Years ago, when I was studying psychology in university, I learned that positive reinforcement is significantly more effective in shaping behaviour than negative reinforcement. While the premise seemed pretty clear – we will work harder for a pat on the back than we will to avoid punishment – it also felt rather confusing.
It’s part of a complex model, based on the work of B.F Skinner. He was the main champion of a model called “Operant Conditioning”, a form of behaviourism, in which animals can be said to behave in ways that are solely a product of what types of consequences come about as a result of their actions. That is, if we get rewarded for something, we’re likely to continue doing it. If we get punished, we’re likely to stop doing it.
Makes sense, right? Well, only if you don’t dig any deeper. After all, we’re not exactly rats in cages with nothing to do but push a lever for sugar pellets.
In this model, there are actually four types of responses that can be used to shape behaviour:
| Positive Reinforcement | Positive Punishment |
| ADDING something desired to strengthen a behaviour (Pushing the lever gets a reward – ie. The “Carrot” approach) | ADDING a punishment to discourage a behaviour (the rat gets zapped for pushing the lever – ie. The “Stick” approach) |
| Negative Reinforcement | Negative Punishment |
| REMOVING something unpleasant to strengthen a behaviour (The loud noise stops when you push the lever) | REMOVING something good to discourage a behaviour (pushing the lever locks out the food) |
All of them are designed to shape behaviour, either by adding or removing things that are wanted or unwanted. Like a series of pushes and pulls, the system of reinforcement and punishment “shapes” behaviour by paving a path of desirable experiences, and increasing the cost of deviating from that path.
Sure I’m sad, but you’re the one spending all your time watching a rat in a cage!
Ok, it’s complex and a bit hard to translate this to the workplace, right? Despite the fact that this way of thinking is nearly a hundred years old now, it’s still used to manage people at work. Here’s how it is currently practiced today in various places of employment around the world:
| Positive Reinforcement | Positive Punishment |
| Employees with high sales can become “employee of the month” | Employees who are late to work get extra duties |
| Negative Reinforcement | Negative Punishment |
| When an employee completes a task, they will no longer be nagged about it | Taking away the work fridge to punish workers for failing to keep it clean |
Personally, I feel like that’s a rather cumbersome system for managing behaviour, and there are several obvious downsides. The first being, of course, the enormous complexity of living in this world. Our lives are nothing at all like being locked into a cold, sterile box, with nothing to do except push a lever or not push that lever. If an employee is late for work, it’s probably not anything like the decision of a rat to not push a lever. It’s probably because they weren’t feeling well, or had one of the thousand other things that rotate through our lives take more time than expected, or because traffic was terrible. To punish someone for this doesn’t exactly make them feel better next time they have to come into work! In fact, it feels much more like being kicked while you’re down. Not only are you sick and feel bad for being late, but now you have to clean the bathroom too?? Hooray…
Looks like Bob is struggling… Let’s motivate him by making him feel bad!
This system tends to polarize workers because it rewards them when they’re already high, and kicks them when they’re down. The workers who are struggling the most and are most in need of help end up getting the short end of the stick, whereas the ones on top develop such an ego that they can quickly become a nightmare to work with! The ones that are on top can then start to antagonize their coworkers, who feel like they’ll never catch up, so why bother? This leads many to “quiet quit” their jobs (stay tuned for that article!)
Another major downside is that it replaces intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation. That is, instead of finding our own reasons for doing things well, we now do them solely for how others will respond. Why is that a problem? Well, even the most determined manager cannot supervise all employees at all times! And without someone on the outside (ie. The manager) to constantly maintain the reward/punishment system, how will an employee know how to behave? This system replaces a person’s own motivations, and thus, leaves them with a gap where their own motivation and monitoring system should be.
There are many studies that have demonstrated the dangers of replacing intrinsic motivation with extrinsic motivation. Here’s one example, from a 1971 study*: Two groups were given a puzzle-solving task. One group was paid to do it, the other was not (they did it for their own reasons). After the payment stopped, the group that was being paid to do it also stopped. The group that did it voluntarily kept going, because they were getting their own joy and satisfaction from it. The task was identical between the groups (in other words, it was exactly as “fun” for each group), but the money exchange clearly crowded out the participants own desires.
So what’s the takeaway? That we should never reward or punish our workers? Well, not exactly. Firstly, I recommend caution in using clearly external motivation, now that you know that it replaces a person’s inherent desire to do well at their job. As you know, we are not rats in cages, and have a unique ability to reflect on ourselves and incorporate rewards/punishments into our self-concept.
Here’s an alternate way to think of the carrot and the stick: Firstly, throw the damn stick away, because we’re not animals! Second, think more in terms of helping people to be at their best. The stick is very unpleasant and it’s hard to recover from the bad feelings that come from it. Bad feelings can anchor us to our worst selves – they teach us that our value as a human is reduced to that bad thing we did. When others (like managers) hold bad stories of us, it is REALLY hard to break free and be better.
Phew! That old carrot-and-stick routine was getting old…
Whereas, if people around us are telling good stories about us, it’s very easy to keep up the momentum. Not only does it help to feel seen and valued, it also gives us the good energy that helps to push through difficulties.
Here’s a proposal: what if we disentangle our feedback from the tasks themselves? What if employees are made to feel valued, important, and praised, irrespective of their performance on a specific day? Policing each and every small behaviour is not only exhausting for all involved, but it also leads people to feel like their sense of self and their value are conditional. It is extremely hard to keep our performance stable over time when we are constantly chasing the carrot and dodging the stick. When we take back all the energy that comes from the praise/punishment dance, we get to use that energy for growth rather than performance. And fostering employees’ growth is probably the single biggest missed opportunity that most employers neglect.
As much as we think that our goods, services, and facilities are what matter most to the customer, the human experience outweighs all of this.
No matter how great our place is, all it takes is one rude employee to completely ruin a customer’s experience. Likewise, customers are often willing to forgive even the most egregious mistakes if an employee shows actual care and concern for them and their experience.
At the end of the day, our employees will rise or fall to the level of the expectations that we set for them. Our opinions of, and conduct toward, others will do more to shape them than the bits of reward or punishment that we give. If we want our employees to be able to think for themselves and solve problems and be leaders, we are going to have to stop treating them like rats in a cage!
* Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030644