Doing Nothing … 1

Doing Nothing is Doing Something: The High Cost of Supervisory Inaction

C. W. Von Bergen

Southeastern Oklahoma State University

Key terms: management inaction, extinction, rewards and reinforcements, omission, motivation

Doing Nothing … 2

Doing Nothing is Doing Something: The High Cost of Supervisory Inaction

ABSTRACT

Despite most managers’ belief that doing nothing does not impact performance, managers

change employee behavior by their lack of action as well as by their actions. Doing nothing does

something; management nonresponse to desirable or undesirable 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 and act as if their feedback

philosophy should be one of “no news is good news.” Conversely, some supervisors hesitate to

challenge employees needing corrective counseling and appear to endorse a “see no evil, hear no

evil, speak no evil” management approach. Both practices lead to increased levels of poor

performance and supervisors who do nothing substantially damage their firms. Supervisory

inaction has real, negative consequences and there is a high price of a failure to act.

Doing Nothing … 3

Doing Nothing is Doing Something: The High Cost of Supervisory Inaction

“There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than thelong-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction.” —John F. Kennedy

Many managers of contemporary firms would agree that employees drive organizational

achievement (Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002; Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003) and represent the

greatest improvement opportunity for most firms today (Pfeffer, 1995). Leaders play an

important role in creating healthy, engaging, and productive successful workplace environments,

but the average business forfeits over $1 million per year in untapped potential because of less

than optimal leadership behavior (The Ken Blanchard Companies, 2009). One such costly

supervisory practice contributing to this loss, and the topic of this paper, involves managerial

nonresponse to worker performance; specifically, supervisory inaction with respect to both

desirable and undesirable employee behavior.

Most leaders, however, might not be aware that their inaction influences employee

behavior and think that this will have no adverse impact on worker behavior—or the

organization. Indeed, a common assumption among most managers is “that doing nothing will

have no effect on performance” (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007, p. 103). Nevertheless, when

managers do nothing following worker behavior they often demotivate good performers and

frequently encourage poor workers (Daniels, 1994). Those who practice “if you don’t hear from

me you know you are doing fine” (Hinkin & Schriesheim, 2004, p. 365) may be doing more

harm than they suspect.

When managers do nothing following employee behavior, they change that performance

for the worse in one of two ways: 1) they decrease the probability of future desired behavior, and

2) they open the door for increased levels of undesired performance. This paper explores the

high costs to organizations when leaders fail to recognize or reward effective employee conduct

Doing Nothing … 4

as well as when they neglect, ignore, or disregard worker wrongdoing. This examination of

inaction applies the lens of behavioral management. Reasons why supervisors do not address

good or bad employee actions are then presented followed by a discussion of the consequences

of such nonresponse. The paper concludes with a summary and implications for managers.

Behavior Management

Behavioral management, now widely recognized and applied in organizations for over

five decades, focuses primarily on managing employee job behavior and learning (Luthans &

Kreitner, 1975, 1985; Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003). It offers a systematic, simple-to-apply

framework to identify, analyze, and modify employee behavior and has been effectively applied

in a variety of manufacturing, service, and not-for-profit organizations, and even across cultures

(Luthans, Stajkovic, Luthans, & Luthans, 1998).

Behavioral theories of learning and motivation, sometimes referred to as applied behavior

analysis, operant conditioning, performance management, and reinforcement theory, focus on the

effect that consequences of past actions have on future behavior and posits that worker

performance is a function of contingent consequences (Komaki, Coombs, & Schepman, 1996;

Pfeffer, 1995); i.e., events that follow behaviors change the probability that they will recur in the

future. Contingent consequences control or determine employee behavior through four ways

(Kreitner & Kinicki, 2001): 1) positive reinforcement (making behavior occur more often by

contingently presenting something positive, 2) negative reinforcement (making behavior occur

more often by contingently withdrawing something negative), 3) punishment (making behavior

occur less often by contingently presenting something negative or withdrawing something

positive), and 4) extinction (making behavior occur less often by not reinforcing it). The authors

Doing Nothing … 5

examine management inaction to both appropriate and unproductive worker conduct in this paper

by focusing attention on positive reinforcement, extinction, and, to a lesser extent, punishment.

Positive reinforcement

Positive reinforcement is the most commonly used technique in behavioral management

and one of the most firmly established laws in the psychology of behavior (Vroom, 1964). It

consists of providing individuals with some pleasant (from the individual’s perspective)

consequence following wanted behavior with the objective of increasing the likelihood that the

desired behavior will be repeated in the future under similar circumstances. This happens

because behavior that gets rewarded gets repeated. Contingently administered money, feedback,

and social recognition (i.e., personal attention, mostly conveyed verbally through expressions of

interest, approval, and appreciation for a job well done) are the most recognized positive

reinforcers in behavioral management at work (Bandura, 1986; Luthans, 2000). Although

rewards are valuable to the reward giver and reinforcers increases the desired behavioral

response and technically not the same thing (Stajkovic & Luthans, 2003), for ease of

interpretation and because such a distinction is not relevant to this paper, reward and reinforcer

are used interchangeably here.

Behaviors that positively impact performance must be contingently reinforced although it

might not be necessary that every instance of a target behavior be rewarded. In fact, such partial

or intermittent reinforcement can maintain the person’s behavior over long periods of time and

can lead to higher levels of performance than continuously reinforced behavior (i.e., reward after

every instance of the desired behavior; Weinstock, 1958). Moreover, a 100 percent schedule of

praise for every success will often lead to a subordinate’s satiation and discounting the

supervisor, as well as the subordinate’s perception that the superior’s behavior is ingratiating.

Doing Nothing … 6

Extinction

Organizational studies have generally overlooked extinction, although employees in a

variety of business settings suggest that event to be a common managerial practice (Hinkin &

Schriesheim, 2004). While extinction can be technically defined as the withdrawal of positive

reinforcement from a behavior previously rewarded, it may be easier to understand it as a

condition in which “the performer does something and nothing happens” (Daniels, 1994, p. 29).

When people do something resulting in no reinforcement, they will be less likely to repeat that

behavior in the future or, as Skinner (1953) pointed out, “… when we engage in behavior which

no longer ‘pays off,’ we find ourselves less inclined to behave that way again” (p. 69). “Just

ignore it, and it’ll go away” (Daniels, 1994, p. 62) is basically how extinction works.

A good analogy for extinction is to imagine what would happen to a person’s houseplants

if they stopped watering them. Like a plant without water, a behavior without (occasional)

reinforcement eventually dies and disappears. In each case, the behavior decreases because

reinforcing consequences no longer occur. These examples show that doing nothing after

someone behaves properly and positively can weaken and eliminate that worthy behavior.

Punishment

Punishment causes behavior to occur less often by contingently presenting something

negative or withdrawing something positive after an individual’s performance (penalty).

Behavior that gets punished tends not be repeated. Punishment could be a frown, disagreeing

with someone’s idea, a verbal reprimand, or criticizing a presentation, while penalties might

involve a fine, demotion, or suspension without pay. The use of punishment in organizations can

be controversial and is often criticized because it fails to indicate the correct behavior but almost

Doing Nothing … 7

all managers report finding it necessary to occasionally impose forms of punishment ranging

from verbal reprimands to employee suspensions or firings (Casey, 1997).

With a focus on these three consequences we present two managerial errors involving

leadership inaction. The first mistake involves leaders doing nothing in response to acceptable

employee behavior. The second mistake involves leaders doing nothing in response to

unacceptable worker conduct. We now present a discussion of these two errors beginning with

some reasons why supervisors engage in such activities followed by a discussion of the effects of

such supervisory inaction.

Management Nonresponse to Desirable Employee Performance

“I can live for two months on a good compliment.” —Mark Twain

Über management consultant and author Tom Peters, who writes and consults with

corporations about becoming more effective, stated that successful leaders and companies should

“Celebrate what you want to see more of’” (Peters, n.d.). Great organizations create greater

success by praising and celebrating; i.e., by positive reinforcement. Recognizing achievements

and milestones boosts pride, camaraderie, and leadership credibility. By providing occasions to

acknowledge, recognize, and reward meaningful accomplishments, leaders create a culture

where progress and appreciation prevail. Furthermore, Peters (2010) believes that managers and

supervisors “grossly underestimate the power of little acknowledgements such as that simple,

little, in passing ‘Thanks’ or ‘Nice job’” (p. 150). Positive reinforcement for good work, said

Peters (2010), might also include “A small plaque, a pin, a celebratory banquet (or lunch!)

[emphasis in original] at the end of a small but successful project, a smile, a ‘thank you’ or two

or three or eleven” (p. 154). Employee recognition must be given more attention by leaders as

they attempt to meet today’s organizational challenges (Luthans, 2000).

Doing Nothing … 8

Why managers do not discuss good performance with employees

The evidence clearly suggests that people at work do not receive much recognition and

attention for good performance (Daniels & Daniels, 2004; Peters, 2010). One reason for this

involves a widespread management myth that “employees will coast or because they think that

praise is not valued” (Robbins & Judge, 2011, p. 534). Still another reason for not

acknowledging good performance could be that some managers believe paying a salary is

sufficient and that “coddling employees is unnecessary” (Bacal, 2007, p. 65). Many such

managers limit positive reinforcement because they believe that workers must go well above and

beyond to deserve praise and recognition because otherwise “you’re just rewarding them for

doing their job” (Peters, 2010, p. 151). Such managers do not feel it necessary to provide

recognition or praise because “employees are already paid to work” (Podsakoff, Podsakoff, &

Kuskova, 2010, p. 300). Nonetheless, everyone needs to know that their work and successes are

noticed and appreciated but salaries do not convey that sense to employees (Bacal, 2007).

Some managers of white collar workers further argue that appreciation and

commendation might not be necessary for their subordinates because they are “professionals,”

and their salaries will make them assume more responsibility than their blue-collar coworkers.

These beliefs appear to be a dispositional trait characterized by supervisors whose implicit

theories about the nature of the world and people think that worker good conduct represents

merely doing one’s duty (such as the obligation to fulfill one’s job tasks and responsibilities) and

does not deserve reward or recognition, leading them to be less appreciative of good behavior in

others (Chiu, Dweck, Tong, & Fu, 1997; Hamilton, Blumenfeld, & Kushlen, 1988).

Still other managers fear that providing positive feedback may cause employees to feel so

smug that their performance level will drop. “You have to keep them on their toes,” one boss

Doing Nothing … 9

cautioned, “or else they’ll eat your lunch” (Van Fleet, Peterson, & Van Fleet, 2005, p. 48). Also,

discussions with both managers and employees confirmed that in some cases superiors

intentionally overlook positive performance and use negative feedback unwarrantedly to justify

reducing or withholding pay raises and other monetary rewards when budgets are tight and

management cannot provide financial rewards for good performance (Van Fleet et al., 2005).

Additionally, because workers generally do not ask for approval, admiration, commendation, or

appreciation managers typically do not realize the costs of not doing it. Finally, busy managers

frequently ignore good performers because they are low maintenance workers who often feel

guilty taking up their boss’s time (Robinson, 2005). But failing to recognize good performance

can become a silent killer, like escalating blood pressure.

The effects of doing nothing on desirable behavior

What is killed, of course, is continuing good performance. Yet many “employees think

managers are paid to ‘provide recognition and praise’” (Podsakoff et al., 2010, p. 300) and

management attention is a major positive consequence to the vast majority of the work force

(Daniels, 1994), and if missing, then extinction may unintentionally occur which means that the

productive behavior will decrease because it was overlooked.

Interestingly, Graham and Unruh (1990) examined the value of 65 potential incentives

and four out of the top five rewards ranked by employees as the most motivating were initiated

by their manager, based upon performance, and required little or no money. These non-financial

incentives involved a manager:

1. Personally congratulating an employee for a job well done;

2. Writing a personal note for good performance.

3. Publicly recognizing an employee for good performance; and

Doing Nothing … 10

4. Holding morale-building meetings to celebrate successes.

The data also revealed a preference for recognition based upon efforts which contribute to

organizational success—not false praise or automatic length of service recognition.

Amount and frequency of reinforcement. The amount of reinforcement needed is

generally more than most managers think. Although not in an organizational context, Skinner

(1968) noted that to teach students to be competent in basic mathematical concepts requires in

excess of 50,000 reinforcements—roughly a student’s first four grades. This works out to more

than 70 reinforcers per hour per student. Since failing to reinforce productive performance can be

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 could be why in work environments where management does not make a conscious

attempt to positively reinforce, extinction of discretionary effort usually results—albeit

inadvertently. 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). Over time, high

achievers can be expected to do one of two things, neither of which benefits the organization: 1)

they reduce performance; or 2) they leave the firm.

If managers want desirable behavior to continue they must reward it. Nevertheless, it is a

common supervisory mistake to believe that they are rewarding more than their employees

perceive. According to Rath and Clifton (2004) 65% of Americans had not received recognition

for good work in the previous year. Nevertheless, managers believe they are providing abundant

recognition to their followers (Gostick & Elton, 2007) and say, “I use positive reinforcement all

the time” (Daniels, 2001, p. 67) yet when their employees were asked when they last received

positive reinforcement from the boss, the most common answer by far was “I can’t remember”

Doing Nothing … 11

(Daniels, 2001, p. 67). Managers think they acknowledge their subordinates but worker

perceptions differ. A similar frequency error was pointed out by Daniels (1994) who observed

that some supervisors exclaim that “I reinforced him but he didn’t change” (p. 70). According to

Daniels (1994), however, “one positive reinforcer will not change your life” (p. 70)—or an

employee’s behavior. Frequent positive reinforcement is a necessity for highly productive

employees and their firms.

To help overcome this frequency error Daniels and Daniels (2004) offer a 4:1 ratio guide.

The most effective managers employ a ratio of positive to negative interactions that exceeds 4:1.

A helpful tip for managers who need to improve their ratios is to remember that for every time

they apply a negative consequence, should find at least four opportunities to reinforce a desired

performance. This may require the application of The One-Minute Manager (Blanchard &

Johnson, 1981) principle of catching workers doing something right which requires supervisors

to look for, notice, and celebrate it which in turn often involves management by walking around

popularized by Peters and Waterman in their mega best seller, In Search of Excellence (1982).

Several recent studies have shown a strong link between employee recognition systems

and organizational success. For example, a study surveying 26,000 employees in 31 healthcare

organizations found that companies in the top quartile of employee responses to the item “ My

organization recognizes excellence” outperformed companies in the bottom quartile on this

response in their return on equity, return on assets, and operating margin by a factor of at least

three-to-one (Gostick & Elton, 2007). In another study, Welbourne and Andrews (1996) reported

that for 136 companies which engaged in an IPO, those that emphasized the use of employee

rewards had over a 40% higher likelihood of survival 5 years later than did companies which did

not emphasize employee rewards. It appears, then, that the success and viability of a firm likely

Doing Nothing … 12

depends on supervisors’ recognition of deserving performers and that many performance

problems may be created, not by what supervisors do, but by what they don’t do.

This was demonstrated by Hinkin and Schriesheim (2004) who studied 243 employees at

two different hospitality organizations and compared the effect of managers’ giving feedback to

employees on their job performance (Pritchard, Jones, Roth, Stuebing, & Ekeberg, 1988,

consider supervisory feedback positive reinforcement) with a group given no comments. As

expected, Hinkin and 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 which examined extinction in an

organizational context, nicely illustrated that ignored effective behavior will eventually be

extinguished and eliminated. The researchers also noted, interestingly, that supervisors who do

not respond to good performance also disregard poor behavior. This is discussed below.

Management Nonresponse to Undesirable Employee Performance

“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.” —Edmund Burke

The key learning point above is that organizational stars and those who perform their job

satisfactorily should get constructive notice from their supervisors. While good performers

should receive managerial attention, a firm’s poor performers deserve lots of attention too—

perhaps even more than their productive coworkers. Studies show that most employees want to

do a good job at work and it is rare that an employee genuinely wants to sabotage or confound

their organization (Buron & McDonald-Mann, 2003). Nevertheless, there are some problematic

workers and as organizations look to redirect their efforts, it is often necessary to provide

negative sanctions with the expectation that the recipients of this feedback will expend efforts to

Doing Nothing … 13

improve questionable performance. Regrettably, much evidence suggests that most people are

reluctant to provide negative feedback to others (Posthuma & Campion, 2008; Rosen & Tesser,

1970) and that the discussion of poor performance is apparently so aversive that it is often

neglected (Landy & Farr, 1989) frequently leading to future problems.

For instance, Pope John Paul II’s legacy includes a belief among some that he failed to

deal adequately with not only allegations of sexual abuse by priests, but also with bishops who

transferred clergymen to new assignments rather than confront the issue (Breen, 2011). This has

led some to wonder why he is being beatified (a step on the road to sainthood in the Catholic

Church) despite his record of ignoring the sexual abuse crisis. Consider likewise the supervisors

of Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan, the alleged gunman at Fort Hood, charged with killing

13 and wounding 43 soldiers in November 2009. Despite appraisal records which described him

as unprofessional, erratic, and disturbing to both his colleagues and his patients, the Army

promoted Hasan. Some might argue that the failure to discipline him for his earlier troubling

behavior undoubtedly led to the catastrophic violence at the Texas army base (Mulrine, 2010).

Equally disturbing was the failure of Penn State university officials and others who received

information to act on reports of a former football coach’s alleged child sexual abuse and who

either avoided asking difficult questions or chose to look the other way and not act, even after

being reported to them in graphic detail by an eyewitness. This inaction allowed an alleged

predator to walk free for nine years permitting him to target new victims (Simon, 2011).

Poor performers show up late, leave early, do not show up for the job at all, do not turn

their work in on time, have an excuse for every failing, exhibit low productivity, and engage in

unsafe work behaviors. These difficult people are sometimes involved with deviant behavior

such as theft, computer fraud, and engage in embezzlement, vandalism, and sabotage. Yet many

Doing Nothing … 14

managers often ignore or do not confront these problematic staffers. For example, a survey of

5,500 employees found that forty-four percent of respondents believed their firm’s management

too lenient on under-performers, and that managers should confront slacking employees sooner

and more often (Trends, 1988). A more recent survey asked employees if their managers

confronted poor performers and only 31 percent of respondents indicated that their manager

challenged them (Sunjansky, 2007). Most often managers who continually overlook such

workers hope the problem will just disappear and that those employees will somehow turn

themselves around or stop their troublesome conduct. Left to fester, however, bad behavior

patterns often lead to project delays, expense overruns, and missed deadlines costing firms

millions in lost productivity and revenue. Negative behaviors that supervisors ignore do not

typically go away—they multiply when leaders fail to act because the behaviors are then

assumed to be “accepted by leadership” (Thornton, 2011). Unfortunately, too many leaders seem

to follow famous English author Rudyard Kipling’s Shut-Eye Sentry who while on duty would

“… shut my eyes in the sentry box, so I didn’t see nothin’ wrong” (2006, p. 362).

Why managers do not discuss poor performance with employees

Much attention today focuses on the bright side of organizational life—strategies for

getting results through people, the organizational approaches of worker empowerment,

participation, and involvement, and the virtue of trusting in people to do the right thing

(Ehrenreich, 2009). However, the fact that people engage in numerous ineffective and

dysfunctional organizational behaviors follows alongside this people-are-trustworthy theme

(Gandossy & Kanter, 2002). Effective leaders must look on the dark side—at the possibility of

malevolence—as well as the positive values of faith in people and trust in their integrity. They

Doing Nothing … 15

need to devote personal time and attention to making sure that performance problems do not slip

by unnoticed and perhaps unpunished.

Several factors may prevent leaders from seeing and acting on signs of misconduct.

Perhaps they do not want to rock the boat, fearing that poor performers will retaliate with even

worse performance. Maybe they dislike confrontation and possibly they are unassertive. It could

be that they fear hurting employee feelings or potential workplace violence. Maybe they have

internalized the dictums of “don’t be judgmental” and “don’t say anything at all if you can’t say

something nice” making them reluctant to provide non-positive feedback. Or perhaps, they do

not know how to confront someone professionally or dislike the formidable time consuming

documentation often required when detailing employee performance deficiencies. Some leaders

write off instances of wrongdoing as aberrations without relevance to them and so do nothing,

and everyone suffers. Despite the reason, such reluctance inhibits managers from providing

performance feedback that can help employees grow or enable the organization to eliminate poor

performers. They seem to operate on the belief of “See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil.”

The effects of doing nothing on undesirable behavior

The impact of ignoring undesirable behavior is different than overlooking desirable

behavior. As indicated above, ignoring desirable behavior is tantamount to behavioral extinction

and decreases in effective performance can be expected if supervisors do nothing with respect to

wanted performance. Ignoring undesirable behavior, however, generally tends to maintain or

increase ineffective conduct. This could be because the wrongdoing is often self-rewarding to a

worker and involves an activity the person already finds intrinsically satisfying. For example, an

employee who steals money from a firm experiences the naturally occurring positive

consequences associated with having more money which will cause the undesirable behavior to

Doing Nothing … 16

persist because the worker continues to be positively reinforced for their theft. Similarly, if

workers are taking shortcuts in the safety area the naturally occurring positive consequences

associated with doing a job with less time and effort will often cause the undesirable behaviors to

continue and increase. In many 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 and

in some environments, avoiding or over-riding power lockout switches (safety mechanisms)

could be acceptable because it benefits production. In such cultures, a worker who fixes

equipment without locking out may be seen as a “macho” hero (Geller, 2000) by his or her co-

workers (another reinforcer). In these examples there are positive reinforcements that support

dysfunctional behavior.

Moreover, supervisory silence about wrongdoing might often be interpreted as subtle

acceptance and consent (from the Latin maxim, ‘Qui tacet consentire videtur’ [‘He who is silent

seems to consent’]) and consequently such nonresponse may act as an unintended reinforcer for

the behavior they do not want (Daniels & Daniels, 2004). The absence of accurate and negative

feedback frequently leads employees to believe their performance to be on target and that

everything is well (Fedor, Davis, Maslyn, & Mathieson, 2001; Tata, 2002).

Failing to address performance issues also results in lowering performance standards and

can lead employees to believe their performance to be at satisfactory levels because management

neglects to tell 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 to be missing

the mark, but unless the boss challenges employees about performance deficiencies and

expressly states what needs to be done, change is unlikely. By directly and objectively

Doing Nothing … 17

confronting a worker’s problematic behavior, supervisors clearly show the wrongdoing to be

unacceptable (Seidenfeld, 1998).

Negative sanctions. Particularly problematic behavior occurs when people do things

illegal, immoral, unethical (e.g., dishonesty, lying, cheating, and stealing), unsafe, unhealthy, or

unfair to themselves or others that cannot be ignored or allowed to continue (Daniels & Daniels,

2004). These behaviors might result in devastating effects on organizations and must be stopped.

Immediate corrective action entailing punishment or penalty may be necessary. Such

consequences, effectively used, do have appropriate places in management. They are intended to

diminish or stop undesirable employee behavior.

However Baron (1988) found that it was generally not the delivery of negative feedback,

per se, that produced such unconstructive outcomes as increased levels of conflict, resentment,

and aggression, but rather the manner in which supervisors conveyed such information that

seemed to play the crucial role. Baron (1988) found that performance discussions about poor

performance using constructive criticism (specific, considerate, feedback that does not contain

threats of termination or reassignment, or suggestions that an individual’s poor performance

results from negative internal attributions such as the person being stupid or lazy) did not

generate strong feelings of anger and tension nor increase recipients’ tendency to adopt

ineffective techniques for dealing with poor performance (e.g., making endless excuses, refusing

to change). Ilgen and Davis (2000) forcefully argue that giving negative feedback carries with it

a responsibility to convey the message in a way that will not adversely affect the probability that

the person will perform better in the future. Clearly, managers should engage in constructive

Doing Nothing … 18

suggestions with their poorly performing subordinates regarding how they might improve their

future behavior.

This may be particularly important because ignoring bad behavior invariably culminates

in disillusionment from the very people the business relies most upon—those who consistently

produce good results. Research by Schnake and Dumler (1989) supported this view and found

that supervisors who fail to punish others’ inappropriate behavior is perceived as punishment by

those performing at high levels and that leaders who punish unwanted employee behavior is

frequently viewed as rewarding by these high performers. In a similar vein, Podsakoff, Bommer,

Podsakoff, and MacKenzie (2006) found that negative feedback provided by managers to poorly

performing workers can have more functional effects on employee satisfaction than positive

feedback considered undeserved. Moreover, employees generally feel better about their

supervisor, coworkers, and opportunities for advancement when their leaders hold employees

accountable for poor performance. This finding confirms research by Carlsmith, Darley, and

Robinson (2002) which showed that people believe individuals should get what they deserve in

life and that they tend to be more satisfied when others receive punishment or penalties that are

contingent upon low performance or unacceptable behaviors.

Of all the nonactions likely to negatively impact a team’s morale, none appears quite as

damning as a supervisor’s failure to respond promptly to a team worker’s poor performance. In a

review of 32 management teams, Larson and LaFasto (1989) found that the most consistent and

intense complaint from team members was team leaders unwillingness to confront and resolve

problems associated with poor performance of individual team members: “more than any other

single aspect of team leadership, members are disturbed by leaders who are unwilling to deal

directly and effectively with self-serving or noncontributing team members” (p. 83). Moreover,

Doing Nothing … 19

O’Reilly and Puffer (1989) found that subjects in their studies reported that they were more

willing to work hard, felt more satisfied, and perceived more equitable treatment from their

supervisors when the supervisors punished team members who performed poorly than when poor

performing team members received no punishment.

An important feature of using consequences effectively is to apply them contingently or

dependent on a person’s behavior. Podsakoff , Tudor, and Skov (1982) and Stajkovic and

Luthans (2003) examined the effects of contingencies and found contingent reward to have

strong positive relationships with subordinate outcomes such as satisfaction and performance and

that, surprisingly, even contingent punishment had small positive relationships with the outcome

measures. This research highlights the importance of a clear link between subordinates’ behavior

and supervisory response. Even punishment or reprimands can be well received, as long as

subordinates can see a relationship between their behavior and fitting consequences (Baum &

Youngblood, 1975; O’Reilly & Puffer, 1989). Additionally, these researchers noted that workers

also have greater liking for supervisors who use discipline appropriately since such supervision

may be viewed as performance-based. Such findings suggest that individuals observe and

respond to rewards and punishments given to others.

The impact of social contexts. Bandura’s social learning theory (1986) posits that

people learn from one another, via imitation, modeling, and by observing others’ behavior,

attitudes, outcomes of those behaviors, and the consequences that others receive. The failure to

use negative sanctions may, therefore, reinforce unproductive norms as individuals learn, for

instance, that it is permissible to arrive late, work at half speed, or that slipshod quality is

considered acceptable. Conversely, social learning theory suggests that individuals are less likely

to engage in modeled behavior if they perceive that there will be punishing effects than if they

Doing Nothing … 20

anticipate positive outcomes. Properly applied, negative sanctions may act both to set specific

goals and to help establish group norms which govern acceptable and unacceptable behaviors.

Failure to use negative sanctions may, from a social learning perspective, act as a

reinforcer for undesired behaviors, lead to feelings of inequity, and establishment of

unproductive group norms. In part this could be because when misconduct occurs, observers

expect that the violators will be punished (Hogan & Emler, 1981). In a social context, then, the

use of negative sanctions may be a highly visible and effective tool for increasing both

productivity and satisfaction (O’Reilly & Puffer, 1989). It seems that the observed tendency of

managers to avoid the conflict inherent with the use of punishment (O’Reilly & Weitz, 1980)

may result in a failure to use discipline resulting in feelings of inequity, loss of motivation, and

lowered commitment and cohesiveness among productive group members (Curtis, Smith, &

Smoll, 1979; Nicholson, 1976; Podsakoff & Todor, 1985).

While confrontation of poor performers is done privately, leaders who publicly discipline

poor performers must recognize that public punishment does not mean public humiliation.

Degrading or belittling followers in the presence of others often creates animosity towards

managers and promotes a culture of fear. Instead, discipline should focus on the unwanted

behavior and not persons who exhibited it. When done correctly, and in moderation, punishment

administered in front of others can be an effective and efficient teaching tool for leaders to

employ (Podsakoff et al., 2010). In summary, applying discipline in a social context may be

more effective than applying it to individuals because the administration of punishment in social

contexts could be observed by people other than the individual receiving the punishment

(Treviño, 1992). While recognizing that punishment can turn out to be “a remedy too strong for

Doing Nothing … 21

the disease” (Jebb, Headlam, & Pearson, 2010, p. 232), it may also have helpful effects that

should not be ignored.

Managerial inaction to address an individual’s unfavorable performance might also have

significant implications for a workgroup. At least at first, group members may look to their

leader to punish a deviant group member (Butterfield, Treviño, & Ball, 1996) but poor leadership

may allow a negative person to persist in their destructive activity. If the supervisor does not

address this behavior, then those ineffective performers may serve as models for antisocial

behaviors and infect the whole group (O’Fallon & Butterfield, 2011). The common idiom “a bad

apple spoils the barrel” captures the core idea of negative individuals having deleterious effects

on others (Sember & Sember, 2009). Felps, Mitchell, and Byington (2006) identified bad apples

as those “individuals who chronically display behavior which asymmetrically impairs group

functioning” (p. 180) while Tyler (2004) describes them as “a cancer that spreads throughout the

entire workplace” (p. 77). Such individuals have a negative impact on group production related

processes of motivation, creativity, and learning, as well as on the integrative processes of

cooperation and conflict. Bad apples distract and drag down everyone, and their destructive

behaviors, such as anger, laziness, and incompetence, are remarkably contagious. Chronic

expressions of toxic behaviors allow these people to become a figurative thorn in the groups’

side—and possibly a “destroyer” of the group itself (Wetlaufer, 1994). Indeed, Felps et al. (2006)

noted that groups having a bad apple performed 30% to 40% worse than similar groups without a

bad apple. Furthermore, employees are more likely to model caustic behavior of others if they

must work closely with them in order to do their job (i.e., high degrees of interaction; Robinson,

& O’Leary-Kelly, 1996; Wagemen, 2000). This could be particularly noteworthy given that task

interdependence may grow as organizations move toward the use of self-managed work teams

Doing Nothing … 22

and decentralized organizational structures (Erez, LePine, & Elms, 2002; Navran, 2002). Thus, a

negative side effect of such increased interface is that it enhances the likelihood that problematic

behavior will be socially contagious requiring managers to ‘nip in the bud’ such actions before

such tendencies spread to others. The consequence is that a supervisor can’t wait very long to see

if these “bad apples” will mend their ways. Supervisors need to intervene quickly.

Supervisors are obligated to confront wrongdoing. Ignoring certain kinds of unwanted

behavior can be especially problematic. For example, the Occupational Safety and Health Act’s

most basic provision, the so-called general duty clause, 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). There is a duty of care to ensure, as far as reasonably practical, that workers and

others are not exposed to risks 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). Leaders who do not address such harmful action will be seen as condoning it and may also

be held responsible for unsafe practices and employees may bring legal action against the

supervisor and firm for not taking the proper action to secure a safe workplace. Courts in these

cases usually find for the employee (Daniels & Daniels, 2004).

Another area where managerial nonresponse may be problematic involves the failure to

appropriately discipline. Consider the case of Andrews v. Fowler (1996) in which plaintiff

Andrews claimed being raped by Officer Fowler and sued under § 1983 of the Civil Rights Act

of 1871. Plaintiff alleged the chief of police and mayor knew of several prior allegations of

sexual misconduct involving Officer Fowler but failed to discipline him. Plaintiff alleged that

Doing Nothing … 23

this failure was essentially ratification of Officer Fowler’s misconduct and stood as evidence that

the “official policy” of the city became tacit authorization of Fowler’s sexual misconduct. The

court held that supervisors may be subject to individual liability for failing adequately to receive,

investigate, or act upon complaints of wrongdoing by department employees if they: 1) received

notice of pattern of unconstitutional acts committed by subordinates; 2) demonstrated deliberate

indifference to or tacit authorization of offensive acts; 3) failed to take sufficient remedial action,

and 4) such failure proximately caused injury (Andrews v. Fowler, 1996; see also Ware v.

Jackson County, MO, 1998).

Performance feedback and documentation have become the cornerstone of employers’

defense against discrimination and wrongful termination charges and, as a result, have become

one of management’s most important responsibilities (Malos, 1998). Yet appraisals can be an

organization’s greatest vulnerability when they are not performed or executed satisfactorily.

Hence, a good idea is to ensure that poorly performing employees are notified of work-related

problems, so they cannot later claim that they would have improved but for the employer’s

failure to properly manage their performance. Such negligence was addressed in two court cases.

In Chamberlain v. Bissell (1982) a company manager relied on a performance evaluation to

discharge an employee. However, the employee in question was never informed that he would be

discharged if his performance did not improve. The court held that the manager breached his

duty to use ordinary care in conducting performance evaluations. Because the manager was in a

position to give the employee an opportunity to improve, the court held that the manager was

negligent in conducting the performance evaluation. Likewise, in Schipani v. Ford Motor

Company (1981) the court held that plaintiff could state a cause of action against his employer

for negligence in carrying out performance evaluations. The court indicated that “…the law

Doing Nothing … 24

imposes an obligation upon everyone who attempts to do anything for another, even gratuitously,

to exercise some degree of care and skill in the performance of what he had undertaken, for

nonperformance of which duty an action lies” (p. 623). Thus, legally it may be important to keep

employees advised of poor performance so they cannot contest discharge by claiming that their

behavior would have improved but for a faulty evaluation and review process.

Furthermore, any act of discrimination should be dealt with immediately. Sexual

harassment, a form of sex discrimination, receives much attention in the workplace and properly

so. Such behavior can have serious consequences to persons being harassed and to organizations

as well. These firms often suffer damaged employee morale, lost productivity, costly law suits,

and public relations nightmares because of organizational inaction or a lack of taking immediate

action (Peirce, Smolinski, & Rosen, 1998). Indeed, the United States Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission’s (1999) long-standing guidance on employer liability for harassment

by co-workers assumes employer liability if the employer knew or should have known of the

misconduct, unless it can show that it undertook reasonable care to prevent and promptly correct

harassment.

Conclusion

Summary

Management nonresponse to employee productive work behavior is equivalent to

extinction which decades of research has shown results in gradual decreases of such desirable

behavior. Thus, doing nothing, often described as ignoring good performance in organizational

contexts, either consciously or unconsciously, decreases the frequency of effective behavior. The

problem with extinction is that the process cannot be directly observed. Since extinction remains

a passive process, supervisors may not notice anything happening immediately, but, slowly, over

Doing Nothing … 25

time, the desirable behavior changes for the worse. Every time a worker does something positive

and nothing happens, that behavior weakens. Eventually, previously industrious employees do

just enough to not get fired, leaving supervisors wondering what happened with those formerly

promising workers. Rather than look at what went wrong with subordinates, a more useful

approach might be for leaders to consider the possibility that they themselves may be

contributing substantially to their employees’ inadequate performance, an approach Campbell,

Von Bergen, Soper, and Gaster (2003) refer to as “mirror management” (p. 21).

Effective managers exhibit both reward and disciplinary behavior towards subordinates

(Arvey, Davis, & Nelson, 1984) and let people know where they stand by recognizing good

behavior and correcting those who may be off track. They give ongoing support, guidance, and

instruction to those who need improvement and they are not hesitant to confront poor

performers. They do not shirk a leader’s primary responsibility which includes ensuring that

employees continually perform at desired levels. They correct problems when they occur, not

after they have been ignored for so long that they have become disasters. Overlooking the

situation and hoping that things will improve is a recipe for disaster. Hope should not be

considered a business strategy (Froschheiser, 2010).

Negative performance feedback, though, presents a dilemma. Most believe it necessary

but few want to deliver it (Ilgen & Davis, 2000). Due to their aversion to providing workers

negative comments managers often avoid doing so and ignore performance problems. This leads

employees to believe their performance to be acceptable, until the frequency or severity of

performance problems and the manager’s frustration at the employee rise to extremely high

levels (Larson, 1989). Such frustration-driven feedback often results in destructive criticism that

can be interpersonally biting, sarcastic, inconsiderate, threatening, and harsh (Baron, 1990,

Doing Nothing … 26

1993). Such a reproach may account for Kluger and DeNisi’s (1996) finding that although

feedback interventions improve performance on average, they reduce performance in more than

one third of the cases and that feedback effectiveness decreases as attention moves up the

hierarchy closer to the recipient and away from a task or behavior.

It remains important that leaders understand that people do what they do because of what

happens to them when they do it, and a supervisor must carefully examine what consequences

workers receive for their good or bad conduct. In many cases a supervisor will see an employee

performing unwanted behavior because that action may be more pleasant and satisfying (e.g.,

easier, comfortable, less stressful, financially rewarding, status enhancing) than engaging in

approved ways. Failure to consider what workers obtain from misbehavior is an ill-advised

leadership approach.

Implications for managers

A number of implications for managers can be summarized. First, in any type of

situation, effective leadership depends on reinforcing, motivating, and rewarding value

enhancing behaviors in order to spur superior performance. The vast majority of leaders in

organizations, however, believe they are doing so but subordinates tell a different story.

Supervisors are thus encouraged to err on the side of providing too much positive reinforcement

and to offer more frequent, specific, and personal recognition to employees. Something as simple

as a pat on the back represents a meaningful incentive (Nelson, 1994) and so managers must not

feel constrained by budgetary concerns, but rather only by their own imagination. It remains

critical to note, though, that inexpensive gifts must be thoughtful and personalized; otherwise,

the leader will appear cheap and inconsiderate (Podsakoff et al., 2010).

Doing Nothing … 27

Second, managers must ensure an appropriate relationship between employee behavior

and supervisor consequences. This refers to the idea of contingency. Contingent reward behavior

may be defined as the leader’s administration of positive feedback in the form of recognition,

praise, and/or acknowledgment to those employees who demonstrate good performance whereas

contingent punishment behavior can be defined as leader’s administration of negative feedback

in the form of reprimands, criticism, or disapproval to employees who exhibit unacceptable

behaviors. The general finding remains that both leader contingent reward and punishment

behaviors are positively associated with employee attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors

beneficial to organizations. Both contingent rewards and punishments administered to workers

based on performance or task behaviors reduce role ambiguity and improve employee

satisfaction, effort, conscientiousness and performance, although contingent punishment to a

smaller extent than contingent reward (Podakoff et al., 2010). Additionally, contingent reward

and punishment behavior promotes group drive, cohesiveness, and productivity although again

punishment effects appear weaker than contingent reward behaviors.

A third implication suggests that supervisors must realize that for greater misbehavior

there is a high cost of doing nothing (Moore, 2002). Typically, bad conduct continues and in

many cases will escalate as well as spread to others in the workgroup who may model the

undesirable performance. When ignored, little things often turn into big things. To decrease such

unwanted behavior punishment may be administered (Hellriegel & Slocum, 2007). Effectively

used punishment does have an appropriate place in management; however, if supervisors only

punish what they do not want and do not reinforce what they do want, improvement in

performance is unlikely. Thus, supervisors should be encouraged to reinforce behavior

Doing Nothing … 28

incompatible with the unwanted behavior; for example, staying at work station vs. taking

excessive breaks.

Fourth, supervisors should not allow work-related problems to go unchecked and should

counsel poor performers to encourage behavioral improvement and document action taken. Only

after a supervisor determines—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, should punishment be administered. The

point is that if the cause of an employee’s problem exists outside his or her control, then

punishment might not be appropriate. If an employee can perform but does not, then punishment

may be called for and proper documentation necessary. A good guideline to remember is that “If

It Wasn’t Documented, It Didn’t Happen.” The goal of documentation attempts to clearly

memorialize the firm’s efforts to address problematic behavior (Clancy & Warner, 1999). When

followed regularly, accurate and contemporaneous documentation will add authenticity and

credibility to the events leading to the supervisory action and will help the firm prevail against

claims of wrongful discharge, breach of contract, and discrimination. Without proper

documentation, the employee would be much more likely to win in the event of a court case

(e.g., Lloyd v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 1992).

Finally, managers should do their best to address problematic behavior and avoid

delivering destructive criticism to subordinates. The costs of doing so, in terms of lowered

employee motivation and increased conflict, may be very costly. It is recommended that leaders

clarify the negative feedback they administer to workers by identifying the specific behaviors

that are being punished and why, be considerate and respectful, communicate no threats or

Doing Nothing … 29

suggestions that an individual’s poor performance might be due to negative internal forces (such

as a low intelligence or laziness), ask the employee what further resources he or she needs to

effectively do their job, and clearly specify what the employee should do to avoid punishment in

the future. These guidelines are designed to correct a problem or modify ineffective behaviors

and are not intended to embarrass or publicly ridicule an employee. A constructive disciplinary

interview can play an instrumental role in converting an ineffective performer into a productive

member of the organization.

Finally, it may be well to remember management guru Peter Drucker’s keen observation

that “The manager directs people or misdirects them. He brings out what is in them or he stifles

them…. Every manager does these things when he manages—whether he knows it or not. He

may do them well, or he may do them wretchedly. But he always does them” (Drucker, 1954, p.

344). Drucker seemed to focus on managerial action but as demonstrated in this paper

managerial inaction also influences workers. Most managers seldom recognize the dramatic

impact of their own failure to act on their subordinates and that many performance problems are

created not only by what they do but also by what they don’t do. There is a high price of a failure

to act.

Doing Nothing … 30

References

29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) (1976).

Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8th Cir. 1996).

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

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

Bacal, R. (2007). How to manage performance: 24 lessons for improving performance. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Bandura A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

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

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

Baron, R. A. (1990). Countering the effects of destructive criticism: The relative efficacy of four

interventions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 235-245.

Baron, R. A. (1993). Criticism (informal negative feedback) as a source of perceived unfairness

in organizations: Effects, mechanisms, and countermeasures. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.),

Justice in the workplace (pp. 115-170). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Baum, J., & Youngblood, S. (1975). Impact of an organizational control policy on absenteeism,

performance, and satisfaction. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 688-694.

Blanchard, K. H., & Johnson, S. (1981). The one minute manager. New York: William Morrow.

Breen, T. (2011, April 29). U.S. Catholics celebrate, debate John Paul II legacy. Herald

Democrat, C4, C7.

Buron, R. J., & McDonald-Mann, D. (2003). Giving feedback to subordinates. Greensboro, NC:

Center for Creative Leadership.

Doing Nothing … 31

Butterfield, K. D., Treviño, L. K., & Ball, G. A. (1996). Punishment from the manager’s

perspective: A grounded investigation and inductive model. Academy of Management

Journal, 39, 1479-1512.

Campbell, K., Von Bergen, C. W., Soper, S., & Gaster, W. (2003). Mirror management. Journal

of Business & Entrepreneurship, 15, 21-37.

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.

Casey, A. (1997). Voices from the firing line: Managers discuss punishment in the workplace.

Academy of Management Executive, 11, 93-94.

Chamberlain v. Bissell, Inc., 547 F. Supp. 1067, W.D. Mich. (1982).

Chiu, C., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y., & Fu, J. H. (1997). Implicit theories and concepts of

morality. Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 73, 923-940.

Clancy, P. L., & Warner, D. R. (1999, April). Avoiding liability in discipline and termination

decisions—A reverse engineering analysis. Venable Article Library, Workplace Labor

Update Newsletter.

Colquitt, J. A., Lepine, J. A., & Wesson, M. J. (2009). Organizational behavior: Improving

performance and commitment in the workplace. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin.

Curtis, B., Smith, R., & Smoll, F. (1979). Scrutinizing the skipper: A study of leadership

behaviors in the dugout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64, 391-400.

Daniels, A. C. (1994). Bringing out the best in people: How to apply the astonishing power of

positive reinforcement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Doing Nothing … 32

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. (2004). Performance management: Changing behavior that

drives organizational effectiveness (4th ed.). Atlanta, GA: Performance Management

Publications.

Drucker, P. F. (1954). The practice of management. New York: Harper & Row.

Ehrenreich, B. (2009). Bright-sided: How the relentless promotion of positive thinking has

undermined America. New York: Metropolitan Books.

Erez, A., LePine, J. A., & Elms, H. (2002, Winter). Effects of rotated leadership and peer

evaluation on the functioning and effectiveness of self-managed teams: A quasi-

experiment. Personnel Psychology, 929-948.

Fedor, D. B., Davis, W. D., Maslyn, J. M., & Mathieson, K. (2001). Performance improvement

efforts in response to negative feedback: The roles of source power and recipient self-

esteem. Journal of Management, 27, 79-97.

Felps, W., Mitchell, T. R., & Byington, E. (2006). How, when, and why bad apples spoil the

barrel: Negative group members and dysfunctional groups. Research in Organizational

Behavior, 27, 175-222

Froschheiser, L. (2010). “Hope” Is Not a Strategy: Trigger Points Provide the Key to Changing

Your Company’s Performance Levels. Retrieved from http://www.whitenelson.com/tax-

accounting-orange-county/2010/03/hope-is-not-a-strategy-trigger-points-provide-the-key-

to-changing-your-company%E2%80%99s-performance-levels/

Gandossy, B., & Kanter, R. M. (2002). “See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil” —Leaders

Doing Nothing … 33

must respond to employee concerns about wrongdoing. Business & Society Review, 107,

415-422.

Geller, E. S. (2000). Behavioral safety analysis: A necessary precursor to corrective action.

Professional Safety, 45, 29-32.

Gostick, A., & Elton, C. (2007). The carrot principle: How the best managers use recognition to

engage their people, retain talent, and accelerate performance. New York: Free Press.

Graham, G. H., & Unruh, J. (1990). The motivational impact of nonfinancial employee

appreciation practices on medical technologists. Health Care Supervisor, 8, 9-17.

Hamilton, V. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Kushlen, R. H. (1988). A question of standards:

Attributions of blame and credit for classroom acts. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 34-48.

Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit-level relationship between

employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: A meta-analysis.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-279.

Hellriegel, D., & Slocum, J. W., Jr. (2007). Organizational behavior (11th ed.). Mason, OH:

Thomson South-Western.

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.

Hogan, R., & Emler, N. P. (1981). Retributive justice. In M. Lerner, & S. Lerner (Eds.), The

justice motive in social behavior (pp. 125-143). New York: Plenum.

Ilgen, D. R., & Davis, C. A. (2000). Bearing bad news: Reactions to negative performance

feedback. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 49, 550-565.

Doing Nothing … 34

Jebb, R. C., Headlam, W. G., & Pearson, A. C. (2010). The fragments of Sophocles 3 volume

paperback set. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

The Ken Blanchard Companies. (2009). The High Cost of Doing Nothing. Retrieved from http://

www.kenblanchard.com/Business_Leadership/Effective_Leadership_White_Papers/The_

High_Cost_of_Doing_Nothing/Default.asp

Kipling, R. (2006). The shut-eye sentry [poem], In M. M. Kaye, Rudyard Kipling: The complete

verse (p. 362). London: Kyle Cathie Limited.

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.

Komaki, J., Coombs, T., & Schepman, S. (1996). Motivational implications of reinforcement

theory. In R. Steers, L. Porter, & G. Bigley (Eds.), Motivation and leadership at work

(pp. 34-52). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Kreitner, R., & Kinicki, A. (2001). Organizational behavior (5th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Landy, F. J., & Farr, J. (1980). Performance rating. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 72-107.

Larson, C. E., & LaFasto, F. M. J. (1989). Teamwork: What must go right, what can go wrong.

Los Angeles: Sage.

Larson, J. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay between employees’ feedback-seeking strategies and

supervisors’ delivery of performance feedback. Academy of Management Review, 14,

408-422.

Lloyd v. Georgia Gulf Corp., 961 F.2d 1190 (5th Cir. 1992).

Luthans F., & Kreitner R. (1975). Organizational behavior modification. Glenview, IL: Scott,

Foresman.

Doing Nothing … 35

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. (1985). Organizational behavior modification and beyond: An

operant and social learning approach. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

Luthans, F., Stajkovic, A. D., Luthans, B. C, & Luthans, K. W. (1998). Applying behavioral

management in Eastern Europe. European Management Journal, 16, 466-475.

Luthans, K. (2000). Recognition: A powerful, but overlooked leadership tool to improve

employee performance. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 7, 31-39.

Mager, R. F., & Pipe, P. (1984). Analyzing performance problems or you really oughta wanna.

Belmont, CA: Lake Publishing.

Malos, S. B. (1998). Current Legal Issues in Performance Appraisal. Retrieved from http://www

.cob.sjsu.edu/malos_s/bookchapter.htm

Moore, H. (2002). The high cost of doing nothing: How to avoid troubles and assure success.

Kennett, MO: Skyward Publishing Company.

Mulrine, A. (2010, January 29). Fort Hood report reveals deeper dilemma. U.S. News & World

Report. Retrieved from http://www.usnews.com/mobile/articles_mobile/ fort-hood-repor

t-reveals-deeper-dilemma

Navran, F. J. (2002). Truth and trust: The first two victims of downsizing. Athabasca, Alberta,

Canada: Athabasca University Press.

Nelson, B. (1994). 1000 ways to reward employees. New York: Workman Publishing.

Nicholson, N. (1976). Management sanctions and absence control. Human Relations, 29, 139-

151.

O’Fallon, M. J., & Butterfield, K. D. (2011). From moral differentiation: Exploring boundaries

of the “Monkey See, Monkey Do” perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 102, 379-399.

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

Doing Nothing … 36

context: A laboratory and field experiment. Journal of Occupational and Organizational

Psychology, 62, 41-53.

O’Reilly, C. A. III, & Weitz, B. A. (1980). Managing marginal employees: The use of warnings

and dismissals. Administrative Science Quarterly, 25, 467-484.

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.

Peters, T. J. (n.d.). Tom Peters Quotes. Available at

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/tompeters166169.html#ixzz1gLlV7Oci

Peters, T. J. (2010). The little big things: 163 ways to pursue EXCELLENCE. New York:

HarperCollins Publishers.

Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search of excellence. New York: HarperCollins.

Pfeffer, J. (1995). Competitive advantage through people: Unleashing the power of the

workforce. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Podsakoff, N. P., Podsakoff, P. M., & Kuskova, V. V. (2010). Dispelling misconceptions and

providing guidelines for leader reward and punishment behavior. Business Horizons, 53,

291-303.

Podsakoff, P. M., Bommer, W. H., Podsakoff, N. P., & MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Relationships

between leader reward and punishment behavior and subordinates’ attitudes, perceptions,

and behaviors: A meta-analytic review of existing and new research. Organizational

Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 113-142.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Todor, W. D. (1985). Relationships between leader reward and punishment

Doing Nothing … 37

behavior and group processes and productivity. Journal of Management, 11, 55-73.

Podsakoff, P. M., Todor, W. D., & Skov, R. (1982). Effects of leader contingent and

noncontingent reward and punishment behaviors on subordinate performance and

satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 25, 810-821.

Posthuma, R. A., & Campion, M. A. (2008). Twenty best practices for just employee

performance reviews. Compensation and Benefits Review, 40, 47-55.

Pritchard, R. D., Jones, S. D., Roth, P. L., Stuebing, K., & Ekeberg, S. E. (1988). Effect of group

feedback, goal setting, and incentives on organizational productivity [Monograph].

Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 337-358.

Rath, T., & Clifton, D. (2004). How full is your bucket. New York: Gallup.

Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2011). Organizational behavior (14th ed.). Upper Saddle River,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Robinson, S. L., & O’Leary-Kelly, A. (1996). Monkey see, monkey do: The role of role models

in predicting workplace aggression. Academy of Management Proceedings ’96, 288-292.

Rosen, S., & Tesser, A. (1970). On reluctance to communicate undesirable information: The

MUM-effect. Sociometry, 33, 253-263.

Schipani v. Ford Motor Co., 102 Mich. App. 606, 617 (1981).

Schnake, M. E., & Dumler, M. P. (1989). Some unconventional thoughts on the use of

punishment in organizations: Reward as punishment and punishment as reward. Journal

of Social Behavior & Personality, 4, 97-107.

Seidenfeld, M. (1998). The art of supervision. Supervision, 59, 14-16.

Sember, B. M., & Sember, T. J. (2009). Bad apples: How to manage difficult employees,

encourage good ones to stay, and boost productivity. Avon, MA: Adams Business.

Doing Nothing … 38

Simon, R. (2011, November 16). Penn State Scandal Prompts Calls for Child-abuse Reporting

Laws. Retrieved from the Los Angeles Times at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/nationno

w/2011/11/penn-state-scandal-inspires-legislation.html

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: The Free Press.

Skinner, B. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in

organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models.

Personnel Psychology, 56, 155-194.

Robinson, C. (2005). Why Great Employees Quit: What You Can Do To Keep Them. Retrieved

from http://leadershipconsulting.com/why-great-employees-quit.htm

Sunjansky, J. (2007). The Poor Performer Confrontation Handbook: Eight Rules for Dealing

with Employees Who Are Bringing Your Company Down. Retrieved from http://www.arti

clealley.com/article_139938_15.html

Tata, J. (2002). The influence of managerial accounts on employees’ reactions to negative

feedback. Group & Organization Management, 27, 480-503.

Thornton, L. F. (2011, August 24). Ethical Grey Areas: Our Choices Define Us. Retrieved from

http://leadingincontext.com/2011/08/24/teaching-leadership-ethics/

Thought/Word/Deed. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://kojasa.wordpress.com/2008/03/14/strategy-8-

develop-an-incompatible-behavior/

Trends Worth Watching. (1988). Management Review, 77, 8.

Treviño, L. K. (1992). Moral reasoning and business ethics: Implications for research, education,

and management. Journal of Business Ethics, 11, 445-459.

Tyler, K. (2004). One bad apple: Before the whole bunch spoils, train managers to deal with

Doing Nothing … 39

poor performers. HR Magazine, 49, 77-86.

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1999). Enforcement Guidance on

Vicarious Employer Liability for Unlawful Harassment by Supervisors. Retrieved from

http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html

Van Fleet, D. D., Peterson, T. O., & Van Fleet, E. W. (2005). Closing the performance feedback

gap with expert systems. Academy of Management Executive, 19, 38-53.

Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.

Wageman, R. (2000). The meaning of interdependence. In M. E. Turner (Ed.), Groups at work:

Advances in theory and research (pp. 197-217). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ware v. Jackson County, MO, 150 F.3d 873 (8th Cir. 1998).

Weinstock, S. (1958). Acquisition and extinction of a partially reinforced running response at a

24-hour intertrial interval. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 151-158.

Welbourne, T. T., & Andrews, A. O. (1996). Predicting the performance of initial public

offerings: Should human resource management be in the equation? Academy of

Management Journal, 39, 891-919.

Wetlaufer, S. (1994). The team that wasn’t. Harvard Business Review, 72, 22-38.