Von Bergen1
A Model Paper for Student Review
Doing Nothing Is Doing Something: The Effects of Management
Nonresponse to Worker Performance
C. W. Von Bergen
Southeastern Oklahoma State University
Use this as a model and take from it what you think is helpful for your paper. This draft should give students a good idea of the topic that must be addressed. Note the following:
--Typed in Word
--1 inch margins all around
--double spaced throughout
--Times New Roman (12 pt) font
--page numbers with author name in heading
--put your name on title page (page 1)
--paper has an abstract (or executive summary) on page 2
--paper starts on page 3
--the paper is written in APA (American Psychological Association) format
--references start on separate/new page and are called References; not Works Cited or Bibliography
--references alphabetized by last name of first author (see page 9)
--for student papers add a minimum of 8 journal articles as references
--every reference in the text is cited in the references list and every reference in the
references list is in the body of the paper
--paragraphs indented ½ inch
--there are subtitles
--written in 3rd person—no “I” or “you” in the paper
--this draft has about 2100 words excluding the words in red on this page
Abstract
Despite most manager’s belief that doing nothing has no impact on performance, managers change behavior of their employees by inaction as well as action. Doing nothing does something; managements’ nonresponse to good or poor employee performance changes future worker behavior—for the worse. Some managers seem incapable of expressing their gratitude and appreciation to those employees who perform well. They act as if their feedback philosophy is one of “no news is good news.” Other managers are hesitant to reprimand employees who need corrective counseling for inappropriate or improper behavior. They seem to operate on the principle that ignoring problems will somehow make the issues go away. Both practices lead to increased levels of poor performance and supervisors who do nothing may substantially harm their organizations. It is important to realize that lack of action has real consequences.
Doing Nothing Is Doing Something: The Effects of Management
Nonresponse to Worker Performance
It is not obvious to most supervisorsthat doing nothing actually changes behavior. In fact, a common assumption among most managers is that doing nothing will have no effect. Nevertheless, it is a common way organizations demotivate good performers and encourage poor workers (Daniels, 1994). Managers change behavior by inaction as well as action (Von Bergen, Soper, & Campbell, 2002). When managers do nothing following employee performance, they change that performance in one of two ways: 1) they put desired effort on extinction leading to decreases in good behavior, and 2) they open the door for some undesired behavior to be positively reinforced leading to increases in poor performance. This paper examinesthrough the lens of behavioral management how these twocommon workplace practices of doing nothing changeemployee behavior for the worse.
Behavioral Management
Behavioral management is based on reinforcement theory, with its historic roots in Skinner’s (1938) operant conditioning and Thorndike’s(1913) law of effect. The main premise of behavioral management is that employeebehavior is a function of contingent consequences and that people do what they do because of what happens to them when they do it (Bandura, 1969; Pfeffer, 1995).In other words, a person’s behavior results in favorable or unfavorable consequences, which, in turn, determine future behavior. Consequences are what happens to people as a result of their behavior; what they experience following their actions (Daniels, 1994). There are four key consequences that are typically discussed in behavioral management.Two consequences (positive reinforcement and negative reinforcement) strengthen or increase the frequency of behavior and two (punishment and extinction) that weaken or decrease the frequency of behaviors. These are discussed below.
Positive reinforcement.
Negative reinforcement.
Punishment.
Extinction.
Behavior occurs less often and will be eliminated with extinction because it was ignored or not reinforced after someone behaves. Because this consequence is a key variable of interest in this paper a more in-depth examination of this consequence is provided in thesection presented below involving supervisory nonaction with respect to desirable behavior.
Management Nonresponse to Desirable Behavior
Extinction is what happens when a behavior occurs with no reinforcement.“Just ignore it, and it’ll go away”is basically how extinction works (Daniels, 1994). Getting rid of a former boyfriend or girlfriend by refusing to answer their phone calls is an extinction strategy because after awhile the former friend will stop calling. In the same way, a new employee arrives on the job believing that his or her best work is what is required and is more than willing to oblige. After a few months on the job of “going the extra mile,” the employee realizes that no one notices and the probability of the worker putting in extra effort in the future declines. These examples show that doing nothing after someone behaves properly and positively can weaken and eliminate that behavior. A good analogy for extinction is to imagine what would happen to an individual’s houseplants if they stopped watering them. Like a plant without water, a behavior without (occasional) reinforcement eventually dies and disappears.
If supervisors want a behavior or performance to continue, they must ensure that it is being reinforced. Since failing to reinforce productive performance is tantamount to extinction, it is easy to see why performance and motivation decline in even the best people. They are simply not getting the reinforcement they need to continue doing a good job. This is why in work environments where management is not making a conscious attempt to positively reinforce, the extinction of discretionary effort is almost assured—albeit inadvertently. Desired behavior that is not reinforced will diminish over time. In this way, managers who do nothing to reinforce good behavior are actually decreasing the odds that it will be repeated (Colquitt, Lepine, & Wesson, 2009).
Managers who practice the “If you don’t hear from me you know you are doing fine” approach may be doing much more harm than they might suspect. This was empirically demonstrated by Hinkin and Schriesheim (2004) who studied 243 employees at two different hospitality organizations. In their study the researchers compared the effect of managers’ giving feedback to employees on their job performance (at the theoretical level, supervisor’s feedback can be considered positive reinforcement, Kluger & DeNisi, 1996) with a group given no comments (favorable or unfavorable). As expected, Hinkin & Schriesheim (2004) found a positive relationship between feedback and workers’ effectiveness and satisfaction, and a direct negative relationship with workers’ effectiveness and satisfaction for the group in which managers did not comment on good service performance of their employees.This study, the first in which extinction was examined in an organizational context, nicely illustrated that behavior that is totally ignored will eventually be extinguished and eliminated. The researchers also noted, interestingly, that supervisors who do not respond to good performance are also prone to disregard poor behavior. This is discussed below.
Management Nonresponse to Undesirable Behavior
“Life itself punishes those who delay.”
--Mikhail Gorbachev to Eric Honecker in 1989(Walker, 1993, p. 312)
Not only is supervisory failure to acknowledgefavorableworker performance harmful, but managerial inaction to address unfavorable performance is also problematic and can have a greater negative impact than most supervisors may appreciate. Daniels (1994) noted, for example, that if workers are taking shortcuts in areas such as safety and quality, the naturally occurring positive consequences associated with doing a job with less time and effort will cause the undesirablebehaviors to continue and increase.In some situations the safe behavior may be typically less comfortable, convenient, or efficient than some at-risk shortcuts which usually save time, which means a faster rate of output. As a result, such risk-taking may be mislabeled as “efficient” behavior. For example, in some environments, avoiding or over-riding power lockout switches is acceptable because it benefits production. In such cultures, a worker who fixes equipment without locking out is seen as a “macho” hero (Geller, 2000). Supervisors who do not address such detrimental behavior will be seen as condoning it and may be held responsible and legally liable for unsafe practices.
The most basic provision of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, the nation’s premier law regarding safety and health at work, is the so-called general duty clause which requires that the employer “furnish to each of his employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or likely to cause death or serious physical harm to his employees” (29 U.S.C., 1976). Thus, there is a duty of care to ensure, as far as reasonably practicable, that workers and others are not exposed to risks due to health or safety arising from the conduct of the employer’s business.In the workplace, “the duty of care addresses the attentiveness and prudence of managers in performing their decision-making and supervisory functions” (Palmiter, 2006, p. 192). In some cases, a manager may breach his or her duty to provide reasonable protection and be charged for negligent supervision which occurs when an individual intentionally fails to exercise reasonable care and caution while fulfilling their supervisory duties (Rue & Ziffra, n. d.). More specifically, Ruley (2008) defined negligent supervision as “the inadequate monitoring of employee performance. Failing to reprimand when appropriate … [and] generally not doing your job” (p. 509). In other words, asupervisor is negligent when they either do something they are not supposed to do or refrain from doing something they should do while caring for or supervising others.Ruley (2008) also presented a related concept, failure to direct, as “Failing to have policies and procedures, or failing to follow those policies and procedures so that they are essentially meaningless” (p. 509). Not addressing unsafe behavior could be construed as negligent supervision or failure to direct leading to liability and damages. In such situations it is common to name everyone associated with the injury or damage as the defendant (e.g., supervisor, firm) in order to reach “deep pockets.”
Supervisors ask for trouble when they ignore problems and complaints. By directly and objectively confronting a worker’s problem, the supervisor clearly shows the poor behavior is unacceptable (Seidenfeld, 1998). Failing to address performance or behavioral issues has the practical effect of lowering performance standards. It leads employees to believe they are performing at satisfactory levels because management has not told them otherwise. A supervisor might be dissatisfied with an employee’s level of performance, and might truly believe that the employee ought to know he or she is missing the mark, but unless the boss confronts employees about performance deficiencies and expressly states what needs to be done, change is unlikely. When after years of accepting poor performance a manger finally acts, perhaps by discharging the poor performer or perhaps by passing the employee over for promotion, the employee may react with surprise, hostility and claims of discrimination.
Thus, many managers fall down on the job when it is time to deal with poor performers. Perhaps they do not want to rock the boat, fearing that poor performers will retaliate with even worse performance. Maybe they dislike confrontation andpossibly they are unassertive. Or perhaps they do not know how to confront someone professionally or dislike the formidable time consuming documentation of employee performancedeficiencies or a lack of support for those actions by higherlevel management. So they do nothing, and everyone suffers.This seems to be the case with sexual harassment claims and organizations that fail to respond promptly to charges of sexual harassment. These firms often suffer damaged employee morale, lost productivity, costly law suits, and public relations nightmares because of organizational inaction anda lack of taking immediate action(Peirce, Smolinski, & Rosen, 1998).
Managerial Implications
Summary and Conclusion
References
29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) (1976).
Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2009).Organizational behavior: Improving
performance and commitment in the workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.
Daniels, A. C. (1994). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of
positive reinforcement. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Geller, E. S. (2000). Behavioral safety analysis: A necessary precursor to corrective action.
Professional Safety, 45, 29-32.
Hinkin,T.,Schriesheim, C.(2004). If you don’t hear from me you know you are doing fine:
The effects of management nonresponse to employee performance.Cornell Hotel and Restaurant Administration Quarterly,45,362-372.
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A
historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 254-284.
Palmiter, A. R. (2006). Corporations: Examples and explanations (5th ed.). New York: Aspen
Publishers.
Peirce, E., Smolinski, C. A., & Rosen, B. (1998). Why sexual harassment complaints fall on deaf
ears. The Academy of Management Executive, 12, 41-54.
Pfeffer, J. (1995). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the
workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
Rue & Ziffra, P.A. (n. d.). Negligent Supervision. Retrieved from
Ruley, S. R. (2008).Managing/supervising to reduce liability. In S. J. Davies & C. A. Hertig,
Security supervision and management: The theory and practice of asset protection (3rd ed.) (pp. 505-514). Burlington, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.
Seidenfeld, M. (1998). The art of supervision. Supervision, 59, 14-16.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior or organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Thorndike, E. L. (1913). Educational psychology: The psychology of teaming, Vol. 2. New York:
Columbia University Teachers College.
Von Bergen, C. W.,Soper, B., & Campbell, K. (2002).Influence employees the right way.
Industrial Management, 44, 8-15.
Walker, M. (1993). The cold war: A history. New York: Henry Holt and Company.