1
Always Be Positive: An Appropriate Management Strategy?
Dr. C. W. Von Bergen
John Massey School of Business
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Durant, OK 74701
(580) 745-2430
(580) 745-7485 fax
cvonbergen@sosu.edu
Dr. Kitty Campbell
John Massey School of Business
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Durant, OK 74701
(580) 745-2494
(580) 745-7485 fax
kcampbell@sosu.edu
Dr. Lawrence S. Silver
John Massey School of Business
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Durant, OK 74701
(580) 745-2494
(580) 745-7479 fax
2
Always Be Positive: An Appropriate Management Strategy?
3
Abstract
Many people, including professionals, believe in the power of being positive. Such a
broad endorsement of this aphorism is challenged in this paper. It is suggested that
certain misbehavior of employees should not be met with positive consequences and that
punishment might be acceptable if it generates behavior of long-term utility to the
individual and the organization. We emphasize the necessity of managers or supervisors
using both positive and aversive control mechanisms to foster behavior in the long-term
interest of the individual and the workgroup and offer a number of suggestions for
managers using aversive control.
4
Always Be Positive: An Appropriate Management Strategy?
“Always be positive is the worst advice you could ever give or receive.”
--Daniels (2001, p. 44).
Traditional college graduates entering the supervisory ranks for the first time have
been overwhelmingly influenced with the importance of being positive. Positivity is
presented in many guises, all being labeled by some combination of words with
“positive,” such as: “attitude,” “thinking,” “self talk,” “demeanor,” and others. Often
supervisors and staff personnel voice approval of the unquestioned benefits of unbridled
positivity as a management technique claiming it is simply “common sense.” With such
an emphasis on being positive, many of these individuals may feel unfamiliar and
uncomfortable with regard to aversive control, which despite conventional wisdom that
suggests that it should be avoided, remains an important aspect of virtually all managers’
jobs (Butterfield, Trevino, Wade, & Ball, 2005). Indeed, humans may be predisposed to
use aversive control methods because of their evolutionary value. Researchers have
determined that cooperation and altruistic behavior have survival value for humans
(Axelrod, 1986; Henrich, 2006; Henrich & Boyd, 2001; Sober & Wilson, 1998) and that
one mechanism in stabilizing human cooperation at high levels is the punishment of norm
violators, defectors, and individuals inclined to free ride on the efforts of others.
Conversely, cooperation often diminishes when punishment of such individuals
is ruled out or is not an available option (Fehr & Fischbacher, 2003; Fehr & Gächter,
2002; Fowler, 2005; Gürerk, Irlenbusch, & Rockenbach, 2006; Yamagishi, 1986). This
view was supported by Henrich, McElreath, Barr, Ensminger, Barrett, Bolyanatz et al.
5
(2006) who found from 15 diverse populations that all peoples demonstrated some
willingness to administer punishment as unequal behavior increased and that punishment
positively covaried with altruistic behavior across populations.
This paper questions the broad endorsement of “always be positive” and the
prominence on positivity and suggests that under some circumstances such advice may be
problematic. Indeed, in some situations it is in the best interest of others to use
punishment. The paper begins with a review of how new managers or soon-to-be
supervisors having modest organizational experience have been strongly influenced by
such a positive emphasis throughout their lives, discusses the utility of these
inexperienced work leaders using both positive and aversive control mechanisms to foster
behavior in the long-term interest of the individual and organization, and concludes with
a number of guidelines designed to make discipline more effective.
Elements influencing the importance of positivity
A number of factors have contributed to the emphasis on positivity including
cultural influences, childrearing and family considerations, religious factors, and
educational effects. Each of these is discussed below.
Cultural influences
There is perhaps no virtue more desirable in Western civilization than being
positive. Philosophers, theologians, teachers, counseling psychologists, sports
psychologists, and popular management gurus have placed a premium on being positive
as a means of achieving satisfaction, happiness, productivity (Judge, Erez, & Bono,
1998), and personal growth and effectiveness (Neck & Manz, 2007). French psychologist
Émile Coué created a sensation in the United States in the 1920s with his book Self-
6
mastery through Conscious Autosuggestion and its famous mantra “Every day, in every
way, I am getting better and better.”
Consistent with this cultural emphasis has been the explosive growth of self-help
books, motivational tapes, and inspirational seminars emphasizing positive thinking,
positive energy, positive affirmations, success, growth, happiness, fulfillment, and
actualization (Salerno, 2005). American pop psychology has always been explicitly
positive with the Dale Carnegies, Napoleon Hills, Werner Erhards, Zig Ziglers, and Tony
Robbinses of this world holding high honor. Indeed, we are told that “…if your life does
not get better, it is your fault—your thoughts were not positive enough” (Shermer, 2006).
Religious emphasis on positivity
Some of America’s most well-known clergymen preach as much positive thinking
and happiness as they do Scripture. For example, Reverend Norman Vincent Peale,
gained fame for his sermons on a positive approach to modern living. He applied
Christianity to everyday problems and is the person who is most responsible for bringing
psychology into the professing Church, blending its principles into a message of The
Power of Positive Thinking (Peale, 1952). Reverend Robert H. Schuller, founder of
Crystal Cathedral Ministries, includes a congregation of over 10,000 members and the
internationally televised “Hour of Power.” He has authored a number of books on the
positive aspects of Christianity (e.g., Move Ahead with Possibility Thinking, Schuller,
1967; The Be (Happy) Attitudes: 8 Positive Attitudes That Can Transform Your Life,
Schuller, 1985). Rather than condemning people for the sins he believes they have
committed, Schuller has tried to convince individuals that by positive thinking they can
fulfill their dreams.
7
Childrearing and family considerations
As children, many of us heard of these words spoken by the Little Engine That
Could, “I think I can, I think I can, I think I can…(Piper, 1930, p. 33-34). It was implied
that the positive way the little engine talked to itself influenced its ability to get over the
mountain. Recently Twenge (2006) has documented that the belief in the importance of
being positive and happy is ingrained in Generation Me (children born in the 1970s,
1980s, and 1990s). Twenge indicated that this emphasis on happiness became particularly
important in the late 70s when there was a pervasive, society-wide effort to increase
children’s self-esteem. The mission statements of many schools explicitly announce that
they aim to raise students’ self-esteem and that self-esteem can and should be taught.
Students are encouraged to believe that it is acceptable and desirable to be preoccupied
with oneself and praise oneself.
Most of these school programs encourage children to feel positive about
themselves irrespective of a legitimate rationale. In one program, teachers were told to
discourage children from saying things like “I’m a good soccer player” or “I’m a good
singer” because these statements make self-esteem contingent on performance. Instead,
“we want to anchor self-esteem firmly to the child…so that no matter what the
performance might be, the self-esteem remains high” (Payne & Rolhing, 1994, p. 6). In
other words, feeling good about oneself is more important than doing good.
Thus, there has been a movement against “criticizing” children. Some schools and
teachers do not correct children’s mistakes, afraid that this will damage the child’s selfesteem. Teacher education courses emphasize that creating a positive atmosphere is more
important than correcting mistakes. In 2005, a teacher proposed eliminating the word
8
“fail” from education. Rather than hear they have failed; instead of hearing that they have
failed students should hear that they have “deferred success” (BBC News, 2005).
Nevertheless, young people who have high self-esteem built on shaky foundations
might run into trouble when they encounter the harsh realities of the real world. Unlike a
teacher, a boss may not care about preserving employees’ self-esteem. The self-esteem
emphasis leaves children ill-prepared for the inevitable criticism and occasional failure
that is real life. If an employee presents a bad report at the office, the supervisor will not
typically say, “Hey, I like the color of the paper you chose for the report.” Setting
students up like this is doing them a tremendous disservice in the long run.
Higher educational influences
The value of being positive has been taught in business for some time and may
have begun with Carnegie’s How to Win Friends and Influence People in 1937 which is
still offered today as an essential text on interpersonal skills. Management and business
books appear to stress positive emotions and positive managerial behavior and barely
address punishment at all (e.g., Daft, 1994; Griffin, 1993), indirectly suggesting that
discipline is not an essential part of the managerial role. For example, a cursory review of
a current popular organizational behavior textbook, Organizational Behavior and
Management (7th ed.) by Ivancevich, Konopaske, and Matteson (2005) revealed that the
authors dedicated five pages to punishment-related topics and seventy-seven pages to
reward-related subject matter. Furthermore, in many textbooks, the discussion of
punishment has focused primarily on the presumed negative side effects such as anger,
resentment, avoidance, and retaliation (Luthans, 1995; Moorhead & Griffin, 1995;
Northcraft & Neale, 1994; Organ & Hamner, 1982). This has lead many readers to
9
conclude that punishment should be avoided, regardless of its effectiveness in controlling
behavior.
Positive aspects of aversive control
The efficacy of aversive control is why we button our coats when the temperature
drops and loosen our ties when it rises. It leads us to come in out of the rain, to blow on
our hot coffee before we drink it, and to keep our fingers out of electrical outlets. The
presence of aversive control in these cases is clearly advantageous. Likewise, the absence
of aversive control can be problematic. A dramatic example of this was provided by
Scripture (1895) who noted that when a frog was placed in a beaker of water which was
then heated at a rate of 0.002ºC per second that it “never moved and at the end of two and
one half hours was found dead. He had evidently been boiled without noticing it” (p.
120). Clearly, the absence of aversive control was not in the frog’s long-term best
interest.
Skinner (1971) likewise acknowledged that the absence of aversive consequences
may have long term deleterious effects for an individual and that positive reinforcement
may have negative consequences that occur after a delay: “A problem arises…when the
behavior generated by positive reinforcement has deferred aversive consequences. The
problem to be solved by those concerned with freedom is to create immediate aversive
consequences” (p. 33). Indeed, Skinner (1983) laid down draconian rules prohibiting
himself from engaging in certain reinforcing activities: “Exhausting avocations are a
danger. No more chess. No more bridge problems. No more detective stories” (p. 79).
Other examples of positive experiences being dangerous specifically because they do not
10
generate avoidance, escape, or their emotional counterparts, even when the contingencies
are ultimately detrimental might include gambling and drug use.
Social learning theorists posit that learning occurs not only from the consequences
of one’s own actions, but also from information obtained vicariously from observing
others (Bandura, 1986; Kreitner & Luthans, 1984). Accordingly, punishment is being
studied as a social phenomenon that influences the cognitions, emotions, and actions of
the administrator of punishment, as well as those of recipients and observers. Trevino
(1992) contended that when considering the implications of punishment, members of the
broader social group (e.g., coworkers or observers) and their interpretations of the event
must be taken into account.
Because observers have a vested interest in the outcome of punishment, they
attend and react to the meaning of the event for them (Niehoff, Paul, & Bunch, 1998;
Trevino & Ball, 1992). As such, observers may react to others’ discipline differently than
the recipient (Trevino & Ball, 1992). Thus, there are important implications for
managers. Perhaps managers should be weighing which reactions (those of the
disciplinee or others) have the most potential impact upon the organization. Trevino
(1992) argues that observers’ reactions are potentially more meaningful than those of
recipients because they represent a greater number of people, and generally those not
being disciplined are the more committed and productive employees.
This positive aspect of punishment enables managers to promote vicarious
learning by delivering a message to other employees that certain types of misconduct will
not be tolerated. Punishment thus provides cues to other members of the work group on
what is unacceptable behavior and should be avoided (Trevino, 1992). These cues help to
11
establish and perpetuate formal and informal expectations, rules, and behavioral
boundaries (Arvey & Jones, 1985).
Niehoff et al. (1998) noted that when supervisors impose severe punishment on a
violator who is seen as clearly deserving of punishment, observers perceive agreement
between their definition of a violation and the supervisor’s definition. Third parties (e.g.,
other employees) find such agreement reassuring and sense that justice has been served.
Where such agreement does not exist, as in cases where a manager fails to punish a
slacker or punishes a strong contributor, observers will sense injustice with subsequent
decreases in satisfaction and performance.
Therefore, aversive control is necessary tool for managers to align behavior with
the organization’s purpose. Behavior that obstructs or deters organizational objectives
needs to be punished. Thus, actions deserving of negative sanctions should be defined in
terms of organizational goals and clearly communicated to employees prior to any
unwanted behavior.
Increasing punishment effectiveness
Given that aversive control is appropriate under certain circumstances, how can it
be administered more effectively? This section provides a number of guidelines to
enhance punishment’s usefulness.
Punishment is tied directly and as obviously as possible to the particular
undesirable behavior. This guideline refers to the issue of contingency. Previous research
has shown that contingency is associated with punishment effectiveness (Arvey & Jones,
1985). Past research has also associated punishment contingency with perceptions of the
leader. Podsakoff, Todor, Grover, and Huber (1984) found that contingent punishment
12
did not adversely influence satisfaction with the supervisor. Only when non-contingent
punishment was used did satisfaction with the supervisor suffer. Therefore, managers can
be expected to recognize the importance of contingency and to evaluate a punishment
event as more fair to the extent that the punishment was contingent on a specific
infraction.
Importance of constructive criticism. Research has also supported the notion that
constructive criticism is beneficial and leads to the establishment of higher goals and an
improved leader-subordinate relationship (Baron, 1988). Such criticism generally means
that managers provide alternate incompatible behaviors to the problematic actions of the
disciplinee.
This can be more effectively achieved when supervisors help employees progress
by establishing a behavioral contingency often in the form, stated or implied, that “when
you do A, you get or can do B.” However, when explained in these terms, contingency
raises the specter of bribery in some people’s minds. Certainly there is no bribery because
there is nothing illegal, unethical, or immoral about stating a desired behavior and its
consequence. What is incorrect is wanting to be positive and giving the salesperson a
commission when the paperwork has not been done because this will create problems
getting paperwork done in the future.
Providing a rationale for the punishment. Research has also demonstrated that
punishment is more effective when a clear rationale is given that explains why
punishment is necessary (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Parke, 1972). An employee who is
punished for no discernible reason may believe the punishment to be non-contingent.
That is, he or she will believe the punishment was random or a personal reaction by the
13
supervisor rather than for unwanted behavior. The employee will likely have a negative
emotional reaction and the punishment may have an undesired affect on work behavior
(Podsakoff et al., 1984). The effect on work behavior initiated by this perceived noncontingent punishment is grounded in social exchange theory (Blau, 1964) and equity
theory (Adams, 1963).
In terms of exchange theory, Blau (1964) contends that people reciprocate
rewards or gifts they receive from others. Thus, a reward from a manager is reciprocated
with increased effort and/or organizational commitment. In the same sense, punishment
that is perceived to be unjust may cause retaliation and result in decreased effort and
reduced organizational commitment.
People also desire equity in the workplace (Adams 1963). Punishment believed to
be non-contingent is seen as unfair and inequitable. Employees in this situation will take
actions to restore what they perceive as equity. For example, one method of restoring
equity is social-loafing in a team or group environment (George 1995).
Thus, punishment administered without unambiguous rationale will be perceived
to be non-contingent. Employees will retaliate in order to reciprocate for the injustice or
to restore equity. Managers need to have clear guidelines as to what behavior is
unacceptable and communicate these guidelines to employees. Additionally, managers
should explain to employees which specific guideline has been violated when
administering punishment.
Immediacy of punishment. Timeliness is also important for punishment because it
increases the perceived connection between the punishment and the misconduct (Arvey
& Ivancevich, 1980; Arvey & Jones, 1985). Punishment tends to work immediately and
14
so if a behavior needs to stop without delay, as in matters of ethical and safety violations,
then punishment can be used as an effective strategy (Daniels & Daniels, 2005). Indeed,
one reason that unethical behavior occurs is because management does not punish
employees for behaving unethically (Zey-Ferrell & Ferrell, 1982). Failure to punish for
engaging in unethical behavior sends a message that unethical conduct is acceptable
(Jansen & Von Glinow, 1985). Nonetheless, immediacy may need to take a back seat if
the manager is not sure how to administer discipline correctly or if his or her emotional
state would likely lead to mistakes in the disciplinary interaction. Atwater, Waldman,
Carey, and Cartier (2001) found that both managers and recipients recognized that
managers often make mistakes in the discipline process. Mistakes, as reported by
recipients, occurred because managers were “out of control” (p. 267) or because they did
not know how to administer discipline properly. Additionally, managers in the Butterfield
et al. (1996) study expressed many concerns with punishment procedures. Combined,
these results suggest that some managers are likely to need training in how to properly
administer discipline and how to control their emotions when employee behaviors cause
them to get angry or lose control. In this last case, delaying the conversation may lead to
a more effective discussion.
Privacy of punishment. Researchers also suggest that punishment should be
carried out in private whenever possible (Arvey & Ivancevich, 1980; Arvey & Jones,
1985). Evidence has suggested that punishment tends to create less defensiveness and to
be more instructive to the subordinate when carried out in private (Sims, 1980). In
addition, private punishment may be considered more benevolent since employees are not
humiliated in front of co-workers (Butterfield et al., 2005). Nevertheless, supervisors
15
must be concerned with group performance and so punishment may provide an
opportunity for the work leader to deter others from engaging in future instances of the
offense (Carlsmith, Darley, & Robinson, 2002). Accordingly, it is important that a
supervisor give some consideration to publicly punishing wrong doers so that other
potential offenders learn by example and discover the consequences of violating the rule.
The justification for punishment lies in its ability to minimize the likelihood of future
transgressions. Late 18th century philosopher, Jeremy Bentham (1962) argued that
“general prevention ought to be the chief end of punishment, as it is its real justification”
(p. 396). Less eloquently, but perhaps more realistically, are the words of one manager
who indicated that when discipline was imposed, other workers learned that “they can’t
get away with anything like that in the future” (Butterfield et al., 1996, p. 1493).
Interestingly, Atwater et al. (2001) found that punishment recipients were more likely to
report positive outcomes resulting from discipline than were managers. For example,
problem behavior may be corrected, the recipient and others may become more cautions
and aware, and larger problems can be solved as a result of a discipline event. In addition,
in some cases, discipline can work to the advantage of either the disciplinee or the
organization by removing the disciplinee from the organization. Often a new job for the
recipient is a better situation, and a welcome relief for the manager.
Consistency and fairness of punishment. Researchers have also found that
consistency of punishment is important, that is, individuals are not only concerned with
the outcomes they receive but also with the fairness by which that outcome is allocated
(Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Employees want to be treated like everybody else. They
expect the decision maker to react to each case in the same way and to apply the rules
16
consistently (Leventhal, 1976; Tyler & Bies, 1990). When this happens, punishment can
result in desired behavior changes without negative side effects as Ball, Trevino, and
Sims (1994) discovered in their field study. They found that punishment that is viewed as
appropriate in amount and as consistent with what others have received resulted in
improved subordinate performance. Similarly, other field research has supported the idea
that employees dislike capricious, inconsistent punishment and become angry and
distrustful of those instituting it (Arvey, Davis, & Nelson, 1984). Bennett (1998) likewise
indicated the importance of consistency. Participants in her study who were
disadvantaged by inconsistently allocated punishments behaved aggressively toward their
subordinates by giving them poorer performance evaluations. This implies that
individuals who feel unfairly treated may often react by taking their anger and frustration
out on a weaker target. Hence, it appears that unjust procedures can have far-reaching
effects. It seems that victims of unfair punishment allocations decide to “even the score”
between themselves and the beneficiary of the inconsistency. One implication of this
finding is that managers, by punishing subordinates inconsistently, risk inciting
competition and aggressive behavior between subordinates. This is certainly not a
management style conducive to positive work-group morale and cooperation among team
members.
Related to the issue of consistency is fairness. Observers need to perceive that the
punishment given to the recipient was fair. If observers perceive the punishment as fair,
rarely do they have negative attitudes concerning the event. Employees tend to assess
fairness from two perspectives: distributive and procedural justice (Greenberg, 1987). In
terms of distributive justice, people judge the punishment imposed (e.g., temporary
17
suspension, fine, etc.) and decide if it is fair in terms of consistent application and level of
offense. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of the process used in determining the
punishment rendered (Cropanzano & Rupp, 2003).
Employees tend to judge a distributive outcome as fair when it is favorable to
them (Conlon, 1993; Wade-Benzoni, Tenbrunsel, & Bazerman, 1996). However, if
employees are likely to accept unfavorable outcomes as fair if they perceive the
procedure to be fair (Cropanzano, Byrne, Bobocel, & Rupp, 2001). That is, the process of
determining if punishment is necessary may be more important to the employee than the
punishment itself.
However, even when the punishment occurrence is perceived as unfair, some
positive outcomes can occur (Atwater et al., 2001). Nevertheless, as Greenberg (1990, P.
116) noted, “a manager who does what he or she believes to be fair—whatever that may
be—may learn that others are not necessarily likewise convinced.” Certainly, “others”
include subordinates. Greenberg (1983) also found that people sometimes do things to
convince themselves of the fairness of their own actions. Fairness then, like beauty, may
be in the eye of the beholder, and may differ between those delivering the action and
those receiving it. More importantly, managers should be aware that many subordinates
perceive discipline to be unfair and should factor this in their thinking (Atwater et al.,
2001). Likewise, observers in the Atwater investigation felt that at times discipline was
administered to demonstrate the manager's authority or power rather than to mitigate
some unwanted behavior and thus managers should be prepared to deal with this issue.
While, in most cases, the manager will believe his or her actions are fair, he or she
may consider spending some time thinking about the discussion of fairness with the
18
person receiving the discipline. Managers should also be aware that punishment for
violating formal rules resulted in greater acceptance by recipients than punishment for
violating informal rules (Atwater et al., 2001). This is important because Schnake (1987)
found that when the punished worker claimed the punishment was unfair, production
among observers of the event did not increase, and satisfaction with supervision
decreased. Much of the basic research on punishment has been incorporated in the hot
stove rule.
Hot stove rule
An effective way to incorporate the guidelines that are described above is to adopt
the hot stove rule. This rule provides an analogy based on a person touching a hot stove:
an advanced warning, immediacy, consistency, and impartiality (Hill, 1984). The result
is impersonal because whoever touches a hot stove is burned. The burn was caused by the
act of touching the stove, not because of who the person is. Discipline should be directed
against the act, not against the person and each violator should be treated in the same
way. The comparison between the “hot stove rule” and disciplinary action is obvious.
Conclusion
The power of positivity is pervasive in American society but there are others who
would caution otherwise. Woolfolk (2005), for example, declared:
I would submit negative thinking is not only valuable, but
indispensable, and suggest that we give much too little attention
to acknowledging, confronting, accepting, and perhaps even
embracing suffering and loss. I want to suggest also that there
may be worse things in life than experiencing negative affect.
Among those worse things are ignorance, banality, credulity,
self-deception, narcissism, insensitivity, philistinism, and
isolation… (p. 20).
Similarly, in the professional organizational research literature Fineman (2006)
19
has expressed concern about what he perceives as the overemphasis on positivity and
psychologist and well-known author, Joyce Brothers (2005), recently discussed
constructive aspects of a decidedly un-positive emotion, shame, and suggested that some
forms of shame (what she calls “good shame”) can be virtuous. For example, she
indicated that shame may be proper when calling to task an individual for inappropriate
behavior. Furthermore, Brothers (2005) indicated that good shame often leads to selfdiscovery and growth by providing new insights, encouraging new improvements,
expanding ones value system, and making individuals more sensitive to others.
Thus, the admonition to always be happy, advice cavalierly dispensed to
inexperienced organizational leaders by well-intentioned but uninformed others is not
particularly effective and can in some situations lead to deleterious results for the
individual manager and his or her organization. The seeming overemphasis on avoiding
punishment and other aversive organizational control techniques should be tempered and
understood that at times they are necessary. Scholarly and anecdotal evidence indicate
that discipline and punishment are significant components of organizational life. This
paper contributes to the erosion of the conventional wisdom regarding the use of
punishment to manage behavior.
Many researchers and teachers have warned against the use of punishment
because of the feared undesirable side effects (Luthans, 1995; Moorhead & Griffin, 1995;
Northcraft & Neale, 1994; Organ & Hamner, 1982; Skinner, 1953). Reward is frequently
proposed as a substitute motivator because it is more effective, longer lasting, and results
in fewer negative side effects. In many situations, however, it could be argued that
reward is not more effective or more long-lasting than punishment and that, often, reward
20
is an inappropriate response for appropriate behavior. For example, in the context of
ethical decision making, rewarding individuals who act according to ethical standards
may be viewed as infeasible and foolish. It says, “We don’t really expect you to be
ethical and if you do, we’ll be so surprised that we’ll give you a reward” (Bennett, 1998,
p. 260). Imagine how expensive this practice would be to employers and governments
because they expect everyone to act ethically. Punishment, conversely, signals to
employees and citizens that unethical behavior is wrong and will not be tolerated.
Regarding ethical conduct, some research has even demonstrated that direct punishment
for unethical actions led to more ethical behavior than did rewards for ethical behavior
(Trevino, Youngblood, Sutton, & Woodman, 1985).
On the other hand, the recommendations on the productive use of aversive control
should not be interpreted as implying that managers should become sadistic, blissfully
punishing every undesired behavior. It does suggest, however, that punishment can be an
effective tool for suppressing employee misbehavior when used appropriately. As Arvey
and Jones (1985) indicated, “A good manager is not necessarily one who seldom or never
disciplines employees, but is rather one who administers discipline in a constructive or
‘fair’ manner” (p. 383).
We believe as most human behavior professionals that managers should
overwhelmingly use positive reinforcement; we believe in the power of positive self-talk,
positive expectations, and positive mental practice. In many cases we can deal more
constructively with problem behaviors by studying them, removing the rewards that
support them, and rewarding related behaviors that are desirable. The goal should be to
take constructive action to correct these behaviors and not to demoralize and
21
psychologically paralyze others by dwelling on them. Nevertheless, we believe that nonpositive or aversive strategies may be useful at times. There are occasions when if we
care for a person we must do something to stop behavior that is detrimental to that
person. Not doing something to stop inappropriate behavior is a way of saying, “I don’t
care about your long-term happiness.” Dr. Laura Schlessinger of talk radio fame indicates
that a parent who supports a child when the child is wrong is not a very good parent and
we would agree. Similarly, a manager who supports a supervisor when he or she is wrong
is a poor manager and a union steward who supports a union member when he or she is
wrong is no better.
There are occasions when letting employees experience the negative
consequences of their behavior is the best thing a supervisor can do to support their long
term adjustment. However, if managers find themselves using aversive consequences
more and more, then they are probably in a counterproductive situation. By the same
token, it is an incorrect generalization to suggest that under all circumstances work
leaders should be positive in dealing with their employees. Seldom is it noted that there
are qualifiers in applying such broad counsel.
22
References
Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 67, 422-436.
Aoki, N. (2004, August 23). Harshness of red marks has students seeing purple. Boston
Globe. Retrieved June 29, 2006, from http://www.boston.com/news/education/
k_12/articles/2004/08/23/harshness_of_red_marks_has_students_seeing_purple?p
g=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, 123132.
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.
23
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social learning theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Barron, R. A. (1988). Negative effects of destructive criticism: Impact on conflict, selfefficacy, and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 199-207.
BBC News. (2005, July 20). Teachers say no-one should ‘fail.’ Retrieved June 29, 2006,
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4697461.stm
Bennett, R. J. (1998). Taking the sting out of the whip: Reactions to consistent
punishment for unethical behavior. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,
4, 248-262.
Bentham, J. (1962). Principles of penal law. In J. Bowring (Ed.), The works of Jeremy
Bentham (p. 396). New York: Russell and Russell.
Bernstein, S. D. (2003). Positive organizational scholarship: Meet the movement. Journal
of Management Inquiry, 12, 266-271.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Brothers, J. (2005, February 27). “Shame May Not Be So Bad After All.” Parade
Magazine, Retrieved August 31, 2006, from http://www.parade.com/articles/
editions/2005/edition_02-27-2005/featured_0
Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Organizational punishment from
the manager’s perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model.
Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1479-1512.
Butterfield, K. D., Trevino, L. K., Wade, K. J., & Ball, G. A. (2005). Organizational
punishment from the manager’s perspective: An exploratory study. Journal of
Managerial Issues, 17, 363-382.
24
Cameron, K. S., Dutton, J. E., & Quinn, R. E. (2003). Foundations of positive
organizational scholarship. In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.),
Positive organizational scholarship: Foundations of a new discipline (pp. 3-13).
San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. M., & Robinson, P. H. (2002). Why do we punish?
Deterrence and just deserts as motives for punishment. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 83, 284-299.
Carnegie, D. (1937). How to win friends and influence people. New York: Simon &
Schuster.
Chidananda, S. S. (2004). Always be Positive. Retrieved June 27, 2006, from
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.
Cooperrider, D. L., & Whitney, D. (1999). Appreciative inquiry. San Francisco: BerrettKoehler.
Coué, E. (1922). Self-mastery through conscious autosuggestion. New York: Kessinger
Publishing.
Conlon, D. E. (1993). Some tests of the self-interest and group-value models of
procedural justice: Evidence from an organizational appeal procedure.
Academy of Management Journal, 36, 1109-1124.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues,
fairness heuristics, social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice.
25
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164-200.
Cropanzano, R., & Rupp, D. R. (2003). An overview of organizational justice:
Implications for work motivation. In L W. Porter, G. A. Bigley, & R. M. Steers
(Eds.) Motivation and work behavior (7th ed., pp. 82-95). New York, NY:
Daft, R. L. (1994). Management (3rd ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Dryden Press.
Daniels, A. C. (2001). Other people’s habits: How to use positive reinforcement to bring
out the best in people around you. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Daniels, A. C., & Daniels, J. E. (2005). Measure of a leader: An actionable formula for
legendary leadership. Atlanta, GA: Performance Management Publications.
DeQuervain, D., Fischbacher, U., Treyer, V., Schellhammer, M., Schnyder, U., Buck, A.,
& Fehr, E. (2004). The neural basis of altruistic punishment. Science, 305, 12541258.
Fehr, E., & Fischbacher, U. (2003). The nature of human altruism. Nature, 425, 785-791.
Fehr, E., & Gächter, S. (2002). Altruistic punishment in humans. Nature, 415, 137-140.
Ferster, C. B. (1967). Arbitrary and natural reinforcement. The Psychological Record, 17,
341-347.
Fineman, S. (2006). On being positive: Concerns and counterpoints. Academy of
Management Review, 31, 270-291.
Fowler, J. H. (2005). Altruistic punishment and the origin of cooperation. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences USA, 102, 7047-7049.
George, J. M. (1995). Asymmetrical effects of rewards and punishments: The
case of social loafing. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 68, 327-338.
26
Greenberg J. (1983). Self-image versus impression management in adherence to
distributive justice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 5-19.
Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of
Management Review, 12, 9-22.
Greenberg J. (1990). Looking fair versus being fair: Managing impressions of
organizational justice. Research in Organizational Behavior, 12, 111-157.
Griffin, R. W. (1993). Management (4th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Guffey, C. J., & Helms, M. M. (2001). Effective employee discipline: A case of the
Internal Revenue Service. Public Personnel Management, 30, 111-127.
Gürerk, Ö., Irlenbusch, B., & Rockenbach, B. (2006). The competitive advantage of
sanctioning institutions. Science, 312, 108-111.
Harvey E., & Sims, P. (2005). Positive discipline: How to resolve tough performance
problems quickly, and permanently. Dallas, TX: Performance Systems
Corporation.
Henrich, J. (2006). Cooperation, punishment, and the evolution of human institutions.
Science, 312, 60-61.
Henrich, J., & Boyd, R. (2001). Why people punish defectors. Journal of Theoretical
Biology, 208, 79-89.
Henrich, J., McElreath, R., Barr, A., Ensminger, J., Barrett, C., Bolyanatz, A., et al.
(2006). Costly punishment across human societies. Science, 312, 1767-1770.
Hewitt, J. (1998). The myth of self-esteem. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Hill, N. C. (1984). The need for positive reinforcement in corrective counseling.
Supervisory Management, 29, 10-14.
27
Ivancevich, J. M., Konopaske, R., & Matteson, M. T. (2005). Organizational behavior
and management (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Jansen, E., &Von Glinow, M. A. (1985). Ethical ambivalence and organizational reward
systems. Academy of Management Review, 10, 814-822.
Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Bono, J. E. (1998). The power of being positive: The relation
between positive self-concept and job performance. Human Performance, 11,
167-187.
Kreitner, R., & Luthans, F. (1984). A social learning approach to behavioral
management: Radical behaviorists ‘mellowing out.’ Organizational Dynamics,
13, 47-65.
Leventhal, J. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibaut, J. T. Spence, &
R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology (pp. 211–240).
Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.
Luthans, F. (1995). Organizational behavior (7th ed.). St. Louis, MO: McGraw-Hill.
Luthans, F. (2003). The need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 695-706.
Moorhead, G., & Griffin, R. (1995). Organizational behavior (4th ed.). Boston:
Houghton Mifflin.
Neck, C. P., & Manz, C. C. (2007). Mastering self-leadership: Empowering yourself for
personal excellence. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Niehoff, B. P., Paul, R. J., & Bunch, J. F. S. (1998). The social effects of punishment
28
events: The influence of violator past performance record and severity of the
punishment on observers’ justice perceptions and attitudes. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19, 589-602.
Northcraft, G., & Neale, M. (1994). Organizational behavior: A management challenge
(2nd ed.). New York: Dryden Press.
O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Puffer, S. (1989). The impact of rewards and punishments in a
social context: A laboratory and field experiment. Journal of Occupational
Psychology, 62, 41-53.
Organ, D., & Hamner, T. (1982). Organizational behavior (Rev. ed.). Plano, TX:
Business Publications.
Osteen, J. (2004). Your best life now: 7 Steps to living at your full potential. NY: Warner
Books.
Parke, R. D. (1972). Some effects of punishment on children’s behavior. In W. W.
Hartup (Ed.), The young child: Reviews of research. Washington, D. C.: National
Association for the Education of Young Children.
Payne, L. M., & Rolhing, C. (1994). A leader’s guide to just because I am: A child’s book
of affirmation. Minneapolis: Free Spirit Publishing; and
Peale, N. V. (1952). The power of positive thinking. New York: Ballantine Books.
Perone, M. (2003). Negative effect of positive reinforcement. The Behavior Analyst, 26,
1-14.
Piper, W. (1930). The little engine that could. NY: Platt & Munk.
Podsakoff, P. M. (1982). Determinants of a supervisors use of rewards and punishments:
A literature review and suggestions for further research. Organizational Behavior
29
and Human Decision Making Processes, 29, 58-83.
Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D. Grover, R. A., & Huber, V. L. (1984). Situational
moderators of leader reward and punishment behavior: Fact or fiction?
Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 34, 21-63.
Roberts, L. M. (2006). Shifting the lens on organizational life: The added value of
positive scholarship. Academy of Management Review, 31, 292-305
Rogers, R. K., Dillard, J., & Yuthas, K. (2005). The accounting profession: Substantive
change and/or image management. Journal of Business Ethics, 58, 159-176.
Salerno, S. (2005). SHAM: How the self-help movement made America helpless. New
York: Crown Publishing Group.
Schnake, M. (1986). Vicarious punishment in a work setting. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 71, 343-345.
Schnake M. (1987). Vicarious punishment in a work setting: A failure to replicate.
Psychological Reports, 61, 379-386.
Schuller, R. H. (1967). Move ahead with possibility thinking. New York: Doubleday Dell.
Schuller, R. H. (1985). The be (happy) attitudes: 8 positive attitudes that can transform
your life. Irving, TX: Word Publishing.
Scott, C. C. (1996). Student self-esteem and the school system: Perceptions and
implications. Journal of Educational Research, 89, 292-297.
Scripture, E. W. (1895). Thinking, feeling, and doing. Meadville, PA: Flood and Vincent.
Seligman, M. E. P. (1990). Learned optimism. NY: Knopf.
Shermer, M. (2006, May). Sham Scam. The Self-Help and Actualization Movement Has
30
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=
000602B6-9280-1447-8ADE83414B7F0101
Sidman, M. (1989). Coercion and its fallout. Boston: Authors Cooperative.
Sims, H. P. (1980). Further thoughts on punishment in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 5, 133-138.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). On human dignity. New York: MacMillan.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Skinner, B. F. (1983). A matter of consequences. New York: Knopf.
Sober, E., & Wilson, D. S. (1998). Unto others: The evolution and psychology of
unselfish behaviour. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Stout, M. (2000). The feel-good curriculum. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Trevino, L. K. (1992). The social effects of punishment in organizations: A justice
perspective. Academy of Management Review, 17, 647-676.
Trevino, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1992). The social implications of punishing unethical
behavior: Observers’ cognitive and affective reactions. Journal of Management,
18, 751-768.
Trevino, L. K., Youngblood, S., Sutton, C., & Woodman, R. (1985, August). The
influences of reinforcement contingencies and cognitive moral development on
ethical behavior: An experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the
National Academy of Management, Chicago.
31
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 selfesteem: A cross-temporal meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 5, 321-344.
Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context
of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and
organizational settings (pp. 77–98). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wade-Benzoni, K. A., Tenbrunsel, A. E., & Bazerman, M. H. (1996). Egocentric
interpretations of fairness in asymmetric, environmental social dilemmas:
Explaining harvesting behavior and the role of communication. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 111-126.
Woolfolk, R. L. (2002). The power of negative thinking: Truth, melancholia, and the
tragic sense of life. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 22(1),
19-27.
Wright, T. A. (2003). Positive organizational behavior: An idea whose time has truly
come. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 437-442.
Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of a sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110-116.
Zey-Ferrell, M., & Ferrell, O. C. (1982). Role-set configurations and opportunities as
predictors of unethical behavior in organizations. Human Relations, 32, 587-604.