3: Effectiveness of Disciplinary Interventions Inconsistent or Ineffective Enforcement of Disciplinary Measures

Application of penalties for lateness is generally sporadic and weak, nullifying their purposes. Although a variety of sanctions are

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 729

provided for—from verbal warning to written notices, pay deductions, suspension, etc.—their use is uneven. Some workers are

penalized for chronic lateness, whereas others go unpunished for chronic tardiness due to favoritism or prejudice. Such inconsistency

undermines the strength of disciplinary action since workers become aware that its enforcement is discretionary and often,

consequently, it may be easily evaded. Lacking solid and regular enforcement, disciplinary action turns out to be mere threat and less

effective as a deterrent, thus providing an opportunity for tardiness to become a perennial problem rather than a behavior being

instantly eliminated.

Negative Employee Reactions to Disciplinary Actions

Worse still is the workers' negative response against punitive disciplinary action, specifically those via deduction of compensation.

Where wages are low to begin with, employees stoutly resist charging for tardiness, regarding such fines as an unjustified burden and

not as an incentive to coming in. Rather than getting people in as often as possible, such practices may breed resentment, ill temper, and

discontent. Stringent discipline is certain to be viewed as unjustified, especially if it fails to show regard for the individual

circumstances of workers. In others, instead of changing their attitude, employees react to strong enforcement by becoming

demotivated, disenchanted, or even by quitting. If employees view discipline as punitive rather than corrective, the aim of promoting

punctuality is not met.

Workplace Environment as a Contributing Factor

Aside from disciplinary measures, organizational culture as a whole significantly contributes to reinforcing employee behavior, such

as being on time. Most of the staff members believe that demotivation or toxic office culture is among the top causes of lateness. If

employees do not feel valued, overloaded, or appreciated, they lose the drive to arrive at work punctually over time. In these

conditions, stringent application of punishments does not address the root issue but rather only addresses the symptoms and not the

source. When work dissatisfaction, work stress, and demotivation are left unchecked, lateness goes on unchecked even after the gravity

of discipline. Ironically, disciplining lateness alone results in disobedience, not compliance.

Effectiveness Depends on Fairness and Implementation

The success of any discipline finally lies in fair administration and good discipline. When employees believe that rules and regulations

are fair and applied similarly to all, attendance policies are more successful in commanding compliance. Leadership is also a point to

consider—when managers clarify policies honestly, sufficient support is offered, and rules are applied consistently, there is higher

chances of compliance by the employees. Attendance-based deductions from pay and other forms of punishment can serve as deterrents,

but only if workers believe that they are administered evenly and not arbitrarily by the authorities. In the absence of openness and equity,

penalties will be viewed as oppressive rather than corrective and will encourage even more workplace complaining and defiance.

Short-Term vs. Long-Term Impact of Disciplinary Actions

The immediate outcome of punishment will typically be concrete, with the workers adapting their behavior temporarily in an attempt to

escape the punishment. The long-term success of the measure, particularly among demoralized personnel, is dubious, however. Fear-

based compliance can be successful in the short term, but without active engagement and change in working conditions, the possibility

of successful, sustainable adaptation of behavior does not exist. To increase punctuality meaningfully, organizations must get beyond

punitive approaches and develop a positive organizational culture where employees are valued, motivated, and engaged. Equitable

enforcement, transparent policies, and involvement of leaders are needed to ensure attendance policies are abided by not out of fear,

but out of employees' commitment to timeliness.

Section 4: Comparative Analysis of Interventions Balanced Approach as the Most Effective Strategy

The best practice in managing tardiness is a balance of reward and penalty systems and not the single application of one intervention.

Rewards are motivating factors, and by rewarding punctuality, good habits are promoted through praise and encouragement.

Employees, realizing that their efforts are valued, will be motivated to acquire a time-arrival habit. Conversely, punishments hold

people responsible by clearly defining the penalties of chronic lateness so that employees honor punctuality. Either system

overutilized can be bad, however—rewards alone cannot adequately address chronic lateness, whereas incentives without punishments

create resentment. An equilibrium system is one in which employees are rewarded as well as held responsible, with a controlled but

positive environment that can effect long-term behavioral change.

Workplace Environment as a Key Factor

Aside from the implementation of reward and punishment, the general working atmosphere is also an important determinant of the

punctuality of employees. Most employees are certain that a good and positive working culture is the most important determinant in

ensuring attendance. When workers are valued, dedicated, and inspired, they become punctual by default, not because they are afraid of

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 730

punishment or looking for reward but because they love their work. On the other hand, a demotivating or poisonous work environment

can cause tardiness independent of interventions. Leadership also significantly influences employee behavior—managers who

communicate candidly, acknowledge employee effort, and emulate themselves are more likely to encourage punctuality than managers

who do nothing but dictate. Even the finest incentive or discipline system will fail if the work environment itself is not conducive to

commitment and responsibility.

Mixed Perceptions of Rewards and Penalties

Nonetheless, reward and punishment perceptions are never equal for workers, and as such there exist mixed feelings for both

measures. Rewards establish a more favorable climate since they invoke feelings of acknowledgment and esteem. Nonetheless, rewards,

unless creatively designed, initiate indifference in so far as rewards are appreciated much more than infusing employees with the

essence of punctuality. Penalties, therefore, may be used to maintain discipline, but only at the possible expense of worker morale, if

they are discovered to be overwhelming or applied indiscriminately. Workers are less likely to resist penalties if they find them justified

and consistently enforced, but when viewed as unfair or excessive, disciplinary action can become negative, generating alienation and

resentment. Identifying the balance between encouragement and responsibility is the secret to having interventions be successful

without needlessly instilling tension in the workplace.

Effectiveness Depends on Implementation and Context

In the end, any intervention's success is based on execution and overall workplace culture. A good intentioned policy will crumble if

communication is bad or enforcement is sporadic. Staff must have clear expectations and open enforcement so that they can see the

expectations set before them. Also, present policies in the workplace, worker attitudes, and management dictate whether or not a practice

will be successful in the long term. Where employees in workplaces are already motivated and appreciated, rewards can more readily

maintain punctuality, but where late arrival is a deep-rooted problem within workplaces, fines might need to be implemented to create

responsibility and discipline. Without careful planning and consideration for organizational culture, even the highest-quality

interventions stand to fall short of making considerable, lasting differences in punctuality.

Section 5: Recommendations for Improving Punctuality Strong and Competent Leadership

Good and effective leadership is the pillar of any successful in-workplace intervention, such as improving punctuality. Management

and HR need to be individuals who possess not only skills but also impartiality, away from any political bias. Workers are less likely to

be afraid and follow punctuality rules if they observe their leaders being objective, fair, and concerned about their well-being.

Managers need not turn to punishment as the sole means of getting workers to arrive but must directly and genuinely engage them.

Frequent open communication regarding punctuality, based on respect and not on authoritarian discipline, facilitates a work culture in

which punctuality is everyone's responsibility, not a diktat. Workers are more open to it when they sense that their leaders are interested

in their career development and not punishing transgressions.

Cultural Shift Toward Punctuality

True cultural change towards punctuality starts with the leadership by example. Managers and supervisors, being punctual and fair, set

an example, and the employees are likely to adopt the same. Policies have to be followed consistently—exceptions or discriminatory

usage only cause resentment and weaken their effect. It should not be every person's responsibility but a general responsibility

facilitated by a company culture that also respects the importance of time. Employees that believe they work for a teamwork-oriented

environment that respects the value of time will be inclined to report to work on time since they understand that what they do

contributes. Changing workplace culture needs continuous reinforcement, both as policy and in the gritty realities of everyday life and

leadership behavior that reinforce punctuality's value.

Fair and Transparent Policies

To bring about this change, transparent and equitable policies are needed. Employees must never believe that rules are hidden,

arbitrary, or discriminatorily applied. Punctuality policy, rewarded or punished, must be communicated, and every worker must

understand what is required and what the penalty will be. Consistency is a usual concern for employees when disciplinary measures

are observed to target some but leave others untouched. The same applies to rewards—if only specific employees are recognized while

others feel neglected for their efforts, motivation and morale are compromised. Transparency creates trust, and if workers feel that

policies are being enforced uniformly, they will be willing to adhere to them unquestioningly.

Creating a Supportive and Motivating Work Environment

Apart from rules and discipline, a healthy and encouraging work culture is required in the enforcement of punctuality. Workers who

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 731

feel appreciated and respected tend to have a sense of responsibility. If the work environment is strained, poisonous, or de-motivating,

late arrival suggests deeper dissatisfaction instead of mere lack of ability in time management. Creating workplace relationships and

building feelings of belonging will most probably get employees showing up on time for and because of, in gratitude for, their

colleagues as well as because of a focus on collaboration and a seamless business operation. Managers must realize that it is not just a

question of instilling structure, but creating an environment where employees are motivated and engaged.

Meaningful Incentives and Alternative Approaches

While discipline and policy enforcement are paramount, incentives of value and other tactics can also be more useful for solving the

problem of lateness. Group-based incentives, such as team-building activities or departmental incentive programs, instill group

responsibility and timeliness becomes a team issue, not an individual battle. Flexible schedules, where possible, enable employees to

work at their most productive hours and still comply with attendance. Time management training can enable employees to become

more effective in managing their work and personal responsibilities. Rewards systems, even a simple acknowledgment of punctuality,

can also encourage positive behavior. Through these other avenues, organizations can develop a more adaptive and dynamic

attendance management system instead of pure hardline punishment.

Institutional Commitment to Long-Term Change

But lasting change calls for something greater than Band-Aid cures—it needs institutional commitment to continued change. True

punctual culture does not mature overnight but is built step by step with consistent measures, consistent management, and a

fundamental, systemic passion for organizational health at the sacrifice of individual convenience. Prompt dealing with workplace

complaints in areas of displeasure, ambiguities about expectations, or procedural issues may eliminate small causes from becoming

nagging lateness. When workers can observe that the organization is committed to building an equitable, organized, and benevolent

work climate, they are more likely to respond with responsibility and commitment. Finally, punctuality is not a case of personal

discipline—it is a function of work environment culture, leadership skill, and organizational well-being.

VI.

Conclusion

This research on Effectiveness of Incentive-Based and Disciplinary Interventions in Reducing Employee Tardiness acknowledges

employee tardiness as a chronic and systematic problem with numerous determinants such as personal obligations, inefficient time

management, organizational culture, and poor policy enforcement. Since organizations know that lateness harms productivity and

teamwork, managerial responses have been largely inconsistent, with both incentive- and punishment-based interventions failing to

bring long-term changes in behavior through poor implementation, ambiguity, and lack of employee participation. Incentive-based

schemes are largely unknown and there is skepticism regarding their effectiveness in contexts where intrinsic motivation is variable

across workers. Likewise, discipline, when disproportionately enforced or seen to be so, has generated undesirable employee responses

of resentment, tension, and even increased turnover. The implication is that rewards and punishments are not enough to solve for chronic

lateness in the long run. A more balanced approach, one that incorporates incentives for desired behavior along with strict but equitable

enforcement of rules, seems to be the optimal solution. However, success of any intervention will ultimately lie in the presence of good

and effective leadership, a time-conscious workplace culture, and a long- term structural change commitment. Any intervention would

be successful only if there exists a cultural movement towards time awareness supplemented by liberal policies, potent incentives, and

a good quality of work life. Therefore, confronting tardiness demands more than policy-making or incentive provision—it demands an

organizational change where punctuality is not just enforced but internalized as a common value.

References

1. Blau, G. (1994). Developing and testing a taxonomy of lateness behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79(6), 856– 866.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.856

2. Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic

rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

3. Dessler, G. (2020). Human resource management (16th ed.). Pearson.

4. Gellatly, I. R., & Luchak, A. A. (1998). Personal and organizational determinants of perceived absence norms. Human

Relations, 51(8), 1085–1102. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679805100805

5. Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. Journal of

Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191–210. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.25.4.191

6. Golden, L. (2012). The effects of working time on productivity and firm performance: A research synthesis paper.

International Labour Organization.

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,

MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)

ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue III, March 2025

www.ijltemas.in Page 732

7. Grote, D. (2006). Discipline without punishment: The proven strategy that turns problem employees into superior

performers (2nd ed.). AMACOM.

8. Henderson, R. I. (2017). Compensation management in a knowledge-based world (11th ed.). Pearson.

9. Johnson, R., Smith, K., & Williams, T. (2020). The impact of financial incentives on employee punctuality. Journal of

Organizational Behavior, 41(3), 245-261.

10. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–292.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

11. Koslowsky, M., Krausz, M., & Schwarzwald, J. (1997). Commuting stress: Causes, effects, and methods of coping.

Springer.

12. Lazear, E. P. (2000). Performance pay and productivity. American Economic Review, 90(5), 1346–1361.

https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.5.1346

13. Lee, M., & Chen, Y. (2018). Employee recognition and workplace punctuality: A behavioral analysis. Human Resource

Management Review, 28(4), 412-428.

14. Martinez, D., & Rivera, S. (2019). The effects of disciplinary actions on employee tardiness: A case study approach.

International Journal of Human Resource Studies, 9(1), 89-105.

15. Mathis, R. L., Jackson, J. H., Valentine, S. R., & Meglich, P. A. (2020). Human resource management (16th ed.).

Cengage Learning.

16. Milgrom, P., & Roberts, J. (1992). Economics, organization, and management. Prentice Hall.

17. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., & Bommer, W. H. (2006). Meta-analysis of the relationships between Kerr and

Jermier’s substitutes for leadership and employee job attitudes, role perceptions, and performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81(4), 380–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.4.380

18. Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2019). Organizational behavior (18th ed.). Pearson.

19. Schindler, R. M. (1998). Consequences of perceiving oneself as responsible for obtaining a discount: Evidence for smart-

shopper feelings. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 7(4), 371–392. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327663jcp0704_04

20. Skiba, R. J., Shure, L. A., Middelberg, L., & Baker, T. (2011). Reforming school discipline and reducing racial disparity: A

systemwide approach. In J. A. Banks (Ed.), The Routledge international companion to multicultural education (pp. 421–433).

Routledge.

21. Thaler, R. H., & Sunstein, C. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University

Press.

22. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.