A whip or a carrot? Which method of managing people is more effective

The psychology of man has never been deprived of the close attention of scientists. Also this science captures the eyes of ordinary people. Each of us learns from his life experience, this knowledge forms our behavior. Different stimuli cause different responses in us. Teachers and managers have long learned to manipulate incentives in order to change a person's behavior.

Schemes and methods of management

Considering the basic level of management of actions, we refer to popular methods of encouragement and punishment, which psychologists are accustomed to call the "carrot and stick" method. However, here the opinions of experts radically differ. Some of them believe that the combination of encouragement and punishment is the most effective, some give the palm of primacy only to encouragement, and some only to punishment. What are the most effective methods?

Penalties have proven themselves as an effective measure of governance

Do you know that making the necessary requirements will help change the disobedient child, the incapable student, the person who has a vicious dependence, and also the employee with low productivity? The question is only the choice of the path of "education": positive or negative. Most people are sharply negative about the measures that cause unpleasant feelings. That is why many subordinates try to avoid punishments and penalties. Rigid management, which presents high demands to employees, has long been recognized as effective. It helps to maintain discipline at home, at work or in social structures. And at the same time, in recent times the method of strict control has many opponents.

Most people function better in a positive environment

Administrators who practice harsh methods of influencing subordinates and actively using punishments may have to change their belief system. A recent study conducted by Harvard University staff found that most people function better in a positive environment. And this means, even more effective than punishment, can be a method of encouragement. The father-founder of operant conditioning (the method of formation of conditioned reflexes by reaction, rather than stimulus) BF Skinner advocated radical behaviorism. In his works, an American psychologist and author of books tried to trace the relationship between conditionality and behavior modification. The scientist created a new psychological school called "experimental analysis of behavior," which examined the impact of compensation and punishment on human psychology.

Could reward be better than punishment?

A great role in human psychology is played by motivation. An employee of one of the companies will never agree to participate in an adventurous risky project if he can not expect to receive a good reward. Awards and gratitude are excellent incentives, synonyms for recognizing the professional qualities of people. If the boss recognizes the merits of subordinates, having received a reward, they will work with a tripled force. When the method of punishment is practiced, the boss will not be able to motivate employees to work better. They will perform their functions correctly, but without enthusiasm. Their main task is to avoid punishment, and not to benefit the enterprise. As we see, if you put a person in a positive professional environment and recognize his achievements, you can achieve greater productivity. From the outside it seems all very simple. However, in order for the "gingerbread" method to work, three conditions must be met.

Conditions for effectiveness of the method

First, the subject must be interested in the reward. Secondly, the employer should not grant a reward before the subordinate fulfills the task. Thirdly, the employee's productivity must exceed the established standards. The subordinate manager, who prefers the "carrot" method, can fail because of the impossibility of meeting all of the above conditions. It should be noted that awarding not only changes the behavior of a person, but also creates the creation of certain values. An employee who regularly receives a reward for good work, from now on, is unlikely to agree to work for a salary. On the other hand, no one can expect extraordinary results from ordinary employees. Each employee has his own abilities. Someone is more talented in promoting the product, marketing component and finding customers, someone less.

Benefits of remuneration

Rewards can be ongoing (the award for the successful completion of the project) and long-term (13th salary). If you use this system on a regular basis, people develop a certain behavior. Those who yearn for rewards more, try harder or work longer hours. If the employer guarantees that the rewards will not be limited to a short period of time, the employee will strive to improve productivity. For example, for a good job, a person is guaranteed a reward in the amount of a monthly salary. And as long as this proposal is interesting to him, he will make every effort to fulfill your requirements. However, when this proposal loses its appeal, the employee loses motivation.

How it works in the school system

This principle works in the school system. Excellent students at the end of the year are awarded with commendable diplomas, diplomas, gifts and valuable certificates. On the solemn line they are invited to the stage and awarded with well-deserved awards. Schoolchildren who have one or two "quads" tend to catch up, so that next year they can be elected. They have the incentive to learn better and do more. If the former high achiever begins to give up his positions, he loses his motivation and joins the number of schoolchildren who show average results. As you can see, in this scenario the reward system is more effective. It motivates students to work successfully. Well, children, who are hard at school, do not experience much stress and condemnation because they study mediocrely. On the contrary, they also try to improve their results and move to a cohort of "horoshists".

Disadvantages of the method

However, the "carrot" method can have negative consequences. Despite the fact that the above examples clearly illustrate how a pleasant event can increase motivation, this can not save some workers from doing work "out of the box". In other words, if the reward is uninteresting to a person, he allows himself to work by making mistakes. People will be afraid to make a mistake, only when they know that this will be followed by punishment (for example, deprivation of the prize). One way is to prevent the occurrence of a negative event, the other increases productivity and motivation. But no matter how effective the "whip", it has a negative background. It helps to reduce the number of errors by coercion (undesirable stimulus).

Scientists have proved the inconsistency of the "whip" in education

The effectiveness of punishments is clearly illustrated by the experience of young parents. A study by Tulan University staff found that children who were spanked for bad behavior at the age of three years became more aggressive two years later than their peers. Other scientific experiments have shown that more radical punishments (for example, flogging) are an ineffective method of education in children under the age of 12 years. Psychologists warn that this obsolete method should not be used if parents do not want to grow up aggressive and embittered members of society.

People learn faster on positive experience

It is proved that people learn faster on positive experience. Penalties cause negative emotions and often end in complete failure. This trend is especially relevant for children. Penalties are disciplined, but lead to unpleasant consequences. Employees, in whose companies thriving discipline, are forced to put up with regular stress. In the end, they enter the "fight and flight" regime, which prevents productivity growth.