Further Thoughts on Punishment In Organizations

In this article I supplement the preceding Arvey and Ivancevich discussion by examining punishment research in organizational settings. The review is divided into three categories: (1) cross-sectional psychometric, (2) longitudinal psychometric, and (3) laboratory and field studies. Two major conclusions emerge. First, in most studies that contrast positive and punitive leader behavior, reward behavior tends to have a much stronger effect on employee performance. Second, both longitudinal field and laboratory studies seem to support the idea that punishment tends to be more a result of employee behavior than a cause of employee behavior, More specifically, managers tend to increase punitive behavior in response to poor employee performance. I also pose several questions that should be useful in guiding future research into the effects of punishment.

[1]  P. M. Podsakoff,et al.  Effects of Withdrawal of a Performance-Contingent Reward on Supervisory Influence and Power , 1981 .

[2]  A. D. Szilagyi Reward behavior by male and female leaders: A causal inference analysis , 1980 .

[3]  John M. Ivancevich,et al.  Punishment in Organizations: A Review, Propositions, and Research Suggestions , 1980 .

[4]  James G. Hunt,et al.  Leadership: The Cutting Edge. , 1979 .

[5]  T. Mitchell,et al.  An Empirical Test of an Attributional Model of Leaders' Responses to Poor Performance. , 1979 .

[6]  R. Keller,et al.  Employee Reactions to Leader Reward Behavior , 1976, IEEE Engineering Management Review.

[7]  R. Keller,et al.  A Longitudinal Study of Leader Reward Behavior, Subordinate Expectancies, and Satisfaction. , 1978 .

[8]  J. R. Larson,et al.  Leader behavior, situational moderators, and group performance: An attributional analysis. , 1977 .

[9]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Validating an in-basket test using an alternative set of leadership scoring dimensions. , 1976 .

[10]  J. Barrow Worker performance and task complexity as causal determinants of leader behavior style and flexibility. , 1976, Journal of Applied Psychology.

[11]  Greg R. Oldham,et al.  The motivational strategies used by supervisors: Relationships to effectiveness indicators , 1976 .

[12]  J. Barrow,et al.  The superior's reinforcing behavior as a function of reinforcements received , 1975 .

[13]  H. P. Sims,et al.  Leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance. , 1975, Organizational behavior and human performance.

[14]  Barry M. Staw,et al.  Attribution of the "causes" of performance: A general alternative interpretation of cross-sectional research on organizations. , 1975 .

[15]  R. C. Day Some effects of combining close, punitive, and supportive styles of supervision. , 1971, Sociometry.

[16]  M. Rothbart Effects of motivation, equity, and compliance on the use of reward and punishment. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[17]  Elliot Aronson,et al.  Gain and loss of esteem as determinants of interpersonal attractiveness , 1965 .

[18]  Punitive and Non-Punitive Supervision , 1964 .

[19]  R. L. Hamblin,et al.  Some Effects of Close and Punitive Styles of Supervision , 1964, American Journal of Sociology.