I assert that putting workers on any reward program which had little respect [love] for them as human beings would hve little success.

a reward program is not mend to love. it does however show respect for the extra work these workers do for you.
as boss you can ask them to do the extra work against normal payment. but instead you give them a extra reward for their extra work.

is that really so bad? it's very successful anyway.

I am a graduate psychologist. I can assess whether I think an hypothesis has been proven or whether more research would be useful. I would require time to look at the research, I could examine whether the research into monkey behaviour is applicable to homo sapiens.
We are a different kind of primate to chimps, or whatever monkey they used.
I am only interested in this subject for fun. I consider academic research is about getting at scientific truth rather than proving who's right of who's wrong; And it is hard work.

As 4040 said we are debating whether it is better to rule with love or fear.

I might check out 'The Prince' again to see what Mackie did write'

I am a graduate psychologist.

and yet you deny the power of positive reinforcement through random-variable...

pang
I'm a bit rusty on what you said. I remeber that I received a high mark for an essay on Punishment, I could research what you said. I am receiving little reward, regular or otherwise for doing such work. I have receive little reward for studying psychology for many years. I think that you are trying to rule me with fear.
Winning?

The Machiavellian theory does not propose fear to be superior to love but rather that one should more cruel than kind.  If one exhibits only kindness, how will one rule a country, state, etc. of strong minded people.  Take Shakespeare's Macbeth, the ruler, King Duncan was a kind and trusting ruler.  However this meekness led to two revolts and his death.  However, Macbeth's cruel and skeptical demeanor resulted in his ultimate demise.  The ruler that Scotland needed was Duncan's son, Malcolm.  Malcolm was a combination of Duncan's kindness and Macbeth's cruelty.  As a result, Malcolm led the Scottish people to many prosperous years.  In regards to Machiavelli's idea it is better to be a good combination of the two, cruel and loving.

Take Shakespeare's Macbeth, the ruler, King Duncan was a kind and trusting ruler.

Duncan was also a fool and could have no idea of the witchcraft at hand

I think that you are trying to rule me with fear.
Winning?

Not at all..I'm using neither love or fear. I'm using my knowledge of psychology

I'll use my knowledge of psychotherapy to tell pang that I will decide how I regard his behaviour and what I think about his behaviour.
For example, do we all have to believe that Duncan was a fool because pang says so. I assert that Macbeth was a monster. He ruled with fear. Look what happened ti him. MacDuff got him.
Is pang's knowledge of psychology the only knowledge of psychology? Is he the fount of all wisdom on matters psychological. He may be right about the random reinforcement thing. Me-I like to get paid regularly and so do the people I receive goods and services. Randomly reinforcing the refuse disposal operatives won't make them work better.

I just read recently that a Japanese researcher team from the "National Institute for Physiological Sciences" found out that in groups of people (humans, not monkeys or apes), those that got compliments for practical tasks done made the best results in the second test, compared to those who had to evaluate themselves. So they evidenced that praise is a good motivator. Now praise does not exclude a certain pressure, I personally think it would even be a mistake to praise people without motivating them to improve more.

Also, praise for the productive can also motivate the non-productive as well, even if those are subject to fear of failure. So I would personally say that the 'best' (most productive) rule is one of respect, positive motivation and pressure.
Or as Mars_1 said,

a good combination of the two, cruel and loving.

I am going to be a bit radical here. I think maybe effective love involves a element of fear. Maybe a kid who has received love all their life in the form of being given a lot of presents and being allowed to do whatever she wants grows up as a worse member of society than a kid who is disciplined by their parents and learns to fear them when they tell the kid that no there are limits to what mummy and daddy will let the child do.
The family is a microcosm of society. The child learns how to be a member of society in the family first. [I appreciate that some of us are brought up by caregivers rather absent parents.]
Better to rule with love or fear a family. I think a parents toughness is best softened with some tenderness. As in 'I'm doing this for your own good" or "This is hurting me more than it is hurting you" when chatising a child.

do we all have to believe that Duncan was a fool because pang says so

No..literary devices shows that Shakespeare meant him to be foolish (the fact that he claims to hold loyalty very highly..then has 2 betrayers as his Thane)

Macbeth was a monster. He ruled with fear.

His rule was more of fear in a different sense..he had an enormous amount of fear for the rest of the witches prophecy (Banquo's heritage being kings) and was constantly feeling guilty over his actions towards Duncan.

Is pang's knowledge of psychology the only knowledge of psychology? Is he the fount of all wisdom on matters psychological.

No..nor do I claim to be so. But I fancy myself a pretty reliable source..saying as how I study war strategy..and war strategy is based heavily off of psychology..and as we just discussed, random-variable rewards work.

As for love and fear, let me quote Sun Tzu's Art of War on this (yes, I have it by my side) - Therefore soldiers must be treated in the first instance with humanity, but kept under control by means of iron discipline
So, treat them with humanity (love, in the instance) but remember to keep discipline (or "tough love" as some would call)

Me-I like to get paid regularly and so do the people I receive goods and services. Randomly reinforcing the refuse disposal operatives won't make them work better.

It isn't randomly paying them..paying them isn't a reward..it is compensation (Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service). You give them a random reward..like, for example, a pizza party.