In part 1, we established that punishing underperformance is bad for business. Punishment decreases psychological safety, which in turn decreases performance. This loop spirals down with the employee being punished again for their lowered performance. This decreases psychological safety further, and performance drops, yet again. Conversely, not being punished for underperformance, and instead being allowed to make mistakes and being provided support to improve, increases trust. Trust builds psychological safety, which in turn leads to increased performance. [For further information on how supportive leadership improves performance, see our article ‘Give to Get‘].
Of course, when we talk about foregoing punishment, we are not talking about abandoning disciplinary systems altogether. By some anomaly, there are individuals who derive pleasure from doing the wrong thing or upsetting others. Failure to address inappropriate behaviour is just as bad as the misuse of punishments. If someone is consistently or deliberately misbehaving, this must be dealt with. Other employees have a right to feel protected, and their performance will drop due to the stress of having to deal with the difficult or feared employee. It is also best to address inappropriate behaviour immediately and ensure actions taken are documented.
When we talk about foregoing punishment here, we are referring to the underperformance of your average, well behaved citizen. There are multiple reasons why an individual may be underperforming, and quite often it comes down to aspects beyond their control. At a minimum, supervisors should check that the individual has been provided the opportunity to build competence, and been provided with clear guidelines as to what is expected. At the onset of underperformance, I always look inwards and ask whether I, as leader, has given the individual everything they need to succeed. As the adage goes, prevention is better than cure.
Far too often, it is our thinking as supervisors that is the problem when it comes to underperformance. During our school years we are taught to think in a linear fashion. That there is only one correct answer. That 2 + 2 can only ever equal 4. We see an employee underperforming and, thinking linearly, believe the behaviour is under their control. We then attribute the blame towards the individual. With linear thinking, it also makes ‘sense’ that rewards or punishments could be used to drive the desired behaviour. The thinking goes something like this:
Employee fails to meet standards. They are at fault. They need to be punished.
However, this is just a Band-Aid solution. When we isolate events in order to solve them, we are really only treating the symptoms, rather than determining the real cause. Yet, performance is an abstract, holistic affair, and the type of performance that emerges depends on the environment. Punishing low performance, and attempting to drive high performance through fear of punishment, is pointless. High performance requires multiple conditions to be in place, and if performance is low, rather than blaming the employee, we need to examine what conditions could be changed. More often than not, it is the system in which the employee sits, rather than the employee themselves, that is at fault.
Example: The legendary Monkey King was banished from heaven for eating all of the Jade Emperor’s peaches. In isolation, this was the wrong thing to do, and thus Buddha punished Monkey. Yet, broadening our view, and looking at the underlying system at play, it becomes evident that Monkey didn’t act out just for ‘shits and giggles’. Born with immense power, Monkey saw himself as equally deserving as any other god. Originally an Earth-bound deity, he was invited into heaven by the Jade Emperor (a little like the Director of one company, inviting the Director of another to become partners). Upon arrival, however, rather than being treated equally, Monkey was assigned to guarding the horses (a Director now being placed in a janitorial position). Monkey was also excluded from parties and teased by his godly peers. The disrespect (low position, exclusion, and bullying) angered the Monkey King who retaliated by verbally insulting the Jade King (after all, he placed him in this position). This resulted in the Jade King attempting to punish Monkey, from which further retaliation ensured. Eventually, Monkey ate all the Jade Emperor’s prized peaches. The Jade Emperor complained to Buddha (the CEO), who looked at the problem at face value and punished Monkey. Being the wisest of the wise, this of course was part of Buddha’s plan all along. There was a lesson that Monkey needed to learn in order to grow; however, looking beyond the isolated event, it becomes apparent that multiple factors led to Monkey acting out. To fix the behaviour, and similar events happening again, we would need to look at why the Jade Emperor was able to behave in the manner he did; why there was a culture of exclusion and bullying; and why Monkey was not able to have his side of the story heard. Any other deity in his position would likely have acted the same; and an absence of these factors would have probably seen a happy and productive heavenly employee.
Key Takeaway: underperformance is typically systematic, rather than some isolated, conscious deviant behaviour on behalf of the individual. Fostering the conditions necessary for high performance, and nurturing psychological safety as a prevention, is far more effective than using punishment as a cure. If leaders collaborate with followers to develop their competence and confidence, provide clear guidance, and demonstrate a vested interest in helping the individual grow and learn, then high performance will ensure.
The Warrior-Womxn's Guild 