[icegreentea2]

Just culture doesn't prevent you from firing someone who makes repeated mistakes.

In fact, Just Culture in itself provides the justification for this. As the next line says "However, those who act recklessly or take deliberate and unjustifiable risks will still be subject to disciplinary action". A person who repeated makes mistakes is an unjustifiable risk.

[hinkley]

When a punishment is applied with more deliberation, it can also be more severe.

[wolverine876]

Why is severity desirable? Or if it's not desirable, so what?

[sokoloff]

Severity is desirable iff it's justified. I wouldn't ever sign off on a policy that says "you'll be fired for a single mistake" (that would be a severity of punishment out of proportion to the risk/underperformance).

But a policy that never provided for the possibility of termination (insufficient maximum severity) is also not desirable.

[wolverine876]

> Severity is desirable iff it's justified.

It's necessary if it's (necessary & efficient & justified); it's never desirable IMHO.

Doing severe things because they are justified is just acting out on a desire or drive - internal anger - but now we can 'justify' the target and feel ok about it. Lynch mobs think they are justified.

[sokoloff]

Designing severe things to be included as part of a process is a desirable property of that system if the severe thing is sometimes required.

No one is designing a formal system that includes lunch mobs. But a formal system of repercussions for employee behavior that does not include firing is an incomplete system.

It’s not that firing itself is ever desirable, but rather that its inclusion in a disciplinary progression is desirable.