Discuss why it is generally undesirable for approaches to motivation, compensation, and people management to avoid the use of negative consequences or punishment if performance targets are not achieved or if particular people are habitual underperformers. Does striking a balance between rewards and punishment generally work better?

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Absence of negative consequences in a work environment can lead to slackers continuing their underperformance; this will not only lead to a drain on company resources but also discourage those who are hardworking and committed to their personal professional growth and the growth of the company. Negative consequences are also an effective means of correcting employees who are failing so that they may become productive and also of weeding out employees who are not contributing to the goals of the company.
Therefore, although most approaches to motivation, compensation, and people management accentuate the positive, companies also make it clear that lackadaisical or indifferent effort and subpar performance can result in negative consequences. Managers and professionals whose performance is not good enough to warrant promotion are first denied bonuses and stock awards and eventually weeded out. At most companies, senior executives and key personnel in underperforming units are pressured to raise performance to acceptable levels and keep it there or risk being replaced.