Cafe Classic: Perverse Disincentives and Effective Deterrents

Editor's Note:  We are right to exersize caution regarding the use of disincentives and punishment, but in the spirit of bringing a breadth of knowledge and understanding to our work, it's helpful to be exposed to practical information about their use and efficacy (or lack of).  With that, we bring you a Classic lesson and real life example of perverse disincentives and deterrants via Jim Brennan.

Amid all the buzz about perverse incentives that backfire, lessons about punishments that reward undesirable performance should be shared, too. 

A former warden of Leavenworth Federal Penitentary taught me an important lesson about perverse disincentives and effective deterrants some years ago.  (No, I was NOT one of his inmates.)  As as we worked together on a project for a different federal agency, he shared his practical findings about negative reinforcement learned while trying to reduce misbehaviors among the most dangerous prisoners in the nation. 

The dilemma the warden faced was simple.  Many of the inmates under his supervision were already facing a lifetime in prision and had a “nothing to lose” attitude about rules.  The traditional remedy for serious offenses was solitary confinement.  This most severe punishment earned them positive feedback in the form of greater respect from fellow convicts.  Being sent to “solitary” was a mark of distinction, showing a level of toughness that won approval in the machismo permeated atmosphere of the maximum-security prison.  Other inmates felt that offenders who could endure weeks without human contact, living on bread and water, deserved admiration and approbation.  They were honored and respected by their fellow cons for enduring what all considered harsh treatment.  The intended punishment created a rewarding experience.   A month on bread and water in solitary was a perverse incentive.  The admiration it produced increased the probability that the offender would repeat the undesirable behavior the punishment was intended to extinguish. 

The warden made a few simple changes to disrupt the inverted perverse consequences of being sent to “the hole.”  Prisoners in solitary confinement were issued fluffy pink pajamas and fed oatmeal porridge and milk.   When they emerged from the new conditions of their “hard time,” they were met with smirks and ridicule.  Recidivism rates plummeted dramatically.  Being babied like unruly children in a manner that lowered their status in prison had a much stronger corrective effect on their subsequent behavior than the classic old treatment.  Their status in the eyes of fellow convicts was much more important to them than the discomfort of solitary confinement.  Losing prestigue was more painful than being denied human contact.  Mental punishment was more motivating than physical punishment. 

Aversion therapy will never be as popular as giveaway programs, but it still may have a valid place in our toolboxes. 

Skepticism is justified, however, since there are so darn many situations where perverse DISincentives occur.  Bad behavior is frequently rewarded in one way or another by “punishments” that create more positives than negatives, in the eyes of the performers.  A day can hardly pass without some “pop-icon celebrity” exciting their fan base by some outrageous illegal action that brings them publicity in the form of “news.”   

Those who grew up before the ancient Disney movie “Song of the South” became politically incorrect may not know the old story about the briar patch,but that folklore lesson still applies here, today.  Familiar examples may change over time, but human nature rarely does.

What other success stories can you tell about effective disincentives?

E. James (Jim) Brennan is an independent compensation advisor with extensive total rewards experience in most industries.  After corporate HR posts and consulting CEO roles, he was Senior Associate of pay surveyor ERI before returning to consulting in 2015. A prolific writer (author of the Performance Management Workbook), speaker and frequent expert witness in reasonable executive compensation court cases, Jim also serves on the Advisory Board of the Compensation and Benefits Review.

Creative Commons image "DSC1408" by HockeyholicAZ

Comments

[Chris Dobyns]

Interesting. Seem to recall that we had similarly-minded county sheriff when I previously lived in the Phoenix area. His application was less-targeted to individual "bad actors" - and more universally applied to the entire incarcerated population, which probably reduced its effectiveness. He (and his methods) eventually fell out-of-favor.

And despite your denials . . . it strikes me that you seem to have a suspiciously "up-close and personal" perspective on the inner working of Leavenworth Federal Penitentiary.

[EJames Brennan]

My perspective came second-hand via my joint work (NOT work "in the joint") with the former warden on AUO topics (linked above under "project") for the USMS. I had asked him why the young attorneys we met together initially all asked for his autograph. He was famous at Law schools as the most-sued man in US history.

That all occurred before Joe became sheriff.

[Chris Dobyns]

Okay, glad we cleared up the possible confusion between "joint work" and "work in the joint". I'll sleep somewhat more soundly tonight with that knowledge. And the really good news is that no reciprocal extradition agreement exists between Kansas and Texas, at present.

Thanks for "outting" our favorite Maricopa County sheriff. If it weren't for some of that unfortunate "profiling" his department engaged in - he just might have been the current junior U.S. Senator from Arizona. Just bad luck (for someone . . .).

[E.K. TORKORNOO]

Thank you, Jim.

This reminds me of several real life examples cited in the Academy of Management Classic by Stephen Kerr, ‘On The Folly Of Rewarding A, While Hoping For B.’ See link to the shorter, lighter version at: https://www.ou.edu/russell/UGcomp/Kerr.pdf

It is also why some criminal justice, press, and other organizations refuse to mention the names of persons who commit certain crimes. Why give them the legitimacy and free publicity that they and their extremist organizations seek through those dastardly deeds?

Thanks again.

[E. James Brennan]

Does anyone remember the title of the great book on that topic so aptly referenced by E.K.? It was published decades ago, probably during the term of Ronald Reagan, because I seem to recall that he made it required reading by all his cabinet appointees.

All about avoiding adverse consequence reward systems in everyday life, such as refusing to glamorize wrong-doers ... leaving them un-named so they get no publicity, refusing any ego-boost, offering disdain rather than sympathy, etc. You know, react as if you have some standards of proper behavior rather than glorify the latest outrage. Let's FIND it!