I think we all have at some point been subject to the mass punishment for something others did and totally out of our control. Why do leaders use the mass punishment method instead of holding a person or persons accountable for their actions?
While in the military, mass punishment on the platoon or company, for the most part, was an easy way to stop whatever act was occurring or preventing future acts, like drinking in the barracks, or missing a predesignated curfew while deployed. At times this seemed to work, but looking back several of us were also being punished for something we never did and seemed very unfair.
So why do leaders decide to use a mass punishment for the acts of individuals? Is it because it is easier than correcting or punishing one person? Is it because leaders are more timid and non-confrontational? It seems when doing this at times, it is used as a tactic for peer-pressure and hopes others will shame, or do the job for management in correcting others.
We should instead hold the person who conducted the act accountable. It is not easy to counseling others, harder for some to tell a person or colleague, or a friend they have done something that requires counseling or even let go. But if we hold those individuals accountable, then the rest can see if you go against regulations you will be held accountable, seems those not being punished understand the concept and will work harder to avoid causing problems. More accountability and less mass punishment, as adults, will demonstrate that punishment for those who violate rules will hold them accountable, but those who do not afforded their freedoms. Be safe!