Always Be Positive: An Inappropriate Management Strategy



Always Be Positive: An Appropriate Management Strategy?

Dr. C. W. Von Bergen

John Massey School of Business

Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Durant, OK 74701

(580) 745-2430

(580) 745-7485 fax

cvonbergen@sosu.edu

Dr. Kitty Campbell

John Massey School of Business

Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Durant, OK 74701

(580) 745-2494

(580) 745-7485 fax

kcampbell@sosu.edu

Dr. Lawrence S. Silver

John Massey School of Business

Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Durant, OK 74701

(580) 745-2494

(580) 745-7479 fax

Always Be Positive: An Appropriate Management Strategy?

Abstract

Many people, including professionals, believe in the power of being positive. Such a broad endorsement of this aphorism is challenged in this paper. It is suggested that certain misbehavior of employees should not be met with positive consequences and that punishment might be acceptable if it generates behavior of long-term utility to the individual and the organization. We emphasize the necessity of managers or supervisors using both positive and aversive control mechanisms to foster behavior in the long-term interest of the individual and the workgroup and offer a number of suggestions for managers using aversive control.

Always Be Positive: An Appropriate Management Strategy?

“Always be positive is the worst advice you could ever give or receive.”

--Daniels (2001, p. 44).

Traditional college graduates entering the supervisory ranks for the first time have been overwhelmingly influenced with the importance of being positive. Positivity is presented in many guises, all being labeled by some combination of words with “positive,” such as: “attitude,” “thinking,” “self talk,” “demeanor,” and others. Often supervisors and staff personnel voice approval of the unquestioned benefits of unbridled positivity as a management technique claiming it is simply “common sense.” With such an emphasis on being positive, many of these individuals may feel unfamiliar and uncomfortable with regard to aversive control, which despite conventional wisdom that suggests that it should be avoided, remains an important aspect of virtually all managers’ jobs (Butterfield, Trevino, Wade, & Ball, 2005). Indeed, humans may be predisposed to use aversive control methods because of their evolutionary value. Researchers have determined that cooperation and altruistic behavior have survival value for humans (Axelrod, 1986; Henrich, 2006; Henrich & Boyd, 2001; Sober & Wilson, 1998) and that one mechanism in stabilizing human cooperation at high levels is the punishment of norm violators, defectors, and individuals inclined to free ride on the efforts of others. Conversely, cooperation often diminishes when punishment of such individuals

is ruled out or is not an available option (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Fehr & Gächter, 2002; Fowler, 2005; Gürerk, Irlenbusch, & Rockenbach, 2006; Yamagishi, 1986). This view was supported by Henrich, McElreath, Barr, Ensminger, Barrett, Bolyanatz et al. (2006) who found from 15 diverse populations that all peoples demonstrated some willingness to administer punishment as unequal behavior increased and that punishment positively covaried with altruistic behavior across populations.

This paper questions the broad endorsement of “always be positive” and the prominence on positivity and suggests that under some circumstances such advice may be problematic. Indeed, in some situations it is in the best interest of others to use punishment. The paper begins with a review of how new managers or soon-to-be supervisors having modest organizational experience have been strongly influenced by such a positive emphasis throughout their lives, discusses the utility of these inexperienced work leaders using both positive and aversive control mechanisms to foster behavior in the long-term interest of the individual and organization, and concludes with a number of guidelines designed to make discipline more effective.

Elements influencing the importance of positivity

A number of factors have contributed to the emphasis on positivity including cultural influences, childrearing and family considerations, religious factors, and educational effects. Each of these is discussed below.

Cultural influences

There is perhaps no virtue more desirable in Western civilization than being positive. Philosophers, theologians, teachers, counseling psychologists, sports psychologists, and popular management gurus have placed a premium on being positive as a means of achieving satisfaction, happiness, productivity (Judge, Erez, & Bono, 1998), and personal growth and effectiveness (Neck & Manz, 2007). French psychologist Émile Coué created a sensation in the United States in the 1920s with his book Self-mastery through Conscious Autosuggestion and its famous mantra “Every day, in every way, I am getting better and better.”

Consistent with this cultural emphasis has been the explosive growth of self-help books, motivational tapes, and inspirational seminars emphasizing positive thinking,

positive energy, positive affirmations, success, growth, happiness, fulfillment, and actualization (Salerno, 2005). American pop psychology has always been explicitly positive with the Dale Carnegies, Napoleon Hills, Werner Erhards, Zig Ziglers, and Tony Robbinses of this world holding high honor. Indeed, we are told that “…if your life does not get better, it is your fault—your thoughts were not positive enough” (Shermer, 2006).

Religious emphasis on positivity

Some of America’s most well-known clergymen preach as much positive thinking and happiness as they do Scripture. For example, Reverend Norman Vincent Peale,

gained fame for his sermons on a positive approach to modern living. He applied Christianity to everyday problems and is the person who is most responsible for bringing psychology into the professing Church, blending its principles into a message of The Power of Positive Thinking (Peale, 1952). Reverend Robert H. Schuller, founder of Crystal Cathedral Ministries, includes a congregation of over 10,000 members and the internationally televised “Hour of Power.” He has authored a number of books on the

positive aspects of Christianity (e.g., Move Ahead with Possibility Thinking, Schuller, 1967; The Be (Happy) Attitudes: 8 Positive Attitudes That Can Transform Your Life,

Schuller, 1985). Rather than condemning people for the sins he believes they have committed, Schuller has tried to convince individuals that by positive thinking they can fulfill their dreams.

Childrearing and family considerations

As children, many of us heard of these words spoken by the Little Engine That Could, “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can…(Piper, 1930, p. 33-34). It was implied that the positive way the little engine talked to itself influenced its ability to get over the mountain. Recently Twenge (2006) has documented that the belief in the importance of being positive and happy is ingrained in Generation Me (children born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s). Twenge indicated that this emphasis on happiness became particularly important in the late 70s when there was a pervasive, society-wide effort to increase children’s self-esteem. The mission statements of many schools explicitly announce that they aim to raise students’ self-esteem and that self-esteem can and should be taught. Students are encouraged to believe that it is acceptable and desirable to be preoccupied with oneself and praise oneself.

Most of these school programs encourage children to feel positive about themselves irrespective of a legitimate rationale. In one program, teachers were told to discourage children from saying things like “I’m a good soccer player” or “I’m a good singer” because these statements make self-esteem contingent on performance. Instead, “we want to anchor self-esteem firmly to the child…so that no matter what the performance might be, the self-esteem remains high” (Payne & Rolhing, 1994, p. 6). In other words, feeling good about oneself is more important than doing good.

Thus, there has been a movement against “criticizing” children. Some schools and teachers do not correct children’s mistakes, afraid that this will damage the child’s self-esteem. Teacher education courses emphasize that creating a positive atmosphere is more important than correcting mistakes. In 2005, a teacher proposed eliminating the word “fail” from education. Rather than hear they have failed; instead of hearing that they have failed students should hear that they have “deferred success” (BBC News, 2005). Nevertheless, young people who have high self-esteem built on shaky foundations might run into trouble when they encounter the harsh realities of the real world. Unlike a teacher, a boss may not care about preserving employees’ self-esteem. The self-esteem emphasis leaves children ill-prepared for the inevitable criticism and occasional failure that is real life. If an employee presents a bad report at the office, the supervisor will not typically say, “Hey, I like the color of the paper you chose for the report.” Setting students up like this is doing them a tremendous disservice in the long run.

Higher educational influences

The value of being positive has been taught in business for some time and may have begun with Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1937 which is still offered today as an essential text on interpersonal skills. Management and business books appear to stress positive emotions and positive managerial behavior and barely address punishment at all (e.g., Daft, 1994; Griffin, 1993), indirectly suggesting that discipline is not an essential part of the managerial role. For example, a cursory review of a current popular organizational behavior textbook, Organizational Behavior and Management (7th ed.) by Ivancevich, Konopaske, and Matteson (2005) revealed that the authors dedicated five pages to punishment-related topics and seventy-seven pages to reward-related subject matter. Furthermore, in many textbooks, the discussion of punishment has focused primarily on the presumed negative side effects such as anger, resentment, avoidance, and retaliation (Luthans, 1995; Moorhead & Griffin, 1995; Northcraft & Neale, 1994; Organ & Hamner, 1982). This has lead many readers to conclude that punishment should be avoided, regardless of its effectiveness in controlling behavior.

Positive aspects of aversive control

The efficacy of aversive control is why we button our coats when the temperature drops and loosen our ties when it rises. It leads us to come in out of the rain, to blow on our hot coffee before we drink it, and to keep our fingers out of electrical outlets. The presence of aversive control in these cases is clearly advantageous. Likewise, the absence of aversive control can be problematic. A dramatic example of this was provided by Scripture (1895) who noted that when a frog was placed in a beaker of water which was then heated at a rate of 0.002ºC per second that it “never moved and at the end of two and one half hours was found dead. He had evidently been boiled without noticing it” (p. 120). Clearly, the absence of aversive control was not in the frog’s long-term best interest.

Skinner (1971) likewise acknowledged that the absence of aversive consequences may have long term deleterious effects for an individual and that positive reinforcement may have negative consequences that occur after a delay: “A problem arises…when the behavior generated by positive reinforcement has deferred aversive consequences. The problem to be solved by those concerned with freedom is to create immediate aversive consequences” (p. 33). Indeed, Skinner (1983) laid down draconian rules prohibiting himself from engaging in certain reinforcing activities: “Exhausting avocations are a danger. No more chess. No more bridge problems. No more detective stories” (p. 79). Other examples of positive experiences being dangerous specifically because they do not generate avoidance, escape, or their emotional counterparts, even when the contingencies are ultimately detrimental might include gambling and drug use.

Social learning theorists posit that learning occurs not only from the consequences of one’s own actions, but also from information obtained vicariously from observing others (Bandura, 1986; Kreitner & Luthans, 1984). Accordingly, punishment is being studied as a social phenomenon that influences the cognitions, emotions, and actions of the administrator of punishment, as well as those of recipients and observers. Trevino (1992) contended that when considering the implications of punishment, members of the broader social group (e.g., coworkers or observers) and their interpretations of the event must be taken into account.

Because observers have a vested interest in the outcome of punishment, they attend and react to the meaning of the event for them (Niehoff, Paul, & Bunch, 1998; Trevino & Ball, 1992). As such, observers may react to others’ discipline differently than the recipient (Trevino & Ball, 1992). Thus, there are important implications for managers. Perhaps managers should be weighing which reactions (those of the disciplinee or others) have the most potential impact upon the organization. Trevino (1992) argues that observers’ reactions are potentially more meaningful than those of recipients because they represent a greater number of people, and generally those not being disciplined are the more committed and productive employees.

This positive aspect of punishment enables managers to promote vicarious learning by delivering a message to other employees that certain types of misconduct will not be tolerated. Punishment thus provides cues to other members of the work group on what is unacceptable behavior and should be avoided (Trevino, 1992). These cues help to establish and perpetuate formal and informal expectations, rules, and behavioral boundaries (Arvey & Jones, 1985).

Niehoff et al. (1998) noted that when supervisors impose severe punishment on a violator who is seen as clearly deserving of punishment, observers perceive agreement between their definition of a violation and the supervisor’s definition. Third parties (e.g., other employees) find such agreement reassuring and sense that justice has been served. Where such agreement does not exist, as in cases where a manager fails to punish a slacker or punishes a strong contributor, observers will sense injustice with subsequent decreases in satisfaction and performance.

Therefore, aversive control is necessary tool for managers to align behavior with the organization’s purpose. Behavior that obstructs or deters organizational objectives needs to be punished. Thus, actions deserving of negative sanctions should be defined in terms of organizational goals and clearly communicated to employees prior to any unwanted behavior.

Increasing punishment effectiveness

Given that aversive control is appropriate under certain circumstances, how can it be administered more effectively? This section provides a number of guidelines to enhance punishment’s usefulness.

Punishment is tied directly and as obviously as possible to the particular undesirable behavior. This guideline refers to the issue of contingency. Previous research has shown that contingency is associated with punishment effectiveness (Arvey & Jones, 1985). Past research has also associated punishment contingency with perceptions of the leader. Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber (1984) found that contingent punishment did not adversely influence satisfaction with the supervisor. Only when non-contingent punishment was used did satisfaction with the supervisor suffer. Therefore, managers can be expected to recognize the importance of contingency and to evaluate a punishment event as more fair to the extent that the punishment was contingent on a specific infraction.

Importance of constructive criticism. Research has also supported the notion that constructive criticism is beneficial and leads to the establishment of higher goals and an improved leader-subordinate relationship (Baron, 1988). Such criticism generally means that managers provide alternate incompatible behaviors to the problematic actions of the disciplinee.

This can be more effectively achieved when supervisors help employees progress by establishing a behavioral contingency often in the form, stated or implied, that “when you do A, you get or can do B.” However, when explained in these terms, contingency raises the specter of bribery in some people’s minds. Certainly there is no bribery because there is nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral about stating a desired behavior and its consequence. What is incorrect is wanting to be positive and giving the salesperson a commission when the paperwork has not been done because this will create problems getting paperwork done in the future.

Providing a rationale for the punishment. Research has also demonstrated that punishment is more effective when a clear rationale is given that explains why punishment is necessary (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Parke, 1972). An employee who is punished for no discernible reason may believe the punishment to be non-contingent. That is, he or she will believe the punishment was random or a personal reaction by the supervisor rather than for unwanted behavior. The employee will likely have a negative emotional reaction and the punishment may have an undesired affect on work behavior (Podsakoff et al., 1984). The effect on work behavior initiated by this perceived non-contingent punishment is grounded in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and equity theory (Adams, 1963).

In terms of exchange theory, Blau (1964) contends that people reciprocate rewards or gifts they receive from others. Thus, a reward from a manager is reciprocated with increased effort and/or organizational commitment. In the same sense, punishment that is perceived to be unjust may cause retaliation and result in decreased effort and reduced organizational commitment.

People also desire equity in the workplace (Adams 1963). Punishment believed to be non-contingent is seen as unfair and inequitable. Employees in this situation will take actions to restore what they perceive as equity. For example, one method of restoring equity is social-loafing in a team or group environment (George 1995).

Thus, punishment administered without unambiguous rationale will be perceived to be non-contingent. Employees will retaliate in order to reciprocate for the injustice or to restore equity. Managers need to have clear guidelines as to what behavior is unacceptable and communicate these guidelines to employees. Additionally, managers should explain to employees which specific guideline has been violated when administering punishment.

Immediacy of punishment. Timeliness is also important for punishment because it increases the perceived connection between the punishment and the misconduct (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Arvey & Jones, 1985). Punishment tends to work immediately and so if a behavior needs to stop without delay, as in matters of ethical and safety violations, then punishment can be used as an effective strategy (Daniels & Daniels, 2005). Indeed, one reason that unethical behavior occurs is because management does not punish employees for behaving unethically (Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell, 1982). Failure to punish for engaging in unethical behavior sends a message that unethical conduct is acceptable (Jansen & Von Glinow, 1985). Nonetheless, immediacy may need to take a back seat if the manager is not sure how to administer discipline correctly or if his or her emotional state would likely lead to mistakes in the disciplinary interaction. Atwater, Waldman, Carey, and Cartier (2001) found that both managers and recipients recognized that managers often make mistakes in the discipline process. Mistakes, as reported by recipients, occurred because managers were “out of control” (p. 267) or because they did not know how to administer discipline properly. Additionally, managers in the Butterfield et al. (1996) study expressed many concerns with punishment procedures. Combined, these results suggest that some managers are likely to need training in how to properly administer discipline and how to control their emotions when employee behaviors cause them to get angry or lose control. In this last case, delaying the conversation may lead to a more effective discussion.

Privacy of punishment. Researchers also suggest that punishment should be carried out in private whenever possible (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Arvey & Jones, 1985). Evidence has suggested that punishment tends to create less defensiveness and to be more instructive to the subordinate when carried out in private (Sims, 1980). In addition, private punishment may be considered more benevolent since employees are not humiliated in front of co-workers (Butterfield et al., 2005). Nevertheless, supervisors must be concerned with group performance and so punishment may provide an opportunity for the work leader to deter others from engaging in future instances of the offense (Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002). Accordingly, it is important that a supervisor give some consideration to publicly punishing wrong doers so that other potential offenders learn by example and discover the consequences of violating the rule. The justification for punishment lies in its ability to minimize the likelihood of future transgressions. Late 18th century philosopher, Jeremy Bentham (1962) argued that “general prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment, as it is its real justification” (p. 396). Less eloquently, but perhaps more realistically, are the words of one manager who indicated that when discipline was imposed, other workers learned that “they can’t get away with anything like that in the future” (Butterfield et al., 1996, p. 1493). Interestingly, Atwater et al. (2001) found that punishment recipients were more likely to report positive outcomes resulting from discipline than were managers. For example, problem behavior may be corrected, the recipient and others may become more cautions and aware, and larger problems can be solved as a result of a discipline event. In addition, in some cases, discipline can work to the advantage of either the disciplinee or the organization by removing the disciplinee from the organization. Often a new job for the recipient is a better situation, and a welcome relief for the manager.

Consistency and fairness of punishment. Researchers have also found that consistency of punishment is important, that is, individuals are not only concerned with the outcomes they receive but also with the fairness by which that outcome is allocated (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Employees want to be treated like everybody else. They expect the decision maker to react to each case in the same way and to apply the rules consistently (Leventhal, 1976; Tyler & Bies, 1990). When this happens, punishment can result in desired behavior changes without negative side effects as Ball, Trevino, and Sims (1994) discovered in their field study. They found that punishment that is viewed as appropriate in amount and as consistent with what others have received resulted in improved subordinate performance. Similarly, other field research has supported the idea that employees dislike capricious, inconsistent punishment and become angry and distrustful of those instituting it (Arvey, Davis, & Nelson, 1984). Bennett (1998) likewise indicated the importance of consistency. Participants in her study who were disadvantaged by inconsistently allocated punishments behaved aggressively toward their subordinates by giving them poorer performance evaluations. This implies that individuals who feel unfairly treated may often react by taking their anger and frustration out on a weaker target. Hence, it appears that unjust procedures can have far-reaching effects. It seems that victims of unfair punishment allocations decide to “even the score” between themselves and the beneficiary of the inconsistency. One implication of this finding is that managers, by punishing subordinates inconsistently, risk inciting competition and aggressive behavior between subordinates. This is certainly not a management style conducive to positive work-group morale and cooperation among team members.

Related to the issue of consistency is fairness. Observers need to perceive that the punishment given to the recipient was fair. If observers perceive the punishment as fair, rarely do they have negative attitudes concerning the event. Employees tend to assess fairness from two perspectives: distributive and procedural justice (Greenberg, 1987). In terms of distributive justice, people judge the punishment imposed (e.g., temporary suspension, fine, etc.) and decide if it is fair in terms of consistent application and level of offense. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the process used in determining the punishment rendered (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003).

Employees tend to judge a distributive outcome as fair when it is favorable to them (Conlon, 1993; Wade-Benzoni, Tenbrunsel, & Bazerman, 1996). However, if employees are likely to accept unfavorable outcomes as fair if they perceive the procedure to be fair (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). That is, the process of determining if punishment is necessary may be more important to the employee than the punishment itself.

However, even when the punishment occurrence is perceived as unfair, some positive outcomes can occur (Atwater et al., 2001). Nevertheless, as Greenberg (1990, P. 116) noted, “a manager who does what he or she believes to be fair—whatever that may be—may learn that others are not necessarily likewise convinced.” Certainly, “others” include subordinates. Greenberg (1983) also found that people sometimes do things to convince themselves of the fairness of their own actions. Fairness then, like beauty, may be in the eye of the beholder, and may differ between those delivering the action and those receiving it. More importantly, managers should be aware that many subordinates perceive discipline to be unfair and should factor this in their thinking (Atwater et al., 2001). Likewise, observers in the Atwater investigation felt that at times discipline was administered to demonstrate the manager's authority or power rather than to mitigate some unwanted behavior and thus managers should be prepared to deal with this issue. While, in most cases, the manager will believe his or her actions are fair, he or she may consider spending some time thinking about the discussion of fairness with the person receiving the discipline. Managers should also be aware that punishment for violating formal rules resulted in greater acceptance by recipients than punishment for violating informal rules (Atwater et al., 2001). This is important because Schnake (1987) found that when the punished worker claimed the punishment was unfair, production among observers of the event did not increase, and satisfaction with supervision decreased. Much of the basic research on punishment has been incorporated in the hot stove rule.

Hot stove rule

An effective way to incorporate the guidelines that are described above is to adopt the hot stove rule. This rule provides an analogy based on a person touching a hot stove: an advanced warning, immediacy, consistency, and impartiality (Hill, 1984). The result is impersonal because whoever touches a hot stove is burned. The burn was caused by the act of touching the stove, not because of who the person is. Discipline should be directed against the act, not against the person and each violator should be treated in the same way. The comparison between the “hot stove rule” and disciplinary action is obvious.

Conclusion

The power of positivity is pervasive in American society but there are others who would caution otherwise. Woolfolk (2005), for example, declared:

I would submit negative thinking is not only valuable, but

indispensable, and suggest that we give much too little attention

to acknowledging, confronting, accepting, and perhaps even

embracing suffering and loss. I want to suggest also that there

may be worse things in life than experiencing negative affect.

Among those worse things are ignorance, banality, credulity,

self-deception, narcissism, insensitivity, philistinism, and

isolation… (p. 20).

Similarly, in the professional organizational research literature Fineman (2006) has expressed concern about what he perceives as the overemphasis on positivity and psychologist and well-known author, Joyce Brothers (2005), recently discussed constructive aspects of a decidedly un-positive emotion, shame, and suggested that some forms of shame (what she calls “good shame”) can be virtuous. For example, she indicated that shame may be proper when calling to task an individual for inappropriate behavior. Furthermore, Brothers (2005) indicated that good shame often leads to self-discovery and growth by providing new insights, encouraging new improvements, expanding ones value system, and making individuals more sensitive to others.

Thus, the admonition to always be happy, advice cavalierly dispensed to inexperienced organizational leaders by well-intentioned but uninformed others is not particularly effective and can in some situations lead to deleterious results for the individual manager and his or her organization. The seeming overemphasis on avoiding punishment and other aversive organizational control techniques should be tempered and understood that at times they are necessary. Scholarly and anecdotal evidence indicate that discipline and punishment are significant components of organizational life. This paper contributes to the erosion of the conventional wisdom regarding the use of punishment to manage behavior.

Many researchers and teachers have warned against the use of punishment because of the feared undesirable side effects (Luthans, 1995; Moorhead & Griffin, 1995; Northcraft & Neale, 1994; Organ & Hamner, 1982; Skinner, 1953). Reward is frequently proposed as a substitute motivator because it is more effective, longer lasting, and results in fewer negative side effects. In many situations, however, it could be argued that reward is not more effective or more long-lasting than punishment and that, often, reward is an inappropriate response for appropriate behavior. For example, in the context of ethical decision making, rewarding individuals who act according to ethical standards may be viewed as infeasible and foolish. It says, “We don’t really expect you to be ethical and if you do, we’ll be so surprised that we’ll give you a reward” (Bennett, 1998, p. 260). Imagine how expensive this practice would be to employers and governments because they expect everyone to act ethically. Punishment, conversely, signals to employees and citizens that unethical behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated. Regarding ethical conduct, some research has even demonstrated that direct punishment for unethical actions led to more ethical behavior than did rewards for ethical behavior (Trevino, Youngblood, Sutton, & Woodman, 1985).

On the other hand, the recommendations on the productive use of aversive control should not be interpreted as implying that managers should become sadistic, blissfully punishing every undesired behavior. It does suggest, however, that punishment can be an effective tool for suppressing employee misbehavior when used appropriately. As Arvey and Jones (1985) indicated, “A good manager is not necessarily one who seldom or never disciplines employees, but is rather one who administers discipline in a constructive or ‘fair’ manner” (p. 383).

We believe as most human behavior professionals that managers should overwhelmingly use positive reinforcement; we believe in the power of positive self-talk, positive expectations, and positive mental practice. In many cases we can deal more constructively with problem behaviors by studying them, removing the rewards that support them, and rewarding related behaviors that are desirable. The goal should be to take constructive action to correct these behaviors and not to demoralize and psychologically paralyze others by dwelling on them. Nevertheless, we believe that non-positive or aversive strategies may be useful at times. There are occasions when if we care for a person we must do something to stop behavior that is detrimental to that person. Not doing something to stop inappropriate behavior is a way of saying, “I don’t care about your long-term happiness.” Dr. Laura Schlessinger of talk radio fame indicates that a parent who supports a child when the child is wrong is not a very good parent and we would agree. Similarly, a manager who supports a supervisor when he or she is wrong is a poor manager and a union steward who supports a union member when he or she is wrong is no better.

There are occasions when letting employees experience the negative consequences of their behavior is the best thing a supervisor can do to support their long term adjustment. However, if managers find themselves using aversive consequences more and more, then they are probably in a counterproductive situation. By the same token, it is an incorrect generalization to suggest that under all circumstances work leaders should be positive in dealing with their employees. Seldom is it noted that there are qualifiers in applying such broad counsel.

References

Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal

and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.

Aoki, N. (2004, August 23). Harshness of red marks has students seeing purple. Boston

Globe. Retrieved June 29, 2006, from k_12/articles/2004/08/23/harshness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple?pg=full

Arvey, R. D., Davis, G., & Nelson, S. (1984). Use of discipline in an organization: A

field study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 448-460.

Arvey, R. D., & Ivancevich, J. M. (1980). Punishment in organizations: A review,

propositions, and research suggestions. Academy of Management Review, 5, 123- 132.

Arvey, R. D., & Jones, A. P. (1985). The use of discipline in organizational settings: A

framework for future research. In B. M. Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, vol. 7 (pp. 367-408). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Atwater, L., Waldman, D. A., Carey, J. A., & Cartier, P. (2001). Recipient and observer

reactions to discipline: Are managers experiencing wishful thinking. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 249-270.

Axelrod, R. (1986). An evolutionary approach to norms. American Political Science

Review, 80, 1095-1111.

Ball, G., Trevino, L., & Sims, H. (1994). Just and unjust punishment: Influences on

subordinate performance and citizenship. Academy of Management Journal, 37, 299-322.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social learning theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Barron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-

efficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.

BBC News. (2005, July 20). Teachers say no-one should ‘fail.’ Retrieved June 29, 2006,

from

Bennett, R. J. (1998). Taking the sting out of the whip: Reactions to consistent

punishment for unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 248-262.

Bentham, J. (1962). Principles of penal law. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy

Bentham (p. 396). New York: Russell and Russell.

Bernstein, S. D. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Meet the movement. Journal

of Management Inquiry, 12, 266-271.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brothers, J. (2005, February 27). “Shame May Not Be So Bad After All.” Parade

Magazine, Retrieved August 31, 2006, from

editions/2005/edition_02-27-2005/featured_0

Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Organizational punishment from

the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1479-1512.

Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., Wade, K. J., & Ball, G. A. (2005). Organizational

punishment from the manager’s perspective: An exploratory study. Journal of Managerial Issues, 17, 363-382.

Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of positive

organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3-13). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.

Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish?

Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 284-299.

Carnegie, D. (1937). How to win friends and influence people. New York: Simon &

Schuster.

Chidananda, S. S. (2004). Always be Positive. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from



Clark, P. (2006, July 22). No laughing matter: It is easy to view the new school of

happiness scientists as shallow pretenders compared with the ancient philosophers. Financial Times, London (UK), p. 25.

Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco: Berrett-

Koehler.

Coué, E. (1922). Self-mastery through conscious autosuggestion. New York: Kessinger

Publishing.

Conlon, D. E. (1993). Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of

procedural justice: Evidence from an organizational appeal procedure.

Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1109-1124.

Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues,

fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.

Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-200.

Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. R. (2003). An overview of organizational justice:

Implications for work motivation. In L W. Porter, G. A. Bigley, & R. M. Steers (Eds.) Motivation and work behavior (7th ed., pp. 82-95). New York, NY:

Daft, R. L. (1994). Management (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.

Daniels, A. C. (2001). Other people’s habits: How to use positive reinforcement to bring

out the best in people around you. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Daniels, A. C., & Daniels, J. E. (2005). Measure of a leader: An actionable formula for

legendary leadership. Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.

DeQuervain, D., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A.,

& Fehr, E. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305, 1254- 1258.

Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791.

Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.

Ferster, C. B. (1967). Arbitrary and natural reinforcement. The Psychological Record, 17,

341-347.

Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of

Management Review, 31, 270-291.

Fowler, J. H. (2005). Altruistic punishment and the origin of cooperation. Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 7047-7049.

George, J. M. (1995). Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The

case of social loafing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 68, 327-338.

Greenberg J. (1983). Self-image versus impression management in adherence to

distributive justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 5-19.

Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of

Management Review, 12, 9-22.

Greenberg J. (1990). Looking fair versus being fair: Managing impressions of

organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111-157.

Griffin, R. W. (1993). Management (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Guffey, C. J., & Helms, M. M. (2001). Effective employee discipline: A case of the

Internal Revenue Service. Public Personnel Management, 30, 111-127.

Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006). The competitive advantage of

sanctioning institutions. Science, 312, 108-111.

Harvey E., & Sims, P. (2005). Positive discipline: How to resolve tough performance

problems quickly, and permanently. Dallas, TX: Performance Systems Corporation.

Henrich, J. (2006). Cooperation, punishment, and the evolution of human institutions.

Science, 312, 60-61.

Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (2001). Why people punish defectors. Journal of Theoretical

Biology, 208, 79-89.

Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., et al.

(2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, 1767-1770.

Hewitt, J. (1998). The myth of self-esteem. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Hill, N. C. (1984). The need for positive reinforcement in corrective counseling.

Supervisory Management, 29, 10-14.

Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2005). Organizational behavior

and management (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Jansen, E., &Von Glinow, M. A. (1985). Ethical ambivalence and organizational reward

systems. Academy of Management Review, 10, 814-822.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation

between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11, 167-187.

Kreitner, R., & Luthans, F. (1984). A social learning approach to behavioral management: Radical behaviorists ‘mellowing out.’ Organizational Dynamics, 13, 47-65.

Leventhal, J. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, &

R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211–240).

Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). St. Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill.

Luthans, F. (2003). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706.

Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1995). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston:

Houghton Mifflin.

Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for

personal excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Niehoff, B. P., Paul, R. J., & Bunch, J. F. S. (1998). The social effects of punishment

events: The influence of violator past performance record and severity of the punishment on observers’ justice perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 589-602.

Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1994). Organizational behavior: A management challenge

(2nd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.

O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Puffer, S. (1989). The impact of rewards and punishments in a

social context: A laboratory and field experiment. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 41-53.

Organ, D., & Hamner, T. (1982). Organizational behavior (Rev. ed.). Plano, TX:

Business Publications.

Osteen, J. (2004). Your best life now: 7 Steps to living at your full potential. NY: Warner

Books.

Parke, R. D. (1972). Some effects of punishment on children’s behavior. In W. W.

Hartup (Ed.), The young child: Reviews of research. Washington, D. C.: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Payne, L. M., & Rolhing, C. (1994). A leader’s guide to just because I am: A child’s book

of affirmation. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing; and

Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York: Ballantine Books.

Perone, M. (2003). Negative effect of positive reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst, 26,

1-14.

Piper, W. (1930). The little engine that could. NY: Platt & Munk.

Podsakoff, P. M. (1982). Determinants of a supervisors use of rewards and punishments:

A literature review and suggestions for further research. Organizational Behavior

and Human Decision Making Processes, 29, 58-83.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D. Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational

moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact or fiction? Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.

Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of

positive scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31, 292-305

Rogers, R. K., Dillard, J., & Yuthas, K. (2005). The accounting profession: Substantive

change and/or image management. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 159-176.

Salerno, S. (2005). SHAM: How the self-help movement made America helpless. New

York: Crown Publishing Group.

Schnake, M. (1986). Vicarious punishment in a work setting. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 71, 343-345.

Schnake M. (1987). Vicarious punishment in a work setting: A failure to replicate.

Psychological Reports, 61, 379-386.

Schuller, R. H. (1967). Move ahead with possibility thinking. New York: Doubleday Dell. Schuller, R. H. (1985). The be (happy) attitudes: 8 positive attitudes that can transform

your life. Irving, TX: Word Publishing.

Scott, C. C. (1996). Student self-esteem and the school system: Perceptions and

implications. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 292-297.

Scripture, E. W. (1895). Thinking, feeling, and doing. Meadville, PA: Flood and Vincent.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. NY: Knopf.

Shermer, M. (2006, May). Sham Scam. The Self-Help and Actualization Movement Has

Become an $8.5-billion-a-year Business. Does It Work? Retrieved July 28, 2006, from

000602B6-9280-1447-8ADE83414B7F0101

Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative.

Sims, H. P. (1980). Further thoughts on punishment in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 5, 133-138.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). On human dignity. New York: MacMillan.

Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.

Skinner, B. F. (1983). A matter of consequences. New York: Knopf.

Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of

unselfish behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Stout, M. (2000). The feel-good curriculum. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,

NJ: Erlbaum.

Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice

perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17, 647-676.

Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1992). The social implications of punishing unethical

behavior: Observers’ cognitive and affective reactions. Journal of Management, 18, 751-768.

Trevino, L. K., Youngblood, S., Sutton, C., & Woodman, R. (1985, August). The

influences of reinforcement contingencies and cognitive moral development on ethical behavior: An experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Management, Chicago.

Twenge, J. M. (2006). Generation me: Why today’s young Americans are more

confident, assertive, entitled—and more miserable that ever before. New York: Free Press.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Age and birth cohort differences in self-

esteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 321-344.

Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context

of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and

organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Egocentric

interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas:

Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 111-126.

Woolfolk, R. L. (2002). The power of negative thinking: Truth, melancholia, and the

tragic sense of life. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22(1), 19-27.

Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly

come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442.

Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110-116.

Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-set configurations and opportunities as

predictors of unethical behavior in organizations. Human Relations, 32, 587-604.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download