1
Positivity and Punishment
C. W. Von Bergen
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
2
Positivity and Punishment
Abstract
While many people believe in the power of being positive, such a broad endorsement of this
aphorism is challenged here. 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. This paper emphasizes 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 offers a number of suggestions
for managers when using aversive control.
3
Positivity and Punishment
“Always be positive is the worst advice you could ever give or receive.”
--Daniels (2001, p. 44)
Even for the most talented individuals, the process of moving from individual
contributors to first-time supervisors is a difficult journey. The transition is frequently more
difficult than it has to be because new managers often behave based on myths about the role
(Hill, 2007). One such misconception involves the belief that supervisors must be 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 managers voice approval of the unquestioned benefits of unbridled positivity as a
management technique claiming it is simply common sense. With such a “strong positivity
zeitgeist” (Norem & Chang, 2002, p. 993), many of these individuals may feel unfamiliar and
uncomfortable with regard to aversive control1 which, despite conventional wisdom that suggests
that it should be avoided, remains an important aspect of virtually all managerial jobs
(Butterfield, Trevino, Wade, & Ball, 2005).
The importance of aversive control is further highlighted by the finding that most
employee handbooks and organizational policy and procedure manuals give considerable
discussion to punishment and disciplinary procedures. In part this is because goals
communicated through policy statements have significant effects on supervisors’ use of
discipline (Podsakoff, 1982). Given this importance, it is nonetheless interesting that
commentators seem reluctant to discuss aversive control or punishment and often relabel or
reframe their activities to communicate a more favorable impression such as constructive
4
punishment (Baron, 1988), positive discipline (Harvey & Sims, 2005), corrective counseling
(Hill, 1984), progressive discipline (Guffey & Helms, 2001), corrective action (Rogers, Dillard,
& Yuthas, 2005), positive self-discipline (Hilgert & Leonard (1998), and penalties (Daniels &
Daniels, 2005). People in positions of power (e.g.; employers, supervisors, teachers, parents)
often feel that it is a good idea to use discipline, but that it is somehow not acceptable to use
punishment (Hartshorn, 1998). They need to understand that when they discipline, what they are
really doing is punishing. From now on in this article, the psychological term of "punishment"
will be used in most situations.
This paper questions the broad endorsement to “always be positive” and the prominence
given 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 punishment more effective.
Factors influencing the importance of positivity
A number of factors have contributed to the emphasis on positivity including the impact
of culture, childrearing and family considerations, religious factors, educational influences, and
leadership traits. Each of these points 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
5
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). Indeed, “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” are said
to be among the “unalienable rights” of humankind and is one of the most famous phrases in the
United States Declaration of Independence, the 1776 statement considered to be the founding
document of America. Later, 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.” More recently Bouchier (2006)
noted America’s reputation of being a highly optimistic nation and that “Somewhere over the
rainbow the sun will come out tomorrow, so we can put on a happy face and let the sunshine in
while we dream the impossible dream.” Today, it is not uncommon to hear something akin to the
following: “Always have a positive view of things, not a negative one. Have a positive attitude
towards life, and in your daily life always move forward by taking a positive approach to life,
never a negative approach” (Chidananda, 2004). Numerous sources tell us how to be happy all
the time (Colwin, 1978; Kaplan, 2007; Yogananda, 2006). Americans, it seems, have been
dedicated to optimism and positivity and have had little use for the tragic view of life (Woolfolk,
2002).2
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, actualization, growth, fulfillment, and happiness (Salerno, 2005).
There is even a web site called “Get Your Happy” (http://www.getyourhappy.com). American
pop psychology has always been explicitly positive about the Dale Carnegies, Napoleon Hills,
Werner Erhards, Zig Ziglers, and Tony Robbinses of this world holding high honor. Indeed, we
6
are told that “…if your life does not get better, it is your fault—your thoughts were not positive
enough” (Shermer, 2006).
The emphasis on being positive and happy has also moved from pop psychology into the
scientific laboratory. For example, there is a great deal of evidence that optimism is associated
with good outcomes (e.g., health and well-being) and pessimism is associated with bad outcomes
(e.g., Taylor, Kemeny, Reed, Bower, & Gruenwald, 2000). This has lead to the prescription
“Think optimistically and you will do better.” Additionally, respected researcher and former
American Psychological Association President, Martin Seligman, indicated that individuals can
learn optimism and gain many benefits from positive thinking (1990) and officially placed
positive psychology3 on the academic agenda. Seligman’s book, Authentic Happiness (2002), has
become the bible of the happiness movement, and declares that by identifying the very best in
ourselves, we can improve the world around us and achieve new and sustainable levels of
authentic contentment, gratification, and meaning. It has been translated into nearly 20 languages
in the past four years, and seems to have created an entire scholarly industry (of consultants,
books, newsletters, tapes, seminars, courses, workshops, meetings, conferences, and training
organizations) committed to happiness (Seligman et al., 2005). Seligman (2006) maintains a
comprehensive web site devoted to the systematic investigation of happiness. Thus, from a
number of different avenues positivity and happiness have been accentuated and it appears that
“happiness scientists” are proliferating (Clark, 2006, p. 25).
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 positive approaches to modern living. He applied Christianity to everyday
7
problems and is the person who is most responsible for bringing psychology into the professing
Church, blending its principles into the 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 they have
committed, Schuller has tried to convince individuals that by positive thinking they can fulfill
their dreams.
Reverend Joel Osteen is Senior Pastor of the 30,000-member Lakewood Church in
Houston—the largest and fastest-growing congregation in the country. His weekly television
show airs on numerous channels nationwide and his themes of optimism and happiness are the
bedrock of the message he preaches that has made him one of America’s most popular preachers.
In his best selling book, Your Best Life Now (2004), Osteen proclaims that God wants people to
live their lives joyfully and that individuals can be happy where they currently are situated. The
basic message of the book is how to achieve happiness by “getting what you want and
developing ‘your full potential’” (Dean, 2005).
Interestingly, however, the Bible provides rather few formulas for happiness unless we
agree with those scholars who indicate that Jesus’ Beatitudes are best translated as happy are
those who hunger and thirst for righteousness … the poor in spirit … the merciful … those who
suffer persecution for the cause of goodness … the meek … the sincere … the peacemakers …
8
and, somewhat paradoxically, the mournful (Gospel of Matthew 5: 3-10). Even here, however,
happiness is emphasized in the afterlife.
Childrearing and family considerations. Over the years many children read Pollyanna
(Porter, 1913), a book about a young girl with infectious optimism who is adopted by her
wealthy aunt after her father’s death. Upon Pollyanna’s arrival, the dispirited town in which her
aunt lives becomes miraculously pleasant and healthy due to the gladness the child has brought.
Later, children heard the words spoken by the Little Engine That Could: “I think I can, I think I
can, I think I can…” (Piper, 1930, pp. 33-34). It was implied that the positive way the little
engine talked to itself influenced its ability to get over the mountain. Later, positive parenting
practices (see review by Dix, 1991) recommended overwhelmingly using positive reinforcers
incorporating (primarily) maternal approval and/or information content offered selectively
following children’s prosocial responses.
More recently Twenge (2006) has documented that the belief in the importance of being
positive and happy is ingrained in Generation Me (persons born in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s)
whose philosophy incorporates the following ideas:

the most important thing is how one feels and being happy,

do whatever is required to be happy and do not worry about what other people think,

do not follow the rules if they interfere with happiness.
Twenge (2006) indicated that this emphasis on happiness became particularly important
in the late 1970s when there was a pervasive, society-wide effort to increase children’s selfesteem. Research on programs to boost self-esteem first blossomed in the 1980s, with the
number of psychology and education journal articles devoted to self-esteem doubling between
the 1970s and the 1980s (Twenge & Campbell, 2001). Journal articles on self-esteem increased
9
another 52% during the 1990s (Hewitt, 1998). Thus, the emphasis on self-esteem and the need
for high self-esteem seems to be a rather recent development (Baumeister, 1987).
With such an emphasis, the mission statements of many schools today explicitly
announce that they aim to raise students’ self-esteem and that self-esteem can and should be
taught. Students have been encouraged to believe that it is acceptable and desirable to be
preoccupied with oneself and to praise oneself. This advice continues to be offered in spite of the
findings of a comprehensive review of the self-esteem literature which found that high selfesteem does not prevent children from smoking, drinking, taking drugs, bullying, or engaging in
early sex and that if anything, high self-esteem fosters experimentation, which may increase
early sexual activity or drinking (Baumeister, Campbell, Krueger, & Vohs, 2003).
Many of these 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 such statements make selfesteem contingent on performance. Instead, they declare “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.
Perhaps as a result, 60% of teachers and 69% of school counselors agree that self-esteem
should be raised by “providing more unconditional validation of students based on who they are
rather than how they perform or behave” (Scott, 1996, p. 293). This means feeling good about
oneself regardless of how one acts or performs.
Saying that having self-esteem makes people feel positive about themselves—
disregarding an experiential reason—is what self-esteem programs teach today’s youth
10
beginning in nursery school. Thus, when the importance of self-esteem is challenged, a major
part of the contemporary American view of the world is challenged. In a culture so obsessed with
feeling good about itself, even the hint of a self-esteem deficit is enough to prompt a nationwide
outcry. Stout (2000) noted that many educational psychologists believe schools should be
“places in which children are insulated from the outside world and emotionally—not
intellectually—nourished. My colleagues always referred to the importance of making kids feel
good about themselves but rarely, if ever, spoke of achievement, ideals, goals, character, or
decency” (p. 131).
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. A teacher proposed eliminating the word “fail” from education. Rather than
hear they have failed, students should hear that they have “deferred success” (BBC News, 2005).
Furthermore, some teachers believe that red ink is too “scary” for children’s papers. “I do not use
red,” said Robin Slipakoff, who teaches second and third grades at Mirror Lake Elementary
School in Plantation, Florida. “Red has a negative connotation, and we want to promote selfconfidence” (Aoki, 2004).
The self-esteem movement has been popular because it is sweetly addictive: teachers do
not have to criticize, children do not have to hear negative comments about their behavior, and
everyone goes home feeling happy, upbeat, and positive. The problem is they also may go home
ignorant and uneducated. And once home the importance of happiness and good feelings often
become paramount again. A student recalled, “My mom constantly told me how special I was.
11
No matter how I did, she would tell me I was the best” (Twenge, 2006, p. 58). “Another mother
didn’t make her son do homework because it made him ‘unhappy’” (Twenge, 2006, p. 75).
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. Children who are given
meaningless A’s and promoted when they have not mastered the material often later find out in
the working world that they do not know much at all. 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, “I liked 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.
Eminent clinical psychologist Albert Ellis is convinced that “self-esteem is the greatest sickness
known to man or woman” (cited in Epstein, 2001, p. 72) and that people would be better off if
they stopped trying to convince themselves that they are worthy.
Higher educational influences
More than 200 colleges and universities now offer classes in being happy (Yount, 2007).
In spring 2006 the first such course at Harvard enrolled 855 students, making it the most popular
offering at the Cambridge university (Yount, 2007). However, the value of being positive has
been taught in business and human relations classes for some time and may have begun with
Dale Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1937 which is still offered today as
an essential text on interpersonal skills. More recently, the goal of Stephen Covey’s best seller,
The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People (1989), is to develop a positive attitude by
developing trust, generating positive energy, and sidestepping negative energy. Covey’s strategy
suggests suppressing negative feelings and using positive feedback.
12
Furthermore, more academically-oriented management and business textbooks 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. Moreover, 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.
Other organizational research literature on aversive control suggests that although
punishment may provide short-term benefits, such as temporary subordinate compliance, it will
inevitably advance negative behaviors and attitudes, including resentment, hostility, and even
sabotage, over the long run (Arvey & Jones, 1985; Butterfield, Trevino, & Ball, 1996).
Accordingly, the subordinate-centered literature has suggested that truly effective punishment
may not be possible and that managers should therefore try to avoid punishing their subordinates
and emphasize the positive (e.g., Sims, 1980).
Emphasizing positiveness also seems to be a recent phenomenon in organizational
scholarship and theorizing that focuses on understanding the “best of the human condition”
(Cameron, Dutton, & Quinn, 2003, p. 4) including organizational virtues such as creativity,
resilience, compassion, nurturance, altruism, civility, forgiveness, and toleration (Bernstein,
2003; Keef, 2006; Wright, 2003). Such positive organizational scholarship addresses the study of
13
especially optimistic processes and attributes of individuals and organizations. Indeed, a whole
new discipline, appreciative inquiry, which focuses on peak, positive events, experiences, and
models, has become a dominant force in the organizational development and change literature
(Cooperrider & Whitney, 1999; Johnson & Leavitt, 2001; Ivancevich et al., 2005; Roberts,
2006).
A similar dim view of punishment is offered by the psychology literature. For example,
renowned psychologist B. F. Skinner (1971) eschewed the use of punishment and became the
foremost advocate of positive reinforcement in the service of humankind. Similarly, Ferster
(1967) expressed the common view when he said, “It has been clear for some time that many of
the ills of human behavior have come from aversive control” (p. 341). Likewise, in Coercion and
Its Fallout, Sidman (1989) worried about the negative side effects of aversive control: “People
who use punishment become conditioned punishers themselves…. Others will fear, hate, and
avoid them. Anyone who uses shock becomes a shock” (p. 79). Thus, not only is there an
emphasis on being positive but there is also a long history of not using aversive control,
particularly punishment. Nevertheless, there are some positive aspects of aversive control that
should be examined to provide a more balanced view of organizational behavior and its
management.
Leadership traits
Much is made in American society of the self-confidence, personal accomplishments,
resilience, and optimism of American business leaders. A number of studies have dealt with the
correlation between leadership and optimism and have found positive correlations between
optimism and level of leadership in officer cadets as evaluated by their military instructors
(Chemers et al., 2000). Similar findings with different samples were presented by George (2000),
14
Wunderley, Reddy, and Dember (1998), and Popper, Amit, Gal, Mishkal-Sinai, and Lisak
(2004). A sampling of words from a variety of leaders indicate a seeming emphasis on positive
messages (see Luntz, 2007, pp. 220-221):

“Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my
apple tree.” (Martin Luther King, Jr.)

“A pessimist is one who makes difficulties of his opportunities and an optimist is one
who makes opportunities of his difficulties.” (Harry Truman)

“Pessimism never won any battle.” (Dwight Eisenhower)

“There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human
intelligence, imagination, and wonder.” (Ronald Reagan)

“The only limit to our realization of tomorrow will be our doubts of today. Let us
move forward with strong and active faith.” (Franklin Roosevelt)
It appears that Americans generally respond well to others’ optimism and expect it in its leaders.
In summary then, a number of factors including the impact of culture, childrearing and
family considerations, religious effects, educational influences, and leadership factors suggest a
positive zeitgeist in America.
Positive aspects of aversiveness
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
15
it “never moved and at the end of two and one half hours was found dead. He had evidently been
boiled without noticing it” [sic] (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.
Learning from others’ punishment—or lack of it. 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 has been 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.
16
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).
These social effects of punishment were identified by O’Reilly and Puffer (1989) who
tested the hypothesis that the application of negative or positive sanctions by superiors toward a
deserving group member would have positive effects on the attitudes and intentions of other
group members. In Experiment 1 (a laboratory study), 48 undergraduates responded to a number
of scenarios as though they were members of the work group while in Experiment 2 (field
experiment) 142 sales clerks were tested on these scenarios. Findings show that the application
of a deserved reward or punishment to a group member had positive effects on the expressed
motivation/productivity, satisfaction, and perception of equity of observers, while failure to use
sanctions had negative effects. In Experiment 2, the punishment of poor performance registered
the highest ratings of equity. Thus, inappropriate rewards and punishments led to lower levels of
17
motivation, satisfaction, and perceived fairness. Similarly, 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. Likewise, Schnake (1986) found that
subjects who observed co-workers receiving a reduction in pay for poor performance produced
significantly more output than those in a control group. It appears that humans derive
satisfaction from punishing slackers and defectors (DeQuervain, Fischbacher, Treyer,
Schellhammer, Schnyder, Buck, & Fehr, 2004) and, as indicated earlier, such punishment
appears to have evolutionary survival value.
Just as individuals may learn from others being punished, they may also learn from those
who are not punished. Indeed, it is said 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 often sends a message that unethical conduct
is acceptable (Jansen & Von Glinow, 1985). Newman and Fuqua (2006) have argued
persuasively that many workers have become emboldened by the example of top executives who
have cheated without facing serious negative consequences and now believe that getting ahead in
the corporate world permits them to use any means (e.g., cheating, lying, and stealing) at their
disposal. In a similar vein, not involving ethical behavior, insiders have noted that the demise of
the once-successful brokerage firm E. F. Hutton can be attributed to the fact that no one in top
management was ever punished for making poor decisions (Fromson, 1988).
18
Learning from experience and the negative outcome bias. Drawing lessons from
experience is a major determinant of learning and of achieving improvement in organizational
performance (Levitt & March, 1988). The literature contains many examples demonstrating this
point (e.g., Carroll, 1995; Garvin, 1993; Popper & Lipshitz, 1998). There is an imbalance,
however, between learning from failures and learning from successes such that lessons from
experience after failure were more effective in raising subsequent performance than the process
of learning from successes (Ellis & Davidi, 1999; Ellis, Mendel, & Nir, 2006; Schank, 1986).
Indeed, Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Finkenauer, and Vohs (2001) have documented that “Bad is
stronger than good.” In a review of the literature, they argued that negative events have more
impact than positive events and that information about bad things is processed more thoroughly
than information about good. For example, there is evidence that automatic vigilance tends to be
greater to negative stimuli than to positive stimuli (e.g., Pratto & John, 1991). There is also
evidence that we see negative acts as more diagnostic about someone's inner qualities than
positive acts by making internal attributions for the former and external attributions for the latter
(e.g., Vonk, 1994).
This is consistent with the view that failed or unexpected incidents or failures are a
prerequisite for learning that has found widespread expression in the social psychology and
organizational behavior literature (Hastie, 1984; Lau & Russell, 1980; Maheswaran & Chaiken,
1991; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1981, 1987; Wong & Weiner, 1981). According to Kolb (1984)
and Osterman (1990), unexpected events and failures prompt an inner sense of discomfort and
perplexity, which serves as a lever for change and growth. Louis and Sutton (1991) suggested
that the unpleasant events inherent in failures are the fuel that intensifies cognitive processes that
eventually affect behavior. Focusing on failures or calling individuals’ attention to errors,
19
deficits, and problems can offer a solution to the complacency that commonly affects persons
following successful performance (Sitkin, 1992). Indeed, Sitkin (1992) even suggested that
organizations should develop a strategy of learning from small failures in order to improve their
performance.
These data appear to conflict with approaches such as appreciative inquiry (Srivastava,
Bilimoria, Cooperrider, & Fry, 1995) and positive organizational scholarship (Cameron et al.,
2003) that focus on learning from success. These approaches focus on discovering what works
well, why it works well, and how successes can be extended throughout the organization. They
are based on the premise that understanding how to enable human excellence in organizations
will unlock potential, reveal possibilities, and facilitate a more positive course of human and
organizational welfare.
The implication for supervisors is clear. There is a negative outcome bias and focusing on
employee performance gaps, failures, errors, and weaknesses may lead to greater worker
motivation to improve task behavior and results rather than spotlighting successes and the
positivity inherent in such discussions. However, people seldom receive negative feedback about
their skills and abilities from others in everyday life (Darley, & Fazio, 1980; Matlin, & Stang,
1978; Tesser, & Rosen, 1975) leading frequently to inflated self-assessments and continued
incompetence (Kruger & Dunning, 1999). Such discussions, however, do not have to be harsh,
unsympathetic, or callous.
Making aversive control conditional on inappropriate behavior. Finally, noted business
author and management consultant, Aubrey Daniels, (2001) whose quote opened this paper,
argued that being positive may not always be appropriate. If the best, most positive thing that a
supervisor can tell an employee is that he or she has a nice dress or suit, then that manager may
20
wish to reconsider the maxim of always being positive. In the same way, if parents remain
positive in spite of selfish, lazy, and rebellious behavior from their children then they may want
to revisit their approach to always being positive. Finally, if teachers think they are supposed to
be encouraging and upbeat even when their students are complaining, off-task, and out of control
then they may want to reexamine their approach to influencing human behavior.
There are times when a person’s performance, deeds, and actions (e.g., employee, child,
student) does not warrant the supervisor, parent, or teacher being positive. Behaviors that are
detrimental to a well-functioning company, family, school, or society should not be met with
positive consequences. Individuals must learn that they must earn good things, including being
positive, from authority figures (Daniels, 2001).
Therefore, aversive control is a 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. It should be pointed out that these aversive control guidelines are
appropriate only after a supervisor has determined—perhaps through a process similar to Mager
and Pipe’s (1984) analyzing performance problems—that an employee does not have a skill or
ability deficiency (perhaps because of a lack of training), or that there are obstacles beyond the
employee’s control, such as inadequate equipment or disruptive colleagues. The point is that if
the cause of an employee’s problem is outside his or her control, then punishment is not proper.
21
If an employee can perform but does not, then punishment may be called for and the following
guidelines then come into play. Figure 1 summarizes these guidelines.
--------------------------------------Insert Figure 1 about here
--------------------------------------Provide constructive vs. destructive criticism. Aversiveness in the workplace typically
involves at some point in time discussions between managers and individuals receiving negative
feedback regarding their performance, however, providing negative feedback to others about
their past performance is a task few persons enjoy (cf. Larson, 1986; Veiga, 1988) and, as
indicated earlier, seldom given. Even young children are familiar with the notion that “if you do
not have something nice to say, don’t say anything at all.” Nevertheless, negative feedback is
often necessary (Ilgen, Mitchell, & Fredrickson, 1981). Importantly, however, Baron (1988)
found that it was not the delivery of negative feedback, per se, that produced such unconstructive
outcomes as increased levels of conflict, resentment, and aggression among recipients; rather, it
was the manner in which such information was conveyed that seemed to play a crucial role.
Negative performance discussions consistent with principles of effective feedback (feedback that
is specific, considerate, and contains no threats or suggestions that an individual’s poor
performance is due to negative internal attributions such as the person being stupid, lazy, etc.)
suggested by previous researchers (e.g., Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, &
Boeschen, 1981; Liden & Mitchell, 1985; Weisinger, 1989)—and what Baron (1988) calls
constructive criticism—did not lead to such negative effects and interestingly, Atwater et al.
(2001), found that recipients of punishment recipients were more likely to report positive
outcomes resulting from discipline than were managers.
22
In comparison to constructive criticism, destructive criticism is characterized by negative
feedback that is general, inconsiderate and harsh in tone, contains threats of termination or
reassignment, and attributes poor performance to internal causes, has been found to generate
stronger feelings of anger and tension among recipients and to increase recipients’ tendency to
adopt ineffective techniques for dealing with poor performance (e.g., making endless excuses,
refusing to change). In addition, such criticism intensifies subsequent conflict between the
criticizer and the recipient, and reduces both self-set goals and feelings of self-efficacy on the
part of recipients (Baron, 1988). Clearly, managers should engage in constructive rather than
destructive criticism when providing negative feedback about an employee’s problematic
performance.
Punishment should be 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 should recognize that their employees evaluate
punishment events as fair when its administration is contingent on a specific infraction—and
thus deserving.
Provide alternative, appropriate behaviors. Research has also supported the notion that
criticism is beneficial and leads to the establishment of higher goals and an improved leadersubordinate relationship (Baron, 1988). Studies from the educational arena (e.g., Educational
Services Center, TAAS Dept., Region XIII, 1998; Minnesota Department of Children, Families
23
& Learning, 1996; What Teachers Need to Know About Learning, n. d.) overwhelming advocate
providing students with alternative, constructive behaviors to replace specific maladaptive
behavior. Application of such a behavioral guideline is also proper within an organizational
behavior context; i.e., a manager’s criticism of an employee should be followed by teaching a
new alternative behavior to replace specific inappropriate behavior. When punishment to
eliminate inappropriate behavior is used in conjunction with positive reinforcement to teach
alternative behaviors, emotional side effects such as fear and dislike of supervisors, attempts to
escape or avoid work, or anxiety are less likely to occur (What Teachers Need to Know about
Learning, n. d.). Providing alternative, productive behaviors to trainees has also been a
fundamental learning principle incorporated into many management development programs,
including the popular supervisor training program, Interaction Management, of Development
Dimensions International (DDI), a highly successful management training and consulting
organization (Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organization, n. d.; Pesuric
& Byham, 1996).
Provide 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). Additionally, previous research on provocation and
aggression indicates that verbal assaults that seem unjustified often result in greater anger than
do verbal attacks that seem relatively justified (Baron, 1977; Geen & Donnerstein, 1983). An
employee who is punished for no discernible reason may believe the punishment to be
unjustified. 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 effect on work behavior
24
(Podsakoff et al., 1984). The effect on work behavior initiated by this perceived lack of
relationship 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) and resent that which they see
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 often be perceived as
unfair and employees will retaliate in order to reciprocate for the apparent 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.
Timing 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).
25
Nevertheless, it may be best to not take punitive action without review. There can be
many extenuating circumstances associated with inappropriate behavior. Therefore, evaluate the
situation thoroughly before deciding on any punitive action. Additionally, delaying criticism may
be prudent if the manager is not sure how to administer discipline correctly. 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 in the Atwater
et al. (2001) investigation, occurred because managers did not know how to administer discipline
properly. Similarly, managers in the Butterfield et al. (1996) study expressed many concerns
regarding procedural issues regarding punishment.
Likewise, Atwater et al. (2001) noted that managers often make mistakes in the discipline
process because they were often “out of control” (p. 267). Thus, immediacy of punishment may
be delayed if a manager’s emotional state would likely lead to an unduly harsh interaction with a
worker. All too often, persons in authority tend to criticize subordinates only when they are
upset, angry, and no longer able to hold their tempers in check (Baron, 1988). Because of the
criticizer’s strong emotions, feedback is typically delivered in a biting, sarcastic tone, and
includes threats and other negative features (Heldmann, 1988; Weisinger, 1989). Hence some
delay may be appropriate—but not too much of a delay. This is because many individuals seem
to refrain from delivering negative feedback to others until their own strong emotional reactions
make it all but impossible for them to withhold such information (cf. Larson, 1984, 1986). Then,
the feedback they supply is likely to prove ineffective (Ilgen, Fisher, & Taylor, 1979; Weisinger
& Lobsenz, 1981) and may exact serious costs in terms of organizational commitment, jobrelated motivation, and negative attitudes among recipients toward their supervisor, or toward
26
appraisal procedures generally (Ilgen, Mitchell, & Fredrickson, 1981; Ilgen, Peterson, Martin, &
Boeschen, 1981).
Privacy of punishment. Consistent with good feedback principles discussed earlier,
researchers 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
supervisors give some consideration to publicly punishing wrong doers so that other potential
offenders learn by example and discover the consequences of violating rules. 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). When problem behaviors are corrected publicly, recipients and others may
become more cautious and aware, and larger problems can be solved as a result of an observed
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.
27
Consistency and fairness of punishment. Research by Greenberg (1990a), Moorman
(1991), and Trevino (1992) suggest that the negative consequences said to be associated with
punishment can be minimized if disciplinary actions are perceived to be fair, unbiased, impartial,
and consistent. Individuals are not only concerned with the outcomes they receive but also with
the fairness by which that outcome is allocated (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). In general, 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 change without negative side effects as
Ball, Trevino, and Sims (1994) discovered in their field study. Briefly, these researchers found
that punishment that was 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 received 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 weaker targets (e.g., subordinates). 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 work-group morale and cooperation among team
members.
28
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, employees are likely
to accept unfavorable outcomes as fair if they perceive the procedure to be reasonable
(Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). That is, the process of determining if punishment
is necessary may be as important to the employee as is the punishment itself.
However, even when the punishment occurrence is perceived as unfair, it may not
necessarily be bad (Atwater et al., 2001). For example, Greenberg (1990b, p. 116) noted that “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
29
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, managers will believe their actions are fair,
they may consider spending some time thinking about the discussion of fairness with individuals
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 punished
workers claimed the punishment was unfair, production among observers of the event and
satisfaction with supervision decreased.
Conclusion
The dominant American culture—and research in psychology and business—often
underestimate some of the costs of happiness, optimism, and the strong positivity zeitgeist.
Across a number of domains negativity, pessimism, and punishment are disdained and
discounted in both lay and professional discourse such that “positivity is good” and “punishment
is bad.” Indeed, the power of accentuating the positive is pervasive in American society and has
acquired the status of a celebrated movement (Fineman, 2006a).
A review of a number of disciplines suggest that positivity is a worthwhile goal. For
example, Americans generally respond well to others’ optimism and expect it in its leaders.
Much is made, for example, of the self-confidence, optimism, personal accomplishments, and
resilience of American business leaders. When business practices fail, Americans are likely to
attribute the soft landings of executives and their sometimes spectacular comebacks to their
positive attitudes (Norem & Chang, 2002). Much less often, however, are the costs to employees,
investors, and clients noted when overly optimistic expansions and acquisitions lead to
bankruptcy, downsizings, and layoffs. Indeed, throughout society delays, overruns, and inventory
30
problems often result because of overly optimistic projections that might have been avoided or
curtailed if individuals were willing to consider less sanguine estimates (Norem, 2001a). Just as
in ancient times, Americans generally remain unreceptive to modern Cassandras.
One such modern Cassandra may be well-known psychologist Woolfolk who cautions
against the indiscriminate endorsement of all things positive. 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 (2006b) has
expressed concern about what he perceives as the overemphasis on positivity, and political
science theorist Dienstag (2006) argued persuasively that optimism is problematic, leading to
disillusion and resignation because it sets people up for disappointment while pessimism
liberates individuals from the relentless expectation of progress and finds energy in realism about
the world. Dienstag (2006) indicated that optimism is dangerous because it often leads people to
underestimate the hazards of the world, and that the power of negative thinking is that it enables
people to deal with the unexpected.
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
31
new improvements, expanding ones value system, and making individuals more sensitive to
others. Punishments involving shame and public humiliation also seem to be making a
resurgence in the criminal justice system as drunk drivers are forced to advertise their misdeeds
with bumper stickers on their cars, petty thieves are required to broadcast their transgressions by
parading as human billboards, and men caught soliciting prostitutes are shown on public
television or their names published in local newspapers or on billboards (Behan, 1996; Netter,
2005; Whitman, 1998). Kahan and Posner (1999) have recommended amending the federal
sentencing guidelines to expressly allow for widespread stigmatic shaming of white-collar
criminals and the editorial page of the New York Times declared shame sanctions worth trying, at
least under certain circumstances (Alternative Sentencing, 1997).
In a different field Norem (2001b), drawing heavily on personality research (particularly
defensive pessimism), discussed the costs of being happy (optimism). Defensive pessimism
refers to a strategy anxious individuals use to pursue important goals. These individuals set
unrealistically low expectations and then devote considerable energy to mentally playing through
or reflecting on all the possible outcomes they can imagine for a given situation. Defensive
pessimists work through their anxiety on their way toward their goals rather than focusing on
increasing their immediate happiness or satisfaction and remind us that feeling good is not
always the highest priority.
Research has typically contrasted defensive pessimism with strategic optimism which
refers to a strategy whereby individuals set optimistic expectations for their own performance
and actively avoid extensive reflection. In addition to avoiding reflection prior to a task, strategic
optimists typically employ the kinds of self-serving optimistic illusions Taylor and Brown (1988)
describe. Generally, the literature has shown that defensive pessimists perform as well as
32
strategic optimists and that both groups show performance decrements and increased anxiety
when prevented from using their preferred strategies (Cantor & Norem, 1989; Norem &
Illingworth, 1993; Spencer & Norem, 1996). For example, Norem and Illingworth (1993) found
in both a laboratory experiment and in a “real life” investigation, that defensive pessimists
performed better when they thought through possible negative outcomes. Strategic optimists, in
contrast, did best when they did not reflect on possible negative outcomes and significantly
worse when they did. Similarly, Spencer and Norem (1996) found that defensive pessimists did
best on a dart-throwing task when they engaged in coping imagery (considering what could go
wrong) and significantly worse when they engaged in relaxation imagery. The opposite pattern
was obtained for strategic optimists. Therefore, across a variety of settings, participants, and
tasks, research shows that when defensive pessimists and strategic optimists are left alone to use
their strategies, they do equally well but are vulnerable to disruptions that interfere with their
preferred approaches; that is, positive mood impairs the performance and satisfaction of
defensive pessimists but enhances the performance of strategic optimists (Norem & Illingworth,
2004; Sanna, 1996, 1998).
Clearly, “one size fits all” prescriptions are not appropriate and optimism, happiness, and
positive thinking can derail us is if they lead us to ignore or discount important cues and
warnings. Given the self-serving function of optimistic biases, strategic optimists should be
motivated to preserve their positive self-images and positive outlooks and resistant to negative
feedback that might be informative and useful. Indeed, in one study, Norem (2001b) found that
strategic optimists remembered feedback about a social performance as significantly more
positive than it actually was, and also thought they had less need to improve their performance
than observers perceived they did.
33
The costs and benefits of optimism and pessimism may also vary across the life span.
Robinson-Whelen, Cheongtag, MacCallum, and Kiecolt-Glaser (1997), for example, found little
evidence for the “power of positive thinking” among an older-aged group of caregivers and noncaregivers while Isaacowitz and Seligman (2001) reported that among the elderly, a realistically
pessimistic perspective is associated with better adaptation to negative life events, in contrast to
the better adjustment of optimistic perspectives associated with younger samples.
Additionally, Chang (1996) found that while pessimism was negatively associated with
problem-solving and expressing emotion coping strategies for Caucasian Americans, it was
positively associated with use of these coping strategies for Asian Americans. Such a differential
impact seems to also hold true in child parenting. Substantial research has provided experimental
evidence illustrating the weakness of maternal praise as a positive reinforcer for conduct problem
children’s compliance (as opposed to cooperative, compliant children) because these children do
not benefit from parent training in specific positive practices (e.g., the differential use of praise;
Herbert et al., 1973; Roberts, 1985; Wahler, 1997). Truly, there are different strokes for different
folks and encouraging individuals to engage in positive thinking, optimism, and positive
reinforcement as a general dictum is limited.
Finally, situational factors (context) may favor the use of punishment as opposed to
rewards. For example, comparisons of rewards and punishments as motivation for individual
compliance find no difference (Kipnis, 1958; Lindskold & Tedeschi, 1971) or an advantage for
rewards (Hogan, Fisher, & Morrison, 1974; Schmitt & Marwell, 1970). By contrast, experiments
comparing reward and punishments as inducements for groups of subjects usually find that
punishments are more effective. Stern (1976) experimented with a wide variety of influence
techniques for producing resource conservation in a simulated commons dilemma and found that
34
price increases—a kind of negative incentive—produced conservation while direct payoffs and
rationing did not. Shaw (1977) assessed the effect of joint rewards for cooperation versus joint
punishments for competition on subjects playing a standard prisoner’s dilemma game and found
that punishment led to more cooperation than rewards in the control condition, even through
subjects perceived themselves as more cooperative in the reward condition. Caldwell (1976)
reported that allowing subjects in a five-person prisoner’s dilemma to vote to impose a fine on a
defector increased cooperation above the baseline rate and above the cooperation in which
discussions but not fines were allowed. Similar data were reported by Oliver (1984).
Evolutionary value of punishment. 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 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 (Axelrod, 1986; Henrich, 2006; Henrich
& Boyd, 2001; Sober & Wilson, 1998). 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
willingness to administer punishment as unequal behavior increased and that punishment
positively covaried with altruistic behavior across populations. In line with such research,
Wagner and Harter (2007) noted in organizational contexts that “few factors are as corrosive to
employee engagement as a colleague who skates through the workweek, taking advantage of
others’ hard work” (p. 5D) and suggest that punishment of such individuals may be appropriate.
35
Thus it appears that punishment of slackers and free riders has positive consequences for long
term societal and organizational behavior.
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
in some situations can 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 aversive control is a significant
component of organizational life and can be efficacious, thus eroding the conventional wisdom
regarding the admonition not to use punishment to manage and control behavior.
Many researchers and teachers have warned against the use of aversive control 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 helpful, 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.
Ethics and punishment
36
One of the many ways that punishment intersects with ethics is in its power to define and
prioritize what is important. This is true of both formal punishment, such as when an individual
is found guilty of breaking a law, and informal punishment like criticism, shunning, public
disgrace, and loss of prestige and status. The persistence of the death penalty for murder in the
American penal system, for example, influences American culture’s thinking in many other
ethical issues involving life and death, such as euthanasia, the withholding of medical care, and
abortion, as well as penalties for lesser crimes. Reserving the ultimate penalty for murder makes
it more difficult in America to justify a citizen taking a life in other circumstances (Ethics
Scoreboard Society, 2005). Our culture continues to send the message that ending the life of
another intentionally is so unacceptable that the one who does so may deserve to have his own
life taken from him or her. It is no coincidence that many European countries that have outlawed
capital punishment also have come to endorse euthanasia and assisted suicide.
The impact of a lack of punishment on our ethical values may be seen across a number of
domains. In sports, for example, the New York Yankee fans who cheer admitted steroid-user
Jason Giambi because he is hitting home runs are making the statement that they value on-field
performance over off-field integrity. Likewise, the National Football League (NFL) has
practically collected a team of convicted or charged felons. For example, star receiver, Randy
Moss, unapologetically announced that he was a frequent user of marijuana, which is to say, a
frequent law-breaker. Every cheer for Moss and his fellow NFL criminals reduces the societal
stigma against disrespect for the law. The lack of rejection and punishment for drug users
contributes to a new ethical order in which chemical enhancements are acceptable.
A similar phenomenon occurred when society stopped penalizing celebrities who had
children out of wedlock. From a point in time when film star Ingrid Bergman’s career was
37
derailed by public outrage over her pregnancy by a man married to someone else, celebrities in
music, film and sports routinely have children without the formality of marriage vows and garner
no negative reaction from the public or the media. The message communicated is that having
children without being married is not “wrong” resulting in soaring numbers of single mothers
across the nation’s socio-economic spectrum. Everyone recognizes that children born to unwed
mothers causes major societal problems, but practically no one declares the conduct improper
and deserving of punishment through various expressions of societal disapproval. In part
individuals may be reluctant to do so however for fear that they may be perceived as intolerant
and thus worth of contempt and ridicule (Sarfati, 2003). Some authors have gone so far as to
suggest a tyranny of tolerance (Dierker, 2006).
Likewise, the U.S. military has spoken volumes with its adamant refusal to hand out
significant punishment to those in the chain of command leading to the prisoner abuse at Iraq’s
Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere. With respect to crime, Dierker (2006), a state judge in
Missouri, indicated that the culture of leniency fostered by Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society
(Sowell, 1995) has resulted in substantial social regression such that there has been a 560%
increase in violent crime (Bennett, 1999) due significantly to what Dierker (2006) calls the
“crime but no punishment” (p. 91) phenomenon.
Supervisors, also, create problems for themselves when they do not address improper
behaviors. Take safety-related behavior for example. If a supervisor does not enforce established
safety rules and take corrective action when they observe an employee engaging in at-risk
behavior then from the employees’ perspective the supervisors were positively reinforcing those
behaviors. In some cases negative reinforcement and punishment must be used to initiate the
proper behaviors so that they can then be positively reinforced (Perkinson, 2005). Similar
38
inaction by a supervisor who does nothing to an employee who steals organizational assets may
communicate to others that such behavior is, if not approved, is at least tolerated.
On a broader scale, punishment signals to employees and citizens that unethical behavior
is wrong and will not be tolerated. Research on ethical conduct 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). The recent watershed development
in which 10 former directors of WorldCom Inc. agreed to pay $18 million out of their own
pockets for their failed oversight of the bankrupt telecom firm was a punishment for ethical
wrongdoing that may have an impact for years to come (Institute for Global Ethics, 2005).
Taking money from a director’s personal assets was an unusual arrangement since most
companies carry insurance designed to insulate directors from taking a personal hit when sued
for wrongdoing.
Step by step, case by case, decision by decision, America’s culture of acceptable and
unacceptable behavior is constantly evolving according to the conduct we are willing to tolerate.
Punishment often has unpleasant side effects but without it ethical distinctions will blur into
incoherence.
Whether we like it or not, levels of punishment (and rewards) send a message and defines
the culture.
Cautions
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)
39
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).
Managers should overwhelmingly use positive reinforcement, positive expectations,
positive mental practice, and encourage employee positive self-talk, all tailored to the individual
employee. 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, non-positive
or aversive strategies may be useful at certain times, with certain people, in certain contexts.
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
is correct when she indicates that a parent who supports a child when the child is wrong is not a
very good parent (Daniels & Daniels, 2005). 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 almost certainly 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.
The current positivity zeitgeist leads to an overemphasis on the merits of being happy and
40
optimistic with a corresponding under-emphasis on its potential costs. Such a myopic view may
blind supervisors to the diversity of approaches and pathways that can be used to better the
human condition.
When the punishment fits, behavior shifts and the organization is encouraged. While
punishment is often seen as vindictive, under certain circumstances it is appropriate and valid.
41
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Alternative Sentencing. (1997, January 20). New York Times, A16, A20.
Aoki, N. (2004, August 23). Harshness of red marks has students seeing purple. Boston Globe.
Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://www.boston.com/news/education/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.
42
Baron, R. A. (1977). Human aggression. New York: Plenum Press.
Baron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, self-efficacy,
and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.
Baumeister, R. F. (1987). How the self became a problem: A psychological review of historical
research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 163-176.
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than
good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-esteem
cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles?
Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1-44.
BBC News. (2005, July 20). Teachers say no one should ‘fail.’ Retrieved June 29, 2006, from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4697461.stm
Behan, C. (1996, February 29). Shame on you!. The University Chicago Chronicle, 15. Retrieved
February 13, 2007, from http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/960229/shame.shtml
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.
Bennett, W. J. (1999). The index of leading cultural indicators: American society at the end of
the 20th century. Colorado Springs, CO: Waterbrook Press.
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.
43
Bouchier, D. (2006, October 19). Pessimism for beginners. Retrieved December 1, 2006, from
http://davidbouchier.com/blog/?p=46
Brothers, J. (2005, February 27). Shame may not be so bad after all. Parade Magazine, Retrieved
August 31, 2006, from http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2005/edition_02-272005/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.
Caldwell, M. D. (1976). Communication and sex effects in a five-person prisoners’ dilemma
game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 273-280.
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.
Cantor, N., & Norem, J. K. (1989). Defensive pessimism and stress and coping. Social
Cognition, 7, 92-1 I2.
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.
44
Carroll, J. S. (1995). Incident reviews in high-hazard industries: Sensemaking and learning under
ambiguity and accountability. Industrial and Environmental Crisis Quarterly, 9, 176198.
Chang, E. C. (1996). Evidence for the cultural specificity of pessimism in Asians vs.
Caucasians: A test of a general negativity hypothesis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 21, 819-822.
Chemers, M. M., Watson, C. B., & May, S. T. (2000). Dispositional affect and leadership
effectiveness: A comparison of self-esteem, optimism, and efficacy. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 267-277.
Chidananda, S. S. (2004). Always be Positive. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from http://www.dlshq.
org/messages/bepositive.htm
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.
Colvin, L. (1978). Happy all the time. NY: Alfred A. Knopf.
Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organization. (n. d.). Interaction
Management—Development Dimensions International, Inc. Retrieved November 30,
2006, from http://www.eiconsortium.org/model_programs/interaction_managment.pdf
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
45
Journal, 36, 1109-1124.
Consortium for Research on Emotional Intelligence in Organization. (n. d.). Interaction
Management—Development Dimensions International, Inc. Retrieved November 30,
2006, from http://www.eiconsortium.org/model_programs/interaction_managment.pdf
Covey, S. R. (1989). The seven habits of highly effective people: Restoring the character ethic.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
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., & Daniel, J. E. (2005). Measure of a leader: An actionable formula for legendary
leadership. Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.
Darley, J. M., & Fazio, R. H. (1980). Expectancy confirmation processes arising in the social
interaction sequence. American Psychologist, 35, 867-881.
Dean, J. (2005). Positively dangerous. Retrieved November 30, 2006, from http://www.ministry
watch.org/mw2.1/pdf/Article_031805_Olsteen.pdf
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.
46
Dienstag, J. F. (2006). Pessimism: Philosophy, ethic, spirit. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
Dierker, R. H. Jr. (2006). The tyranny of tolerance. NY: Crown Forum.
Dix, T. (1991). The affective organizing of parenting: Adaptive and maladaptive processes.
Psychological Bulletin, 110, 3-25.
Educational Services Center, TAAS Dept., Region XIII. (1998). Phonological awareness:
Principles for instruction and progress monitoring. Professional development guide.
Austin, TX: Author.
Ellis, S., & Davidi, I. (1999). Switching cognitive gears between conscious and automatic
thinking: Drawing lessons from failed vs. successful events. Best Paper Proceedings of
the Academy of Management Conference, Chicago.
Ellis, S., Mendel, R., & Nir, M. (2006). Learning from successful and failed experience: The
moderating role of kind of after-event review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 669680.
Epstein, R. (2001, January/February). The prince of reason. Psychology Today, 34, 66-76.
Ethics Scoreboard Society (2005). Punishment and Ethics. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from
http://www.ethicsscoreboard.com/list/punishment.html
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. (2006a). Accentuating the positive? Academy of Management Review, 31, 306-308.
Fineman, S. (2006b). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of Management
47
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.
Fromson, B. D. (1998, February 29). The slow death of E. F. Hutton. Fortune, pp. 82-84, 86, 88.
Garvin, D. A. (1993, July-August). Building a learning organization. Harvard Business Review,
78-91.
Geen, R. G., & Donnerstein, E. I. (1983). Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews. New
York: Academic Press.
George, J. M. (1995). Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The case of social
loafing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 68, 327-338.
George, J. M. (2000). Emotion and leadership: The role of emotional intelligence. Human
Relations, 53, 1027–1055.
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. (1990a). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of
Management, 16, 399-432.
Greenberg J. (1990b). 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.
48
Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006). The competitive advantage of sanctioning
institutions. Science, 312, 108-111.
Hartshorn, D. (1998). Punishing unsafe behavior. Occupational Hazards, 60, 112-117.
Harvey E., & Sims, P. (2005). Positive discipline: How to resolve tough performance problems
quickly, and permanently. Dallas, TX: Performance Systems Corporation.
Hastie, R. (1984). Causes and effects of causal attribution. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 46, 44-56.
Heldmann, M. L. (1988). When words hurt. New York: New Chapter Press.
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.
Herbert, E. W., Pinkston, E. M., Hayden, M. L., Sajway, T. E., Pinkston, S., Cordua, G., &
Jackson, C. (1973). Adverse effects of differential parental attention. Journal of Applied
Behavior Analysis, 6, 15-30.
Hewitt, J. (1998). The myth of self-esteem. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hilgert, R. L., & Leonard, E. J. Jr. (1998). Supervision: Concepts and practices of management
(7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
Hill, L. A. (2007, January 7). First-time bosses often operate on myths. Dallas Morning News, p.
3D.
Hill, N. C. (1984). The need for positive reinforcement in corrective counseling. Supervisory
49
Management, 29, 10-14.
Hogan, J. L., Fisher, R. L., & Morrison, B. J. (1974). Social feedback and cooperative game
behavior. Psychological Reports, 34, 1075-1082.
Ilgen, D. R., Fisher, C. D., & Taylor, M. S. (1979). Consequences of individual feedback on
behavior in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 349-371.
Ilgen, D. R., Mitchell, T. R., & Fredrickson, J. W. (1981). Poor performers: Supervisors’ and
subordinates’ responses. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 27, 386410.
Ilgen, D. R., Peterson, R. B., Martin, B. A., & Boeschen, D. A. (1981). Supervisor and
subordinate reactions to performance appraisal sessions. Organizational Behavior and
Human Performance, 28, 311-330.
Institute for Global Ethics (2005). Former WorldCom Board Members Take $18M Personal
Hit in Fraud Settlement. Retrieved February 22, 2007, from http://www.globalethics.org/
newsline/members/issue.tmpl?articleid=0110051726025
Isaacowitz. D. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2001). Is pessimism a risk factor for depressive
mood among community-dwelling older adults? Behaviour Research and Therapy,
39, 255-272.
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.
Johnson, G., & Leavitt, W. (2001). Building on success: Transforming organizations through an
appreciative inquiry. Public Personnel Management, 30, 129-136.
50
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.
Kahan, D. M., & Posner, E. A. (1999). Shaming white-collar criminals: A proposal for reform of
the federal sentencing guidelines. Journal of Law & Economics, 42, 365-
.
Kaplan, J. (2007, January 21). How to be happy all the time. Parade, 4-6.
Keef, K. (2006, October 5-7). Applying positive organizational scholarship to the United States
military. Proceedings of the Fourteenth Annual Institute of Behavioral and Applied
Management, Memphis, Tennessee.
Kipnis, D. (1958). The effects of leadership style and leadership power upon the inducement of
an attitude change. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 57, 173-180.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kreitner, R., & Luthans, F. (1984). A social learning approach to behavioral management:
Radical behaviorists ‘mellowing out.’ Organizational Dynamics, 13, 47-65.
Larson, J. R. (1984). The performance feedback process: A preliminary model. Organizational
Behavior and Human Performance, 33, 42-76.
Lindskold, S., & Tedeschi, J. T. (1971). Self-esteem and sex as factors affecting influencibility.
British Journal of Clinical and Social Psychology, 10, 114-122.
Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: How difficulties in recognizing
one’s own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 77, 1121-1134.
Larson, J. R. (1986). Supervisors’ performance feedback to subordinates: The impact of
51
subordinate performance valence and outcome dependence. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 37, 391-408.
Lau, R. R., & Russell, D. (1980). Attributions in the sports pages. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 39, 29-38.
Levitt, B., & March, J. G. (1988). Organizational learning. Annual Review of Sociology, 14, 319340.
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.
Liden, R. C., & Mitchell, T. R. (1985). Reactions to feedback: The role of attributions. Academy
of Management Journal, 28, 291-308.
Louis, M. R., & Sutton, R. I. (1991). Switching cognitive gears: From habits of mind to active
thinking. Human Relations, 44, 55-76.
Luntz, F. I. (2007). Words that work: It’s not what you say, It’s what people hear. NY: Hyperion.
Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). St. Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill.
Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1984). Analyzing performance problems or you really oughta wanna.
Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.
Maheswaran, D., & Chaiken, S. (1991). Promoting systematic processing in low-motivation
settings: Effect of incongruent information on processing and judgment. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 13-25.
Matlin, M., & Stang, D. (1978). The Pollyanna principle. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families & Learning (1996). Promising practices in
52
designing and using behavioral interventions. St. Paul, MN: Author.
Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1995). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Moorman, R. H. (1991). Relationship between organization justice and organizational
citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 76, 845-855.
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for
personal excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Netter, B. (2005). Avoiding the shameful backlash: Social repercussions for the increased use of
alternative sanctions. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96, 187-215.
Newman, J. L., & Fuqua, D. R. (2006). What does it profit an organization if it gains the
whole world and loses its own soul? Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and
Research, 58, 13-22.
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, 589602.
Norem, J. K. (2001a). The positive power of negative thinking. New York: Basic Books.
Norem. J. K. (2001b). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and pessimism. In E. C. Chang (Ed.),
Optimism and pessimism: Implications for theory, research, and practice (pp. 77-100).
Washington. DC: American Psychological Association.
Norem, J. K., & Chang, E. C. (2002). The positive psychology of negative thinking. Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 58, 993–1001.
53
Norms, J. K., & Illingworth, K. S. S. (1993). Strategy-dependent effects of reflecting on self
and tasks: Some implications of optimism and defensive pessimism. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 822-835.
Norem, J. K., & Illingworth, K. S. S. (2004). Mood and performance among strategic
optimists and defensive pessimists. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 351-366.
Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1994). Organizational behavior: A management challenge (2nd ed.).
New York: Dryden Press.
Oliver, P. (1984). Rewards and punishments as selective incentives. Journal of Conflict
Resolution, 28, 123-148.
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, 4153.
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.
Osterman, K. F. (1990). Reflective practice: A new agenda for education. Education and Urban
Society, 22, 133-152.
Parke, R. D. (1972). Some effects of punishment on children’s behavior. In W. W. Hartup (Ed.),
The young child: Reviews of research (Vol. 2, pp. 35-62). 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.
Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York: Ballantine Books.
54
Perkinson, L. I. (2005, April). Discipline in the extremes: Potentially damaging to behavioral
safety processes. Professional Safety, 31-35.
Perone, M. (2003). Negative effect of positive reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst, 26, 1-14.
Pesuric, A., & Byham, W. (1996, July). The new look in behavior modeling. Training and
Development, 25-33.
Piper, W. (1930). The little engine that could. NY: Platt & Munk.
Podsakoff, P. M. (1982). Determinants of a supervisor’s 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.
Popper, M., Amit, K., Gal, R., Mishkal-Sinai, M., & Lisak, A. (2004). The capacity to lead:
Major psychological differences between leaders and nonleaders. Military Psychology,
16, 245-263.
Popper, M., & Lipshitz, R. (1998). Organizational learning mechanisms: A structural and
cultural approach to organizational learning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34,
161-179.
Porter, E. H. (1913). Pollyanna. NY: L. C. Page.
Pratto, F., & John, O. P. (1991). Automatic vigilance: The attention-grabbing power of negative
social information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 380–391.
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1981). Role of disconfirmed expectancies in the instigation of
attributional processing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 31-38.
55
Pyszczynski, T., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Toward an integration of cognitive and motivational
perspectives on social inference: A biased hypothesis-testing model. In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 20, pp. 297–341). New York:
Academic Press.
Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of positive
scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31, 292-305
Roberts, M. W. (1985). Praising child compliance: Reinforcement or ritual? Journal of Abnormal
Child Psychology, 13, 611-629.
Robinson-Whelen, S., Cheongtag, K., MacCallum, R.C., & Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K. (1997).
Distinguishing optimism from pessimism in older adults: Is it more important to be
optimistic or not to be pessimistic? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73,
1345-1353.
Rogers, R. K., Dillard, J., & Yuthas, K. (2005). The accounting profession: Substantive change
and/or image management. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 159-176.
Sarfati, J. (2003). The tyranny of tolerance. Creation, 25, 6.
Salerno, S. (2005). SHAM: How the self-help movement made America helpless. New York:
Crown Publishing Group.
Sanna, L. J. (1996). Defensive pessimism, optimism, and stimulating alternatives: Some ups
and downs of prefactual and counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 71, 1020-1036.
Sanna, L. J. (1998). Defensive pessimism and optimism: The bittersweet influence of mood on
performance and prefactual and counterfactual thinking. Cognition and Emotion, 12, 635665.
56
Schank, R. (1986). Explanation patterns: Understanding mechanically and creatively. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Schmitt, D. R., & Marwell, B. (1970). Reward and punishment as influence techniques for the
achievement of cooperation under inequality. Human Relations, 23, 37-45.
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.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize
your potential for lasting fulfillment. NY: Knopf.
Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress:
Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist, 60, 410-421.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Authentic Happiness. Retrieved January 21, 2007, from http://www.
authentichappiness.sas.upenn.edu/
Shaw, J. I. (1977). Response-contingent payoffs and cooperative behavior in the prisoners’
dilemma game. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1024-1033.
57
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 http://
www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000602B6-92801447-8ADE83414B7F0101
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.
Sitkin, S. B. (1992). Learning through failure: The strategy of small losses. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 14, 231-266.
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.
Sowell, T. (1995). The vision of the anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy.
NY: BasicBooks.
Spencer, S. M., & Norem, J. K. (1996). Reflection and distraction: Defensive pessimism,
strategic optimism, and performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22,
354-365.
Srivastava, S., Bilimoria, D., Cooperrider, D. L., & Fry, R. E. (1995). Management and
organization learning for positive global change. Management Learning, 26, 37-54.
Stern, P. C. (1976). Effect of incentives and education on resource conservation decisions in a
58
simulated common dilemma. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 12851292.
Stout, M. (2000). The feel-good curriculum. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Taylor, S. E., & Brown, J. I. (1988). Illusion and well-being: A social psychological
perspective on mental health. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 193-210.
Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenwald, T. L. (2000).
Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55, 99109.
Tesser, A., & Rosen, S. (1975). The reluctance to transmit bad news. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental psychology (Vol. 8, pp. 193-232). New York: Academic Press.
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
59
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.
Veiga, J. F. (1988). Face your problem subordinates now! Academy of Management Executive, 2,
145-152.
Vonk, R. (1994). Trait inferences, impression formation, and person memory: Strategies in
processing inconsistent information about people. European Review of Social
Psychology, 5, 111–149.
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.
Wagner, R., & Harter, J. K. (2007, January 14). When freeloaders get by, businesses pay the
price. Dallas Morning News, p. 5D.
Wahler, R. G. (1997). On the origins of children’s compliance and opposition: Family context,
reinforcement, and rules. Journal of Child & Family Studies, 6, 191-208.
Weisinger, H. (1989). The critical edge. Boston: Little Brown.
Weisinger, H., & Lobsenz, N. M. (1981). Nobody’s perfect: How to give criticism and get
results. New York: Warner.
What Teachers Need to Know About Learning. (n. d.). Retrieved November 30, 2006, from
http://www.edb.utexas.edu/borich/pdfdocs/chapter4.pdf
Whitman, J. Q. (1998). What is wrong with inflicting shame sanctions? The Yale Law Journal,
60
107, 1055-1092.
Wong, P. T. P., & Weiner, B. (1981). When people ask “why” questions, and the heuristics of
attributional search. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 650-663.
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.
Wunderley, L. J., Reddy, W. B., & Dember, W. N. (1998). Optimism and pessimism in business
leaders. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 751-760.
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110-116.
Yogananda, P. (2006). How to be happy all the time. Nevada City, CA: Crystal Clarity
Publishers.
Yount, D. (2007, January 18). Classes now teach how to be happy. Herald Democrat, p. A4.
Zakay, D., Ellis, S., & Shevalsky, M. (2004). Outcome value and early warning indications as
determinants of willingness to learn from experience. Experimental Psychology, 51, 150157.
Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-set configurations and opportunities as predictors
of unethical behavior in organizations. Human Relations, 32, 587-604.
61
Table 1. Increasing punishment effectiveness.
________________________________________________________________________
1) Provide constructive feedback.
2) Make punishment contingent on undesirable behavior.
3) Provide employee alternative, appropriate behaviors.
4) Provide a rationale for the punishment.
5) Time punishment so that it is not too soon or not too late.
6) Maintain privacy of punishment (generally).
7) Ensure consistency and fairness of punishment.
________________________________________________________________________
62
Footnotes
1
A stimulus is aversive if its contingent removal, prevention, or postponement maintains
behavior (i.e., negative reinforcement) or if its contingent presentation suppresses behavior (i.e.,
punishment; Perone, 2003). Examples of organizational punishing behavior might include events
in which a recipient received an oral reprimand, written reprimand, probation, suspension, or
termination for some action deemed unacceptable by management (i.e., formal rule violation).
The terms aversive control and punishment are used interchangeably in this paper.
2
Woolfolk provides several examples of other cultures not sharing America’s emphasis on
positivity. Buddhism begins, Woolfolk indicates, with a declaration of the existence of pervasive
human discontent and misery. Such negative appraisals can be thought of as the beginning of
wisdom. Likewise, many Muslims see grief, sadness, and other negative emotions as
concomitants of religious piety and correlates of the painful consequences of living justly in an
unjust world. The ability to experience sorrow is regarded as a mark of depth of personality,
understanding, maturity, and virtue. Pathos is valued also in Japan. The Japanese term, mono no
aware, translated as the persistent sadness that inheres in all things, is thought to distinguish
Japanese culture and mark its superiority.
More significantly, there may be differences in American sub-cultures with respect to
positivity. Asian Americans were found to be more pessimistic, but not less optimistic, than
Caucasian Americans (Chang, 1996). These findings are consistent with the view that elevated
pessimistic thinking is a distinct, culture specific component of Asian, but not Caucasian,
sensibility.
63
3
“an umbrella term for the study of positive emotions, positive character traits, and enabling
institutions” (Seligman, Steen, Park, & Peterson, 2005, p. 410).
64
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This section needs work
Smart stove rule
Approximately 50 years ago noted management psychologist Douglas McGregor (1960)
drew the analogy between touching a hot stove and being subjected to discipline. The rule suggested
four ways in which the hot stove is like good discipline:

Warning—the stove provides a warning. One can feel the heat and know that touching
will burn. (Employees need to know their employer’s rules. The rules provide a warning.
Employees should know in advance that poor conduct or performance will result in
specific, predetermined consequences.)

Consistent—the stove is dependable. One need not guess whether the hot stove will
burn—it always burns. (Employees need to know that the rules will be enforced every
time they are broken. Discipline will not be a surprise.)

Immediate—the stove burns immediately. No time is lost between the touch and the burn.
(Employees should know that the discipline will come soon after each offense. Saving up
discipline problems until the next performance review or until the supervisor is less busy
means the discipline will be less effective.)

Impersonal—the stove is impersonal. The stove burns its owner in the same way it burns
someone who encounters it by accident. The burn was caused by the act of touching the
stove, not because of who the person is. (Good discipline treats each violator in the same
way and shows no favoritism. The best employee, a family employee, and a problem
employee receive the same treatment. Discipline should be directed against the act and
not against the person.)
65
McGregor’s much used analogy was appropriate for the simple stove technology some 50
years ago. However, just as brand new stove technologies have developed over the past halfcentury, so too has research into the effective use of punishment advanced. Thus, we offer the
analogy of an advanced, technologically superior “smart” stove, and how today’s (and
tomorrow’s) smart stoves provide managers an updated discipline protocol incorporating the
guidelines presented in this manuscript for using punishment presented in Figure 1.
Just as we have smart classrooms in education, smart bombs in the military, smart
wheelchairs to provide independence to older persons and the physically impaired, smart cell
phones, and smart PCs that are able to predict the future failure of hard disk drives and take
corrective action before any data are lost or damaged, we have advanced, smart appliances,
including stoves. Home dwellers now accustomed to smart working environments want to come
home to equally smart households. Consequently, the technology industry is making that happen
(or will shortly) and we have smart stoves that are connected to the Internet, have sophisticated
computer control systems built in, wireless capabilities, sophisticated communication capabilities,
the ability to be controlled remotely, and that can predict future cooking failures.
Indeed smart stoves have several characteristics that imply additional discipline methods.
Smart stoves, for instance, have a wireless interface with smoke detectors and automatically shut
off when the smoke alarm sounds - a clever trick, and sometimes useful
Our “Smart” stove stores food in cartridges and cooks for us. So if we want a curry all we need is
to insert our Indian recipes CD Rom in the Smart Stove and choose the curry we want from the
built in computer. If we are out of a certain ingredient it would suggest another alternative
ingredient or recipe. The point here is that when disciplining it is helpful to suggest an
alternative, positive behavior to the employee.
The smart stove would always be connected to the Internet so it can shop for you according to
what you are missing and the food diet and recipes you have programmed.
66
audio chips that enable it to talk to and talks to people, is connected to the Internet
The hot stove does not attribute an individual’s touching it to such internal
attributions as the person was stupid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------