In our society, there is a norm that is quoted in the title of this post and in another, more well-known literary work. At the same time, this norm is quite archaic, and I would even say infantile.
The archaic nature of this norm lies in the fact that retribution or the pursuit of justice is only appropriate within a small group of people, where the reputation of each member is known to the others. In an anonymous society, punishing one of its members has no impact on the motivations of the others.
The infantilism of this norm lies in the fact that punishment does not correct the wrongdoing. Punishment does not prevent the repetition of the offense. Punishment does not educate the punished. Significant resources are spent on enforcing punishment, often more than would be spent on preventing crimes simply by giving money to those in need. So what’s the point?
Recently, I heard a story about how all the salespeople at a car dealership were stripped of their bonuses (leaving them with only a meager salary) because one of the salespeople, either accidentally or through negligence, failed to meet the service standards during an inspection. mystery shopping If we set aside paranoid thoughts like “the employer wanted to save money,” we can see that the extent of repression reflects not the severity of the offense, but the degree of disapproval of that offense by management. In this example, it is clear that even the innocent were punished with the absurd reasoning that “the entire team must bear responsibility.” They were punished because punishing one person did not provide a sense of proportionality in relation to the offense from the management’s perspective.
Once again: management uses punishments not as a means of managing the business, but as a means of communication and self-expression. Like a small child, if you ask them to show with their hands how upset they are (by the way, this helps during children’s tantrums), they will spread their arms wide.
Actually, this is natural. These people were raised this way, being punished for their misdeeds. They live in a society that evaluates the severity of a wrongdoing “scientifically,” in numbers: “from 8 to 15 with confiscation.” And we find this appropriate and fair.
Let’s rewind history 500 years and recall some archaic legal systems. For example, it was considered normal to take revenge on the owner of a donkey if that donkey, whether rented or even stolen, threw off its rider or even killed him with a kick. How would you feel about applying such a norm today, say, filing a lawsuit against a leasing company because a leased excavator damaged a power line and killed the driver?
Funny, absurd? Well, punishing is also absurd. Neither fines within a company nor prison in society address the main goals: eliminating consequences, genuine remorse, and preventing future occurrences. The primary purpose of punishment is emotional demonstration, and that’s it!
After all, the punishment is:
- It doesn’t eliminate the reasons and motives that led the punished person to act that way.
- focuses the punished individual on avoiding punishment next time, rather than on not committing the offense.
- It breeds resentment, and a person starts to fantasize about revenge plans. There can be no talk of loyalty to those who punished him.
- neither inspires trust nor respect, neither the punished nor the punisher;
- creates an antagonistic hostile environment
- It makes a person convince themselves that “they are so bad,” instead of the completely different, necessary affirmations in this situation.
- does not make one think about the redemption of a wrongdoing. On the contrary, the punished individual believes that since they have been punished, they have paid for their offense and no longer feel remorse. In other words, they have paid their dues and are free to repeat the act.
- (it does not suppress violence, but rather condones it, demonstrating a “model” of socially acceptable behavior)
- the establishment of a system of punishments conveys expectation punishable behavior
- breaks the social contract and replaces it transaction Текст для перевода: ..
Moreover:
- The scale of the punishment does not give the punished an understanding of the magnitude of the offense and the extent of the consequences.
- It is appropriate and correct to develop inner self-control and effectiveness in people. A system that relies on punishments requires constant external oversight.
- The transmission of the details and motives of a transgression and its punishment to the rest of the group often plants new, undesirable ideas in the minds of its members—ideas they might not have even considered before.
So why is punishment so popular among us? Why do managers fine their subordinates, make them write explanations, and issue reprimands? Why is our entire system for combating crime based on the application of punishments? Or does it exist simply because it creates work for itself? Or is it just “the way things are done here”? 🙂
What happened in that company? Everything I described. Loyalty dropped to zero. People started updating their resumes. Sales standards were followed in a chaotic manner, like an “Italian strike,” sales volumes in the showroom fell, and although customers were dissatisfied and complained through various channels, there was nothing formally to complain about.
What would I do? I would just communicate. I would…
- I would express my level of dissatisfaction with something more appropriate than a fine. It’s enough to just talk about my feelings.
- I would formulate my expectations.
- I would explain the consequences of an unpleasant situation for the company, for the salon, and for each individual in the salon. (In short — less money, goals not being met, etc.)
- I would think together with people about what changes to make in the processes to prevent this from happening again.
- I would provide the opportunity to think about how to fix the situation and collaboratively develop a solution.
For instance, if a client’s car is not repaired on time, meaning that service standards have not been met, it would be natural to take some action to maintain the client’s loyalty to the dealership. For example, offering a discount on the next repair or providing the next maintenance service for free. In both cases, the dealership and the technicians work together to resolve the issue, as the dealership provides the equipment and the workspace, while the technicians provide the labor. Communication is crucial to ensure that this is not perceived as a penalty imposed on the dealership, but rather as a mutually acceptable solution to the problem. This is why it is important to demonstrate that the dealership shares in the costs and that everyone is working towards a common goal.