Positive or negative re-enforcement: Which is a better way to lead?

Question

Put yourself in a leader's postion (in any situation). Which would you choose and why? (I hope I have my terms spelled right.. :) )

Answer 1

Positive reinforcement. Not only will it boost the morale of the group, it will make it closer and happier as well.
There are two types of positive reinforcement:
1. Continuous- reward is given every after desired action.
2. Intermittent- reward is staggered.
Example: Reinforcement done every after 2 consecutive desired actions. Next time, reward is given every 5 consecutive desired actions. Reward is unpredictable.

From our Psychology 101 class, our professor told us that intermittent reinforcement is more effective. We also did that in our "training the rat" experiment and it worked!

Answer 2

These are actions I would use only if I delegated work to insecure and moronic American whimps. The best way to lead is by example. Fat teachers should be fired because they influence children to be fat.

Awww, come on now, do you want to be told what a good boy or girl you are? Please grow up! You breed overgrown babies because you treat your children as babies far too long. If confidence was taught at an early age, then we would not have to encourage Christian morons like you find in most of the United States.

The terms positive and negative reinforcement are just plain stupid. Reinforcement is by definition positive.

Answer 3

We spend more time in pursuit of pleasure than in avoidance of pain; we look forward to pleasurable experiences with happy anticipation, as opposed to the anxiety or dread with which we expect painful ones. Consequently, positive reinforcement is a far more effective tool than negative reinforcement. Even the lowest animals respond quickly to reward.

As a middle manager I've been on both sides of this issue. When I sit down one-on-one with my staff, I give them a "positive sandwich": open with positive feedback, raise concerns, close with positives. Concerns can be addressed not as accusations but as opportunities to excel (or at least to improve). On the other hand, when I sat down 1:1 with my (new) boss, what I heard was a stream of criticisms without any recognition of what I was doing well. After the second or third weekly meeting, I told her frankly that her delivery was all wrong: by couching her remarks in negatives, she was making me feel as though I couldn't do anything right. If she were to acknowledge what I did well, and encourage me where I was weak, she would be empowering me to do better. She "got" it immediately, and our subsequent supervisions were a learning experience rather than a flogging.

We are all hungry for praise and recognition. But think about it: most of us get recognized only when we screw up. We never get noticed for doing a good job day after day, because that's the expectation. One little compliment, one word of praise from a co-worker or supervisor can really make your day. Positive reinforcement. Try it!

Answer 4

I have found as a teacher and supervisor, that positive is the best. You can and should mention negative things, but then end with positive things. A little thing like saying "a job well done", or "you really did well on this" goes a lot farther than a pay raise or bonus.

Answer 5

If none of your training is working, you may have to consider an electric bark collar. But of course you can mix positive re-inforcement with correction. That's the most common form of dog training. Good behavior= positive outcome, bad behavior = negative outcome. EDIT: That is the stereotype about shock collars, that they are only for big dogs. They really don't hurt the dog all that much, just provide discomfort at the exact time of barking. Try as hard as you can, you will never be able to correct him every time he barks, the only way to do that is with the bark collar. You can set it low enough to where it doesnt hurt him, it just startles him.

Answer 6

Definitely positive re-enforcement is more effective. Negative re-enforcement should be used only if everything else fails...
Positive re-enforcement has a better effect on the respective person and also on yourself . One feels much better when rewarding than punishing smbdy

Answer 7

Positive....because any good leader should be able to put themselves in the position of the people they are leading...in that case, which would you want? Probably positive.

Answer 8

Positive reinforcement definitely. It makes those you are leading WANT to succeed rather than being afraid of not succeeding.
Though I wouldn't count some types of bribery as positive reinforcement.

Answer 9

positive is better in the long term and in general..but negative has it uses as well

Answer 10

Positive.
But the people chosen must be up to the task and there should be sufficient support in place to ensure atleast anything near partial success.