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

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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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).

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 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 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.

References

29 U.S.C. § 654(a)(1) (1976).

Andrews v. Fowler, 98 F.3d 1069, 1078 (8^th 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.

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.

<sup>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.</sup>

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.

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 (4^th 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/