Balancing the Carrot and Stick: The Role of Negative Approaches in Leadership
Over the past several years, I’ve noticed that people and organizations are shifting away from using primarily negative approaches to influence behavior. Instead, they are embracing more positive strategies to get the same (and often better) results. When training leaders on the use of positive reinforcement in the past, I’d often get questions like “Do we really have to do this?” or “Why should I reinforce when we pay them?” I don’t get those questions so often anymore. Nowadays, most people I talk to recognize the critical role that positive reinforcement plays in building relationships, improving performance, and creating a healthy overall culture.
With a deliberate emphasis on the value of positive strategies and tactics, some leaders may be confused about how negative approaches fit into the equation. In some lines of work, this could introduce serious health and safety concerns. Leaders may choose to turn a blind eye to at-risk behaviors and conditions rather than intervene in a negative manner. Formal discipline systems may also be modified to be less punitive, frustrating employees for what is seen as an ineffective “slap on the wrist” of those who break the rules. Organizations may make it more difficult to terminate employees for non-compliance, instead opting to shuffle them around to other sites and teams. All these scenarios present their own risks and must be addressed proactively.
The most effective leaders hold others accountable for safe and productive behavior. They proactively create environments that promote integrity, learning, and continuous improvement. To accomplish this, they use all the behavior-influence levers at their disposal, including the use of negative approaches when the situation warrants it.
What are negative approaches?
In this blog, a “negative approach” can be defined as an attempt to correct behavior that relies on the use of unpleasant actions or conditions – things that most people would typically try to avoid. Think speeding tickets, poorly seasoned food, or a look of disapproval from someone you care about. While positive approaches should always be used, negative approaches may be necessary when positive reinforcement alone is not working. Below are three findings from the science of behavior along with practical applications to keep in mind when considering a negative approach.
Finding 1: There are two main ways to influence behavior using a negative approach—negative reinforcement and punishment.
Negative reinforcement strengthens behavior. It requires a situation where the performer is already experiencing something unpleasant. When the person does some behavior, the unpleasant situation decreases or is removed altogether. This change for the better increases the likelihood that a person will repeat the behavior. For example, if you’re around a screaming baby (unpleasant situation) and pick the baby up (behavior) the baby may stop crying (change for the better). If the person is more likely to soothe a crying baby by picking them up in the future, we can say that the behavior has been negatively reinforced.
While negative reinforcement does rely on an unpleasant situation at the start, it’s not necessarily a painful experience to be on the receiving end. For example, I recently took a new route across town which took me through a school zone. As I approached, a radar speed sign displayed my speed in bright red with the speed limit posted right below it. The sight of the discrepancy drew my attention to a mildly unpleasant truth – “I’m going too fast.” As I removed my foot from the accelerator, the visible discrepancy faded, and I felt better. A negative reinforcement approach made me aware of the natural negatives I was risking (e.g. accident, injury, ticket) and allowed me to avoid them by slowing down.
Negative reinforcement has also been used to help people avoid bad outcomes at work without necessarily being a painful experience. Consider one case in which a manager used it to help an employee avoid termination. Both employees worked for a company that had clear rules stating that excessive absenteeism would result in a review, and if continued, termination. In practice, the company had a history of letting absenteeism slide. Leaders started to get serious about enforcing the policy, which now put one employee at risk of losing his job if his current behavior continued. The manager drew attention to this unpleasant reality by showing the employee his absenteeism data, including the date at which he would be terminated if no changes occurred. The manager met with the employee each week and updated the information so the employee could see how good attendance pushed the termination date out or removed it altogether. With a clearer picture of the risk he was running, the employee was able to take immediate action to improve his attendance and avoid the termination.
The second type of negative approach is called punishment. Punishment is used to weaken behavior. It involves a person doing a behavior and then either a) getting something they don’t want, or b) losing something they want. This change for the worse decreases the likelihood that the person will repeat the behavior. For example, let’s say an employee submits a time-off request during a busy time of year. Caught off guard, their supervisor immediately rejects the request and chews out the employee. If the employee is less likely to request time off during busy season again, we can say the behavior was punished. Punishment relies on a person’s behavior leading to a change for the worse, and it weakens the behavior that came before the change.
Practical application: Before using a negative approach, consider how you are attempting to influence behavior. Taking a moment to clearly differentiate between negative reinforcement and punishment before reacting can increase your chances of getting a positive outcome. One benefit is that it shifts the focus toward influencing behavior and away from just getting even. It forces you to ask what specific behavior you are trying to influence and whether the target behavior should go up or down. All too often, people and organizations administer negative consequences to people without much consideration of the practical effect it will have on behavior. From a behavioral perspective, it doesn’t even make technical sense to punish a person. Remember, punishment describes the weakening of a behavior after that person does the behavior and experiences some change for the worse. To minimize harm and increase the probability of success, punish behavior not people.
Finding 2: Negative approaches often appear to work quickly but come at a cost.
Negative reinforcement and punishment attempts can produce immediate short-term behavior change. Negative reinforcement can jumpstart behavior quickly when there’s currently nothing to positively reinforce. It requires some level of discomfort to be effective, which can range from the fear of being embarrassed in a meeting to losing your job. For example, imagine a situation where an employee keeps procrastinating instead of working on a time sensitive priority. You may need to jumpstart the desired behavior through negative reinforcement by warning that if they don’t finish by 5 p.m., they must stay until it’s done. That employee may then immediately begin and continue working on the task to escape the uncomfortable position they now find themselves in. Keep in mind that this won’t work if the employee doesn’t mind staying late or doubts your ability to follow through with the negative consequences.
Observing the quick change produced by negative approaches can make them tempting options to repeatedly reach for. What you may not readily see, however, are the caveats and side effects that make these approaches alone unsustainable. In the lab, Ulrich and Azrin (1962) reported the discovery of a behavioral principle known as elicited aggression. The phenomenon describes the natural response to painful stimulation found to occur in a wide variety of species – reflexive biting, striking, and scratching. Humans are no exception. At work, punishment sets up revenge as a positive reinforcer, which can be seen in incidents of workplace violence. Furthermore, people may disengage and lie or cheat to avoid negative consequences. For example, the employee who received a punishing rebuke after requesting time off may still take the time off, just without asking next time—the trend known as “quiet vacationing” among remote and hybrid employees.
Practical application: Be targeted and restrained in your use of negative approaches. It’s not as if a few occasional uses will spoil the culture. Employees will likely appreciate it when illegal, unsafe, or damaging behaviors are punished. Just understand that as you dial up the use of negative consequences, you also dial up the potential for negative side effects like absenteeism, turnover, and poor morale. Negative approaches take a toll on people and profits, so carefully weigh the benefits of using a negative approach against the costs.
Finding 3: Negative approaches work better when paired with positive reinforcement.
As Aubrey says, “Punishment alone rarely solves a problem.” At most, it typically buys you time while you work on a sustainable solution. The origins of this finding date back to research by Azrin and Holz (1966), which found that punishment was most effective when you also reinforce a desired alternative. The research found that without any punishment, unwanted behavior continued at a high and steady rate. When the behavior was punished but no alternative behavior was reinforced, the punishment was moderately effective. When the behavior was punished while an alternative response was reinforced, the undesired behavior stopped completely.
Pairing a negative approach with positive reinforcement is one element that makes coaching so effective. A good coach wouldn’t stand around and just tell you everything you’re doing wrong. That tends to feel overly critical and doesn’t give you a clear way to improve. Instead, a coach points out what you’re doing wrong and clearly describes what you should try instead. They might even roll up their sleeves and demonstrate it themselves. They will then watch your attempt at the change and make sure you feel the benefits of doing it differently – positive reinforcement for the alternative behavior.
Practical application: Negative approaches work better when the recipient always has a clear way out. Negative reinforcement only works when a person recognizes the unpleasant situation they’re in and can escape or avoid the negative consequences through their own action. Punishment works better when a bad habit is replaced by a more constructive alternative, and the performer perceives that the new way is working out better for them. When plenty of reinforcement is available for the desired alternative, correction is often seen as help rather than criticism.
The bottom line
Positive reinforcement is by far the most effective and sustainable approach to improving behavior, results, and the overall culture. That doesn’t necessarily mean that there’s no place for other approaches that may be perceived as negative in contrast. Leaders must be empowered to confidently use both positive and negative approaches when the situation warrants each. Finding the delicate balance between the carrot and stick is key to maintaining a safe, productive, and enjoyable work environment.
Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). Punishment. In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application (pp. 213-270). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ulrich, R. E., & Azrin, N. H. (1962). Reflexive fighting in response to aversive stimulation. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5(4), 511–520.
