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

Doing Nothing …

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 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 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 the

long-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 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 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.

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 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).

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 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
   
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” (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 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 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 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).