Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Perceived punishment and reward values of supervisor actions

  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The study investigated employee perceptions about the reward or punishment values inherent in a variety of supervisor actions. Actions viewed as most rewarding were generally actions that possessed (a) public visibility, (b) tangibility, (c) implied esteem, and (d) long-term implications. Actions viewed as punishing or aversive involved similar characteristics. Visibility appeared to be most strongly related to perceived severity. In contrast with suggestions in the literature (cf. León, 1981), substantial levels of agreement among raters were found for aversive as well as rewarding actions. Also reviewed are characteristics of leader actions that received mixed ratings from respondents.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arvey, R. D., & Ivancevich, J. M. Punishment in organizations: A review, propositions, and research suggestions.Academy of Management Review 1980,5 123–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cherrington, D. J., Reitz, H. J., & Scott, W. E., Jr. Effects of contingent and non-contingent reward on the relationship between satisfaction and task performance.Journal of Applied Psychology 1971,55 531–536.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLeo, P. J., & Pritchard, R. D. An examination of some methodological problems in testing expectancy-valence models with survey techniques.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1974,12 143–148.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, C. N. Causal connections among manager's pay, job satisfaction and performance.Journal of Applied Psychology 1973,58 95–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hackman, J. E., & Lawler, E. E. Employee reactions to job characteristics.Journal of Applied Psychology Monograph 1971,55 259–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hamner, W. C. How to ruin motivation with pay. In R. M. Steers & L. W. Porter (Eds.),Motivation and work behavior (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jurgenson, C. E. Job preferences (What makes a job good or bad?).Journal of Applied Psychology 1978,63 267–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keller, R. T., & Szilagyi, A. D. Employee reactions to leader reward behavior.Academy of Management Journal 1976,19 619–627.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleeman, R. How to deal with the nonproductive federal employee.Civil Service Journal, 1979, April/June, 46–48.

  • Lawler, E. E.Pay and organizational effectiveness: A psychological review New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.

    Google Scholar 

  • León, F. R. The role of positive and negative outcomes in the causation of motivational forces.Journal of Applied Psychology 1981,66 45–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, H. H. The pay for performance dilemma.Organizational Dynamics 1975,3 39–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, T. R., Green, S. G., & Wood, R. E. An attributional model of leadership and the poor performing subordinate: Development and validation. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.),Research in organizational behavior (Vol. 3). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldham, G. R. The motivational strategies used by supervisors: Relationships to effectiveness indicators.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1976,15 66–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reitz, H. J. Managerial attitudes and perceived contingencies between performance and organizational response.Academy of Management Proceedings (31st Annual Meeting). 1971, pp. 227–238.

  • Sims, H. P., Jr. Further thoughts on punishment in organizations.Academy of Management Review 1980,5 133–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sims, H. P., & Szilagyi, A. D. Leader reward behavior and subordinate satisfaction and performance.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1975,14 426–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W.Motivation and work behavior (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szilagyi, A. D. Causal inferences between leader reward behavior and subordinate performance, absenteeism, and work satisfaction.Journal of Occupational Psychology 1980,58 195–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tornow, W. W. The development and application of an input/outcome moderator test on the perception and reduction of inequity.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 1971,6 614–638.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Houston, 77004, Houston, Texas

    Allan P. Jones & Marianne Tait

  2. Naval Health Research Center, USA

    Mark C. Butler

Authors
  1. Allan P. Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marianne Tait
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark C. Butler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

Support for this research was provided under Office of Naval Research Contracts RR042-08-01 and N 00014-81-K-0824. Opinions expressed are those of the authors. No endorsement by the Department of the Navy has been given or should be inferred. The authors would like to thank Richard Arvey, Linda Dutton, Steven Fox, and R. J. Bullock for their assistance and comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jones, A.P., Tait, M. & Butler, M.C. Perceived punishment and reward values of supervisor actions. Motiv Emot 7, 313–329 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991681

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00991681

Keywords

Search

Navigation