Looking good by being negative (and hurting your team)

Although positive psychology has gotten a lot of favorable press, there have also been a number of stories that, at the end, turn critical.  Richard Handler's "20 Weeks to Happiness" (http://tinyurl.com/yxf98v) is one example.  I've seen others, but can't put my cursor on them right now; perhaps you can.  I've often felt that that turn to negativity near the end of some pieces on positive psychology represented two things:  (1) a feeling that it's too hard to be positive and (2) an attempt to look smart by being negatively critical.  Monday's Wall Street Journal gave me some evidence for the latter point.  Jared Sandberg's "Cubicle Culture" column was entitled, "Some Managers Make It Easy on Themselves with a Ready 'No'".  After quoting several sources who talked about their experience with negative, nitpicking, no-saying managers (anyone remember Spiro Agnew's "nattering nabobs of negativity?), there's this paragraph:

Naysayers tend to deflate motivation and bring productivity to a grinding halt -- just to salve their needy egos. "Negative evaluation is a tactic people use when they're intellectually insecure," says Teresa Amabile, a professor of business administration at Harvard Business School. More than 20 years ago, Prof. Amabile conducted a study in which she discovered that criticism sounds smarter than praise -- that people believe lashing critics are smarter than the approvers.  

When people evaluated edited excerpts from negative and positive book reviews, she found that negative reviewers also were seen as more expert and competent "even when the content of the positive review was independently judged as being of higher quality and greater forcefulness."

There's lots of evidence about how positivity boosts productivity.  Jane Dutton, David Cooperrider, Bob Quinn, and Amy Wirzesniewski come to mind.  But it's easier to be negative, and may make others view you as smarter to boot!