Rewarding and Punishment the Same Behavior Essay Example for Free

Rewarding and Punishment the Same Behavior Essay What type of reinforcement schedule does random drug testing represent? Is this type of schedule typically effective or ineffective? Answer: The case study â€Å"Professional sports: Rewarding and punishment the same behavior† was about how in a baseball game steroids are being used and the offense which has been caused by it. The type of reinforcement schedule discuss in this case was the random drug testing which presents the fact that most of the times baseball players are not aware of the point that they are taking drugs. This is because they don’t take it intentially but given by their coaches to improve performance of the player in game. According to the case I agree with the decision of commissioner of the baseball. According to his decision, he gave a second chance to the players who did not know that their coaches were giving them drugs. Whereas, he declared a ten day suspension for the first time offenders from playing the game. But congress and the general public was not satisfied so the commissioner incorporated tougher rules to play in the game such as the â€Å"three strikes, and you are out† policy wherein the first time offenders were suspended from playing the game for 50 days, the second time offenders were suspended from playing the game for 100 days and the last one was a ban wherein the player cannot further play the game. Due to the usage of steroids the rules in the other games even became tougher. The NFL and the NBA also had to check their players if they were using drugs while playing the game. The coaches in the baseball game needs to be strict while choosing their best players to play the game. The coaches need to be strict with rules of the game and as well as the players to stop using the usage of steroids in the baseball game. A fine or a suspension is considered as a minor part whereas the ultimate decision to ban the player is the correct decision which is made by the commissioner of baseball. . Whereas to find whether its effective or not we can see that the type of reinforcement schedules that random drug testing represent is the variable interval type. As defined, this type of schedule occurs when a response is rewarded after an unpredictable amount of time has passed. In the case, the reinforcement schedule is done randomly and unexpected. It is typically effective because athletes not aware of the test and when these tests will be taken place. Therefore, athletes are unprepared. Unlike a fixed variable reinforcement schedule, athletes have a fixed time of when the tests will be scheduled so they can prepare and make sure their systems are clean before they take the test. . 2. What are some examples of behaviors in typical organizations that supervisors reward but may actually be detrimental to others or to the organization as a whole? As a manager, what might you do to try to avoid this quandary? . Answer: The main example of a behavior in a typical organization that supervisors reward but may actually be detrimental to others or to the organization as a whole is athletes taking steroids. When athletes take steroids to enhance their performance abilities, they are misleading their managers and their fans. Initially, it may be rewarding because everyone involved gains from the profitability, sports merchandise, increased popularity and success. But in the end, when it is discovered that the athlete achieved recognition with the aid of steroids he destroys his reputation and also his team’s and country’s reputation and the loyalty the fans had for him. If I was a manager, what I might do in order to avoid this quandary, if I was made aware of someone using steroids, I would do a random drug testing as soon as possible instead of having the whole team suffer for that one insubordinate athlete. . If you were the commissioner of baseball, what steps would you take to try to reduce the use of steroids in baseball? Is punishment likely to be the most effective deterrent? Why or why not? Answer: If I was the commissioner of baseball, there are several steps that I would take to try to reduce the use of steroids in baseball. First of all, I would reinforce to all the athletes tha t if someone is caught using steroids they will be thrown off the team. Second, I would continue to do random drug testing. Punishment is not likely to be the most effective deterrent. This will only cause athletes to stop playing and taking steroids for a certain period of time. In addition to it I would also have taken some steps as taken by the commissioner in this case. For the 1st time offender who didn’t know that they were being drugged by their coaches should be suspended for few games. In addition to that the coach must be strictly punished a huge sum of fine plus life time ban from the game. Whereas, for those who have offended it for the first time knowingly, must be suspended for a year plus a heavy amount fine should be imposed on them. And for those who have repeated it should be banned from baseball sport. The second part of the question was â€Å"Is punishment likely to be the most effective deterrent†? For me yes, punishment is the most effective deterrent. It is the competition that everyone loves. The feeling of winning makes many people do anything to achieve it. Even if this means one must cheat to win. Many players used and still use steroids to enhance their muscles so they are stronger during game play. There can be two ways of stopping the player not to use steroids, either by rewarding or by punishing. Rewarding in the sense, we can give incentives to players for not using them but the incentives of winning will be more attractive than these. Therefore one can punish the player if they use those incentives. A player cheats to win money, fans and fame. But if they are found to be using steroids, they will lose their fame and fans and should also be heavily fined. 4. Is it okay to allow potentially unethical behaviors, which on the surface may benefit organizations, to persist? Why or why not? Answer: No, unethical behaviors must not persist even if on the surface they may benefit organizations. For short term it may be beneficial but not in long run. Any unethical behaviors can directly affect the reputation of the organization. And in today’s world a good reputed organization is the most important part of organization building. People like to buy the service or product from a good reputed organization. It creates goodwill of the organization. For example, in context of the given case, organization can be the baseball team and unethical behavior can be the use of steroids by the players. This may help the team to build a strong impression and can help them to win many games as well. But the day general public will learn that the victory is not due to the hard work but rather than steroids, all of their impression will be on stake. They may lose their sponsors, fans and reputation. Same was the case happened with Pakistani cricket team. Few of the players of Pakistani cricket team player, Salman Butt, M. Amir and Asif, were involved in match fixing. They might have earned a lot from that but when it was exposed they were punished. They had to pay double amount of fine of what they earned. In addition to it now none of the companies will like to endorse just players who are involved in unethical activities. In addition to it they lost all their fans. Almost every Pakistani doesn’t like them because they created a bad impression of Pakistan in the global world. As well as destroyed the image of the Pakistani team nationally and internationally. Can you imagine cheating and excellence in the same sentence? What does known cheating and the Hall of Fame have in common? What does shameful and The Hall of Fame have in common? Does known cheating and excellence equal The Hall Of Fame? This debate doesnt have two sides. There are no hairs to split. There are no counter arguments to argue. Cheating is not how to get ahead. Cheating isnt even how to compete. Even if youre never found out, Its a setup for failure elsewhere in life. Anyone that has admitted or has been proven to have used performance enhancing drugs should never even be considered for the Hall Of Fame.