Similar to incomplete feedback, a lack of consequence can lead to complacency. When feedback is incomplete, an employee’s complacency is the unintentional result of ignorance; when there are no consequences for poor performance, complacency can be intentional. If negative consequences are not directly tied to negative employee behaviors or results, then the employees are not motivated to improve their performance.
On the other hand, a lack of positive consequences for positive performance can be equally detrimental. Sirota et al. (2006) administered a survey to employees-half of the respondents reported receiving very little or no credit for their performance and almost two-thirds indicated their management is much more likely to criticize errors than to reward success. When employee performance is not tied to positive rewards, employees are unlikely to see the value in improving their results. In fact, employees may abandon novel techniques and practices, assuming they do not work because nothing ever came of it.
Grant & Wrzesniewski (2010) provide an in-depth investigation into these phenomena; they found evidence for the moderating role of other orientation in the link between performance and self-evaluation. Self-evaluations are partially based on consequence: if an employee continues to receive positive outcomes, they are more likely to form positive evaluations. Other orientation is the degree to which an individual thinks about and is concerned with other people. For example, a person high in other orientation may be willing to “take one for the team”.
To tie it all together: an individual high in other orientation is more likely to respond to consequences. If there are positive consequences, these employees tend to form positive self-evaluations and continue doing whatever caused the positive outcomes. These employees do not need negative consequences to evaluate their work and its effect (i.e., they are not complacent). Employees lower in other-orientation are in danger of becoming complacent without negative consequences. These employees are less likely to consider how their work affects others, and if there are no consequences for poor performance, they may persist with ineffective methods.
On the other hand, a lack of positive consequences for positive performance can be equally detrimental. Sirota et al. (2006) administered a survey to employees-half of the respondents reported receiving very little or no credit for their performance and almost two-thirds indicated their management is much more likely to criticize errors than to reward success. When employee performance is not tied to positive rewards, employees are unlikely to see the value in improving their results. In fact, employees may abandon novel techniques and practices, assuming they do not work because nothing ever came of it.
Grant & Wrzesniewski (2010) provide an in-depth investigation into these phenomena; they found evidence for the moderating role of other orientation in the link between performance and self-evaluation. Self-evaluations are partially based on consequence: if an employee continues to receive positive outcomes, they are more likely to form positive evaluations. Other orientation is the degree to which an individual thinks about and is concerned with other people. For example, a person high in other orientation may be willing to “take one for the team”.
To tie it all together: an individual high in other orientation is more likely to respond to consequences. If there are positive consequences, these employees tend to form positive self-evaluations and continue doing whatever caused the positive outcomes. These employees do not need negative consequences to evaluate their work and its effect (i.e., they are not complacent). Employees lower in other-orientation are in danger of becoming complacent without negative consequences. These employees are less likely to consider how their work affects others, and if there are no consequences for poor performance, they may persist with ineffective methods.