Abe: Coaching is appropriate when an issue is isolated, minor, and not yet a pattern. Enforcement is necessary when expectations have already been communicated, when behavior repeats, or when a policy clearly applies. The key is consistency. Coaching should not become an excuse to avoid enforcement.

A: Yes, but it must be communicated clearly. Managers should explain that expectations are being reset and applied consistently moving forward. Enforcement without notice creates frustration; enforcement with clarity creates alignment.

A: Policies must be enforced consistently, but not always identically. Circumstances can differ, but decisions should be based on objective factors not personal preference, tenure, or role. Similar situations should lead to similar outcomes.

A: Inconsistent enforcement can lead to claims of unfair treatment, discrimination, or favoritism. It also undermines manager credibility and weakens documentation if issues escalate later.

A: Acknowledge the concern, then refocus on current expectations. January is an appropriate time to reset standards and clarify that consistency going forward is the priority—even if practices were looser before.

A: Yes. Even brief notes confirming that expectations were reviewed and applied help establish consistency and protect both the manager and the organization.

A: This creates risk. Leadership teams should align early in the year on how policies will be enforced and what flexibility, if any, is permitted. Alignment prevents mixed messages and employee confusion.

A: Clear communication, advance notice, and consistent application protect morale more than flexibility without boundaries. Employees are more accepting of enforcement when expectations are known and applied fairly.