Brent Trzaskos Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Troy, New York
Grounded in their guiding principal that all behavior is influenced by environmental events, early behaviorists saw human beings as fairly simple organisms. Early behaviorists, such as John Watson, believed that the complicated nature of human behavior was a result of an intricate and multifaceted environment. Internal factors such as thoughts and emotions had little or no influence on human behavior and consequently were not worth studying (Domjan, 1993).
From its beginnings with Watson in the early part of the twentieth century and continuing for nearly thirty years, behaviorism remained the dominant force in the study of human behavior. As psychology progressed into a credible science however, much of the influence that behaviorism had come to enjoy began to wan. The idea that internal forces had no measurable impact on behavior gave way to more elaborate and empirically valid explanations. Cognitive scientists, for example, began to use a computer metaphor to help illustrate that mental processes too can motivate behavior. Indeed it seemed plausible that internal mental operations could direct human action. Ethologists also were adding chinks to the behaviorist�s armor. By successfully demonstrating that some behavior is unlearned and biological in nature, Tinbergen and his followers were able to debunk one of the fundamental teachings of behaviorism (Mook, 1996).
While few modern-day psychologists would describe themselves as strict behaviorists, some of the basic teachings of behaviorism continue to have a great impact on applied and experimental psychology. Under the term, behavior modification, organizational researchers attempt to understand how learning and behavior are related in work settings. They seek to uncover the relationship between work behavior and the mechanisms of human learning that were first introduced by behaviorists. The present review will explore the punishment component of behavior modification theory and its function in applied settings. Of particular emphasis will be the perception of organizational deviance and the factors influencing managerial disciplinary decisions.
A definition of punishment will serve as a good starting point for the discussion of organizational discipline. Classic psychological literature defines punishment as a reactive contingency between a behavior and the presentation of an aversive stimulus. Punishment may also be defined as a reactive contingency between a behavior and the removal of a pleasurable stimulus. This second form of punishment is often termed negative punishment. In both of these contingencies the consequence of the behavior is something undesired and results in the decreased probability of the future occurrence of the punished behavior (Domjan, 1993). In comparative psychology, the punishment situation can be as simple as applying an electric shock to a rat each time it attempts to drink from a bottle arbitrarily labeled as off limits by a researcher. In applied settings the contingency may be more complicated. For instance, a supervisor may issue a written warning to a tardy employee stating future similar behavior will result in termination of employment. Regardless of the setting, the lab or the workplace, punishment is an attempt to decrease the probability of the occurrence of a specified behavior.
After paying particular attention to discipline in work settings, Avery and Jones (1985) argue that in defining punishment one must first consider how the aversive stimulus is administered. Conceptually, the administration of punishment in organizations can be thought of in two ways. The first is the direct pairing of a primary aversive event following an undesired behavior. For example, an employee who demonstrates a lack of urgency and conscientiousness for her assigned duties may be given a demotion to a lower job grade. A second form of punishment in organizations involves the administration of a conditioned aversive event. In other words, a stimulus that becomes undesirable as a result of its association with an aversive event. For instance, a manager may issue a written warning to an employee who uses a company computer for personal Internet use. This warning is aversive because it forecasts impending disciplinary action if the behavior is repeated in the future.
Perhaps a more practical way in which one might conceptualize the distinction between primary and secondary punishment is in terms of the severity of the consequence. In essence, managers and supervisors have at their disposal two options in the administration of punitive measures, one more severe than the other. They may choose to administer a punishment immediately following a rule violation. This was illustrated in the example of demoting the irresponsible employee. On the other hand a manager may opt for the less severe form of punishment by issuing a verbal or written warning. The factors that influence a manager�s disciplinary judgments will be discussed later in this review. For now attention will be turned to the function that punishment plays in organizations.
Arvey and Jones (1985) suggest that organizational discipline serves a number of functions. For example, punishment can be used to establish a direct mechanism of behavioral control. This is analogous to the lab rat in a cage example. Employees learn through the presentation of aversive stimuli that certain behaviors are unacceptable and respond accordingly. Discipline can also function indirectly. For example, Schnake (1986) demonstrated that punishment can operate vicariously in work settings. In his investigation, Schnake (1986) demonstrated that subjects who observed a coworker receiving a punishment produced more than subjects who received a threat of punishment. This finding served to support the idea that punishment can operate indirectly and still have a substantial influence on individual�s behavior. Thirdly, punishment can work to establish a boundary system within the organization. In other words, punishment cooperates with the reward system to define workplace norms and shape organizational culture. Another function of organizational discipline is the role it plays in defining the social distance between supervisors and subordinates. While this function may touch more upon the issue of organizational power, it is still important to note that the supervisor�s use of punishment plays an important role in organizational socialization. Finally, it is offered that disciplinary systems may be used to create an illusion of strict behavioral control. Arvey and Jones (1985) do note however that this function of punishment is primarily reserved to authoritarian governments and consequently is rarely seen in work settings.
While the potential functions of organizational punishment are well established by organizational psychologists, comparatively less is known about other factors surrounding the nature of disciplinary systems in applied settings. In fact, when compared to what is currently understood about other forms of behavior modification, such as reinforcement and reward contingencies, very little is know about organizational discipline. Arvey and Jones (1985) point out that a lack of substantial research on workplace discipline has lead organizations to develop assumptions about punishment that may be inaccurate. In a 1976 survey of 100 organizations, Miner and Brewer found that 83 reported the use of disciplinary measures even though 39 believed it was ineffective. Organizational psychologists have generally agreed with these assumptions regarding the use of punishment. Many believe that disciplinary action will ultimately have a negative impact on the organization and thus should be avoided. Some argue that punishment will lead to unwanted side effects such as employee withdrawal, negative feelings toward the disciplinary agent or aggression. Others contend that not only is punishment ineffective but it is also unethical. Arvey & Ivancevich (1980) contended that such assumptions are largely the function of an invalid public denial and not the result of any riggerous scientific inquiry. They went on to argue that there is agreement among some researchers that punishment can be an effective way to bring about behavioral change in organizations. Furthermore, they concluded that, while employee discipline is a complex procedure influenced by numerous variables, managers are ill-advised to dismiss it as impractical or harmful.
The research by Miner & Brewer (1976) demonstrates that few organizations have chosen to eliminate the use of discipline as a means to control employee behavior even though many regard such measures as ineffective or unethical. So, despite beliefs about negative emotional and social side effects, punishment remains a common occurrence in organizations. Furthermore, researchers, such as Bandura (1969), point out that punishment is a naturally occurring phenomenon that will inevitably remain a part of organizational life. Additionally, Skinner (1971) described punishment as an important factor in the modification of human behavior. The challenge then lies with organizations who must devise ways to effectively manipulate the environment so as to maximize the positive impact of punishment. Before an effective organizational disciplinary system can be established however, those in power must seek to understand the nature of deviance and the processes that affect individuals� perceptions of it. Managers� perceptions of subordinate behavior is critical in the administration of punishment and a solid understanding its mechanisms is a prerequisite to the establishment of a fair and effective disciplinary system. Consequently, before a discussion on the factors that impact disciplinary judgments it is appropriate to highlight some of what is currently understood regarding the perception of inappropriate behavior in the organizational context. The process by which organizational authority comes to identify an inappropriate behavior is largely unspecified (Arvey and Jones, 1985). Most of what is currently understood about this process has been adapted from the social psychological research dealing with the perception of deviance. Based on this, organizational psychologists have suggested that the perception or identification of an infraction may be either direct or indirect. In a direct observation scenario the disciplinary agent witnesses the misconduct first hand. In an indirect observation a secondary signal is received by the disciplinary agent which indicates the occurrence of inappropriate behavior. An indirect observation may come in the form of a third party account, inconsistent job performance, accidents, etc. In some cases the observation of an offense is quite simple. For example, it is fairly easy to identify the inappropriateness of an employee who commits a physical act of violence toward a coworker. Additionally, managers should have little trouble identifying an intoxicated employee when he arrives for work. It would be misleading however, to suggest that all organizational deviance is salient or obvious. Indeed it is not. The definitions of negligence, dishonesty and absenteeism are often not as clear as they might appear. Wrightsman and Deaux (1981) describe organizational misbehavior as often taking the form of gradual erosion. The definition of acceptable behavior becomes ever more liberal until it finally brings about some response from those in authority. Arvey and Jones (1985) put it this way: �It might be possible to observe a clear distinction between the final unacceptable behavior and the norm or rules it violated but very difficult to see the distinction between a specific unacceptable behavior and the general pattern of �acceptable� behavior that preceded it� (p. 373). If this is true, than one must conclude that managers and supervisors may not always have a clear perception of wrongdoing among their subordinates. This phenomenon seems to play in the favor of employees who consciously violate company rules and policies. It offers managers and supervisors the challenge of having to be keenly aware of employee behavior and ready to respond accordingly when problems present themselves. Wohlking (1975) describes the uniform application of disciplinary rules as a key ingredient in an effective system of organizational discipline. Without an accurate perception of employee misconduct however, those in places of authority might struggle to achieve this ideal. Attention will now be turned to the nature of organizational punishment and the factors that influence disciplinary judgments.
Researchers have been interested in what underlying factors may contribute to a manger�s disciplinary decisions. Rosen and Jerdee (1974) examined the individual and organizational factors that influence disciplinary judgments. Specifically they assessed the relationship between perceived organizational harm resulting from rule violation and the severity and appropriateness of specific punitive measures. Subjects were more likely to recommend severe punishments and attribute more personal responsibility when an individual engaged in an unacceptable behavior that resulted in more negative organizational consequences. Therefor it was shown that the severity of a disciplinary judgment could be the function of the impact that the unacceptable behavior has on the organization. The authors were also able to demonstrate that organizational status can influence disciplinary decisions. Recommendations and behavioral attributions where shown to vary as a function of the offender�s value to the organization. For example, when a janitor and a senior executive engaged in identical infractions, the janitor was disciplined more severely; and a mediocre fashion designer was handed a more severe punishment following her rule violation than was a more talented designer who committed the exact same offense.
Klaas and Wheeler (1990) argued that the severity of managerial disciplinary judgments may be based on the extent to which the disciplinary agent makes an internal or external attribution when assessing the underlying cause of the behavior. According to Klass and Wheeler (1990), the severity of a punishment should be greater if the manager makes an internal attribution and less severe if he makes an external attribution. They were able to demonstrate that personnel managers pay considerable attention to a combination of internal and external factors such as tenure, provocation and the target�s personal problems when evaluating the severity of employee rule violations. Managers recommended less severe punishments when they attributed the employee�s behavior to external causes. This was particularly true when the employee was perceived as being provoked into inappropriate action. Job tenure and domestic problems had less of an influence on the severity of disciplinary judgments.
Padsakoff (1982) argued against oversimplifying the mechanisms that control managerial decision making as they pertain to employee discipline. He outlined three classes of variables that appear to influence a manager�s choice of disciplinary measures. According to Padsakoff these variables are subordinate factors, contextual variables and characteristics of the disciplinary agent.
Contextual variables are those factors existing in the organizational environment that influence the leader�s behavior and discretionary choices. These factors include the complexity of the task, span of control or influence over reward systems and organizational policies that define proper disciplinary practices. Podsakoff suggested that more frequent and severe punishment was a function of a limited span of control over reward systems and a clear organizational disciplinary policy. However, he was unable to demonstrate any definitive evidence for the relationship between contextual variables and disciplinary judgments. Arvey and Jones (1982) suggest an expanded list of contextual factors that might influence decision-making. These include the degree of formality within an organization�s punitive system, the disciplinary agent�s level in the organizational hierarchy and the general climate and culture that exists in the organization. Little evidence exists however to support these claims.
Subordinate behavior was a second factor that Podsakoff suggested might impact disciplinary judgments. Specifically he was referring to five employee characteristics, performance level, sex, employee desirability, likability and ingratiation. However, of these five variables only performance had a consistent impact. Specifically, the research demonstrated that poor performers received punishments more frequently than did their more high performing counterparts. Intuitively this makes sense. It seems reasonable to presume that employees who do not consistently meet the criteria for acceptable job performance are more likely to be punished for their behavior. This does, however, raise issues surrounding the reasons why these poor performers were disciplined more frequently. On the surface one can assume that punitive measures were taken to combat low levels of job performance. There are, however, numerous other factors that may contribute to this relationship. For example, low performing employees may be more likely to engage in behaviors that violate organizational policies. If that is the case then one would be incorrect to assume that poor job performance alone predicts the frequency of disciplinary measures. Further research into possible moderators of the performance-punishment relationship could help clarify this issue.
The characteristics of the disciplinary agent is the third and final class of variables that Podsakoff argues influence the punishment contingency. This group of variables includes the sex of the supervisor, personality variables and supervisory attributions. The evidence to support the claims made by Podsakoff in this area is weak and scarce. Arvey and Jones (1982) built on Podsakoff�s contentions however, and expand them to include the intentions of the supervisor. Sighting research done by Kipnis, Schmidt and Wilkinson (1980), the authors suggest that the administration of punitive measures may be influenced by the goals and objectives of the manager or supervisor. The introduction of this factor into the mix adds a decidedly cognitive element and argues that managers may first look at their own well being when making disciplinary judgments. Again, it should be noted that evidence to support this claim is extremely limited and future research is needed to more fully explain the role of managerial intentions in disciplinary decisions.
In summary, the current understanding of the antecedents of managerial disciplinary decisions is quite limited. Researchers have postulated several interesting hypotheses on the subject but most have not been well supported. What is currently known is that a combination of cognitive and situational factors does well to explain disciplinary judgments. However, this explanation is inadequate and will remain so until the degree to which specific processes operate come more into focus.
This review presented a discussion of organizational discipline, paying particular attention to the perception of deviance, the function of punishment in applied settings and the antecedents of disciplinary decisions. While the body of research on this topic is beginning to grow, researchers are still unable to make unequivocal claims about many of the factors surrounding organizational punishment. A relative lack of empirical support for many of the theories discussed speaks to the complicated nature of this area of organizational behavior. Despite this, aversive control remains an organizational reality and additional attempts should be made to more fully understand the factors surrounding it.
References
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.
Arvey, R.D. & Jones, A.P. (1985). The Use of Discipline in Organizational Settings: A Framework for Future Research. Research in Organizational Behavior, 7, 367-408.
Champoux, J.E. (2000). Organizational Behavior: Essential Tenets for a New Millennium. Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing.
Domjan, M. (1993). The Principles of Learning and Behavior (3rd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Podsakoff, P.M. (1982). Determinants of a Supervisor�s Use of Rewards and Punishments: A Literature Review and Suggestions for Further Research. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 29, 58-83.
Rosen, B. & Jerdee, T.R. (1974). Factors Influencing Disciplinary Judgments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 59, 327-331.
Schnake, M.E. (1986). Vicarious Punishment in a Work Setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 343-345.
Klass, B.S. & Wheeler, H.N. (1990). Managerial Decision Making About Employee Discipline: A Policy-Capturing Approach. Personnel Psychology, 43, 117-134.
Wohlking, W. (1975). Effective Discipline in Employee Relations. Personnel Journal, 54, 489-493, 500-501.
