| Course | COM 140 Managing Performance and Developing Teams |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Poor performance plan |
| Length | About 1,017 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Business Administration |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for COM 140 Module 4
Before Blaming the Person: A Fair Plan for Addressing Declining Performance in a Receiving Team
Student Name
Business Administration Program, Aspen University
COM 140: Managing Performance and Developing Teams
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Before Blaming the Person: A Fair Plan for Addressing Declining Performance in a Receiving Team
For six years, Ray Holloway was one of the most reliable receiving clerks at Ridgeline Outdoor Supply's Aurora distribution center. Over the last four months, his error rate in logging incoming shipments has risen from about one to three per hundred. Errors in receiving cause stock to show as available when it is not, which leads to online orders that cannot be filled. Ray's supervisor, Angela Brooks, is under pressure from the distribution center manager to "deal with it." This paper plans how she should.
The Facts
Angela's records show that Ray's errors began rising in the same month that the center introduced a new handheld scanner system and moved Ray from the day shift to an early shift starting at five in the morning. Most of his errors involve shipments with multiple product sizes in one carton. Ray has not missed work or been late. He has become quieter and no longer joins the team at break.
The Pull to Blame the Person
Green and Mitchell (1979) proposed and tested a model of how leaders respond to poor performance. Leaders first make an attribution: they decide whether the poor performance is caused by something internal to the employee, such as low effort or ability, or external, such as a difficult task or poor equipment. That judgment then shapes their response. When leaders attribute poor performance to the employee, they respond more punitively; when they attribute it to the situation, they are more likely to change the situation. The research also found that leaders tend toward internal attributions, especially when the outcome is serious or the employee has a poor history.
The pressure on Angela to deal with Ray pushes toward an internal attribution. The facts suggest situational causes are at least as likely.
Possible Causes
| In the situation | In the person |
|---|---|
| New scanner handles multi-size cartons differently | Possible health, sleep or family issue |
| Early shift began the same month | Possible loss of motivation after the shift change |
| Training on the scanner was a single thirty-minute session | Possible difficulty with the new technology |
| Multi-size cartons increased with the new spring line |
Why Fairness Matters
Colquitt et al. (2001) reviewed twenty-five years of organizational justice research in a meta-analysis. They distinguished four dimensions: distributive justice, whether the result a person receives seems deserved; procedural justice, whether the way it was decided seems sound; interpersonal justice, the dignity and respect with which people are treated; and informational justice, the adequacy of explanations given. Each dimension contributed to outcomes such as job satisfaction, commitment, trust and performance, and the dimensions were related but distinct.
Ball et al. (1994) studied how subordinates react when supervisors punish them. They found that when subordinates perceived the punishment as fair, including that it was deserved, consistent and delivered with some control over the process, their subsequent performance and organizational citizenship were higher. Unfair punishment did not produce the improvement managers hoped for.
For Angela, these findings mean that how she handles Ray matters as much as what she decides. Treating him with respect, explaining her concerns with data, listening to his account and applying the same standards as for others will make improvement more likely.
The Conversation
Angela will meet Ray privately. She will share the error data and ask what has changed for him. She will mention the scanner and the shift change as possibilities and ask whether anything else is affecting his work. If Ray raises a personal issue, she will refer him to Ridgeline's employee assistance program and discuss whether a shift change is possible.
The Improvement Plan
The plan runs for sixty days. The scanner vendor will spend two hours with Ray at the receiving dock working through multi-size cartons. Angela will check in for ten minutes each week to review his error rate. The goal is to return to one error per hundred by the end of the period. The plan is written down, and Ray receives a copy.
Fixing the Situation
Some causes can be addressed before Ray's own performance is judged. Angela will ask the scanner vendor whether the multi-size carton screen can be simplified, and she will check whether other clerks on the early shift have seen error rates rise since the new system arrived. If they have, the problem is partly in the system, and the fix belongs to the center rather than to Ray alone. She will also ask the receiving lead to sort multi-size cartons to a separate station during the busiest hour, which reduces the pressure that leads to rushed scans.
Documentation as Fairness
Angela will write a short note after each check-in recording the error rate, what was discussed and any support provided. Documentation is often seen only as protection for the company. It also protects Ray, because it shows that he was given clear expectations, the tools to meet them and honest updates on his progress, which are the elements of procedural and informational justice Colquitt and colleagues described.
If Performance Does Not Improve
If errors remain high after sixty days despite the support, Angela will follow Ridgeline's progressive discipline policy: a documented verbal warning, then a written warning with a further thirty days, before any decision about Ray's role. Each step is explained to Ray and applied as it would be for anyone else. If Ray's errors return to standard, Angela will tell him so plainly, close the plan in writing and recognize the improvement in front of the team, so that the record of the problem does not outlast the problem itself. If the cause turns out to be the early shift, she will work with the distribution center manager on whether Ray can return to days when a position opens.
Conclusion
Green and Mitchell warn Angela against blaming Ray too quickly, Colquitt and colleagues define what a fair process looks like and Ball, Treviño and Sims show that fairness affects whether performance recovers. Examining causes, providing support and following clear steps give Ray a real chance to return to his old standard.
References
Ball, G. A., Treviño, L. K., & Sims, H. P., Jr. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37(2), 299-322. https://doi.org/10.2307/256831
Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & 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), 425-445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.425
Green, S. G., & Mitchell, T. R. (1979). Attributional processes of leaders in leader-member interactions. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 23(3), 429-458. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(79)90008-4
COM 140 Module 4 instructions, in plain terms
Module 4 of Aspen's COM 140 typically addresses poor performance, asking students to plan how a manager should respond when an employee's performance falls short. Look at the Module 4 directions in your course; this example uses a composite employee. Describe the performance problem with facts. Examine possible causes in both the person and the situation. Explain how fairness affects employees' responses. Plan the conversation and an improvement plan with clear expectations and support. Explain when and how discipline would follow. Consider whether the situation itself needs fixing before the employee is judged. Cite research in APA 7 form.
How the COM 140 Module 4 example is put together
Ray has worked in receiving for six years, and his error rate in logging incoming shipments rose from about one to three per hundred over four months. Green and Mitchell's Organizational Behavior and Human Performance article found that leaders' judgments about causes of poor performance shape their responses, and that leaders lean toward blaming the person. Colquitt and four coauthors pooled a quarter century of fairness studies. Ball, Treviño and Sims's Academy of Management Journal article studied subordinates' reactions to punishment and found that perceived fairness predicted later performance and citizenship. The cause table lists situational factors, such as a new scanner system and a changed shift, and personal ones, such as a possible health or family issue. The plan begins with a conversation that asks before it judges, sets a sixty-day improvement plan with training and weekly check-ins, and explains the steps that would follow if performance does not improve.
COM 140 Module 4 rubric: what earns full marks
Poor performance plans earn credit when they examine causes before assigning blame and follow procedures that employees would see as fair. This example uses Green and Mitchell to guard against blaming Ray too quickly, Colquitt and colleagues to design a fair process and Ball, Treviño and Sims to show why fairness affects whether performance recovers. The cause table makes the analysis visible, and the improvement plan includes support, clear expectations and a defined path if the problem continues. Documentation is treated as fairness, not just protection. Checking whether other clerks have the same problem with the new scanner shows the kind of situational analysis that separates a fair plan from a quick judgment.
Common COM 140 Module 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Poor performance papers often jump to discipline without examining causes. Look at the situation first: training, tools, workload and changes in the job. Another weakness is a plan without support; if you expect improvement, provide what the person needs. Explain expectations in measurable terms and give a reasonable time frame. Treat the employee with respect and explain decisions. Document conversations so the process is consistent. Finally, say what happens if performance improves as well as if it does not. Check whether coworkers doing the same job show the same problem, since a shared problem usually has a shared cause.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More COM 140 and Business Administration sample papers
- COM 140 Module 1: Performance and Strategy
- COM 140 Module 2: Goals and Measures
- COM 140 Module 3: Feedback and Coaching
- COM 140 Module 5: Teams as the Unit of Performance
- COM 140 Module 6: Forming and Developing Teams
- COM 140 Module 7: Team Conflict and Decisions
- COM 140 Module 8: Leading a High-Performance Team
- COM 230 Module 1: HRM and Value
- BUS 495 Module 6: Global Strategy
- MGT 240 Module 3: Setups, Batching and Changeovers
- BUS 484 Module 2: Opportunity Assessment
COM 140 Module 4 questions, answered
What does COM 140 Module 4 usually ask for?
Aspen's COM 140 typically addresses poor performance in this module, so a plan for responding to an employee's performance problem is common. Look at your classroom prompt.
Why should managers look at the situation before blaming the employee?
Green and Mitchell found that leaders tend to attribute poor performance to the employee and may overlook causes in the job, tools or training.
What is organizational justice?
Employees' perceptions of fairness in outcomes, procedures, interpersonal treatment and explanations, which Colquitt and colleagues found affect their attitudes and behavior.
Where can I find a free COM 140 Module 4 sample paper?
The example above plans how to address a receiving clerk's declining performance with a fair process.
Does fair discipline matter?
Ball, Treviño and Sims found that discipline perceived as fair was followed by better subsequent performance than discipline perceived as unfair.