The measure of a leader is their ability to create an environment where followers produce their discretionary effort. Discretionary effort is probably best described as, "The behavior that a person chooses to do, but they wouldn't be punished if they didn't." Without a doubt, it has been clearly established that discretionary effort is the outcome of positive reinforcement and never punishment. This means that the organization that uses punishment will never achieve significant levels of discretionary effort from their staff. From a leadership point of view, punishment is counterproductive, yet it can be seen every day in the workplace.
One of the byproducts of punishment is that the workplace behavior becomes less stable and predictable. On the other hand, positive reinforcement will create stable and predictable patterns of behavior. Look at your organization. During the goal setting process is negative reinforcement factor? If it is, any improvement or development will be limited to the goal. Just enough to avoid any negative reinforcement. The logic is inescapable. Positive reinforcement must be the preferred consequence in business for the simple reason that it is the only consequence that produces discretionary effort. Negative reinforcement has some unpleasant and unwelcome side effects. When it is used to as the predominant consequence, things start to go wrong. Absenteeism increases, staff turnover increases, disputes increase, blame becomes endemic and morale sinks.
When you look at the two methods of reinforcement, either positive or negative, it's clear that the way to achieve anything is the use of positive reinforcement rather than punishment. Regrettably, negative reinforcement is by far the most common method of delivering consequences in today's workplace. The majority of managers and leaders don't know they are doing it. Groups that are managed by negative reinforcement, don't say anything in case there is some form of retribution. Often, they won't even give their opinion anonymously for the same reason.
Frequently, leaders may think that because they have very few face-to-face interactions with their teams, that they can't possibly be negatively reinforcing them. Unfortunately, when there is no active, frequent and consistent positive reinforcement the effect is the same as constant and consistent negative reinforcement. This is how the group members perceive the way that they are being treated. The neglect of positive reinforcement creates negative reinforcement. This is clearly shown by the person in a leadership position who says, "You get on with the job and you will only hear from me if it goes wrong." Obviously, this will not generate any discretionary effort and the person doing the job will take no risks, use no creative methods and to the barest minimum. This is obviously not very good formula for high performance.
Thanks To : Amazon Best Selling Gps Reviews
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น