No activity in corporate life is more universally despised, by both managers and employees, than performance appraisal.
Richard Warner and I discuss the pitfalls and what to do instead.
Pitfalls of Performance Appraisal
Still Driving
My recent post DRiVE Me Crazy!, sparked a dialogue in the blogosphere and in particular, blogger Lisa (www.managementcraft.com) and I continued to trade thoughts.
Here is her last entry:
[Lisa] I believe in good, healthy, debate about things of importance like these, and I thank Aubrey Daniels for taking the time to share his thoughts on Management Craft. In his comment, he asked: “When you have a manager who for decades has never told one employee that he liked, valued or appreciated her work, how do you get him to the point of showing “admiration, gratitude, and care?”
[Lisa] This is a common problem, for sure. I would first ask, what is the root cause of the problem? On what basis is this manager deciding what to do, what to communicate, and how to manage? Often what I see is that the only training this manager has received has reinforced the wrong things (paternal practices, a focus on extrinsics, and that people are essentially machines – although it is usually phrased less directly) and that what needs to happen so that the manager can improve is a shift in his or her thinking about how to best manage people. Well intended structure with forms and check sheets will only reinforce the old and inadequate beliefs that underlie a detached management style.
Aubrey also asserts that he thinks we need to give managers pretty specific guidance. I wonder if he is suggesting that I think managers ought to be taught abstract and broad concepts and not trained on the specifics of what great management looks like. Actually, Aubrey, you and I agree that specifics are important. I think that the specifics we each recommend would be quite different, however (as related to motivation).
Also, I think that we know more about motivation – scientifically – than Daniels seems to believe.
My response
[Aubrey] In response to the question, “How do you get him (a manager who has never told one person that he liked, valued or appreciated their work) to the point of showing “admiration, gratitude, and care?” , you state, “I would first ask, what is the root cause of the problem?” My question to you is what if he told you that he never felt loved by his parents, that he studied engineering because he didn’t really like people and would rather work alone but because he was an excellent engineer he was promoted to supervise an engineering function?
What would all that information about his past do to help you get him to the point where he was sensitive to the effort and accomplishments of those who worked with him and for him? Would his history change what you would do? Frankly there are a lot of opinions about whether a cognitive or behavioral approach would solve the problem, but few who have these opinions have ever had the task of actually helping such a person make those changes.
Over the last 40 years we have worked with literally thousands of managers who had that problem and been successful in helping these people achieve what others who knew them – before and after – called a “personality transformation” and all without invading their privacy or personal history. I am not suggesting that what you would do would not be effective, but as the scientist would ask, “Which of the two was most efficient?” As a student of science, you understand parsimony. If two steps would solve the problem, why would we need three, assuming equal outcomes. Only science can reveal the answer.
On another point you say. “…what needs to happen so that the manager can improve is a shift in his or her thinking about how to best manage people.” I would not argue that point except to ask, how do you do that? How do you get people to shift their thinking? Do you tell them, persuade them, and convince them? I can tell you that these attempts are at best inefficient and there is much scientific evidence to support it. A shift in thinking seems to follow a shift in consequences – not the other way around.
You say, “Well intended structure with forms and check sheets will only reinforce the old and inadequate beliefs that underlie a detached management style.” I don’t know the research behind this statement. I do know that although forms and check sheets don’t change behavior, they can be used as a way to shape behavior from a “detached management style” to one that is involved and empowering.
You say that, “We know more about motivation – scientifically – than Daniels seems to believe.” I don’t know who “We” is but if you mean that there is more that science has learned than I know, you are correct. I spend some of every day trying to catch up with what science knows, but after 74 years I am beginning to think I never will. In the end Science doesn’t care what I believe. It is what it is. I only hope to know more of what is real.
My concern remains. Too many popular writers present ideas as though they are scientifically supported when they are not. Because it is difficult for most people to tell which are and which are not, they take action that produces unintended and often negative consequences.
How The Mighty Fall
With 1:55 left in the game and with the Minnesota Vikings leading the Dallas Cowboys 27 to 3, the Cowboys had no real chance of winning. Surprisingly to many, Viking’s quarterback Brett Favre completed a pass in the end zone to Visanthe Shiancoe for the final score. There was conversation in the announcer’s booth about “running up the score” and Terry Bradshaw, my movie double, was indignant. He said that when he was playing, he called his own plays and he would never do what Favre did. In other words, it was unsportsmanlike to score that late in the game when the game was won. Only one of his fellow sports announcers disagreed.
Is it unsportsmanlike to run up the score? Think of it this way, if a team plays in a way not to score, is it fair to the fans? If the game is won, why not just stop playing? Why doesn’t the losing team declare the game over? There is no point to further play.
Can you imagine a coach saying to his/her team before playing a clearly inferior team, “Good news, you don’t have to do your best to win today.” Most sports fans would think that absurd. What about saying in the last two minutes of a game, “Looks like we have this one in the bag, so just go through the motions till the game is over.” How patronizing is that? Do we play just good enough to win and then lay back? Is that enough? Any team or company for that matter that plays only good enough to win will ultimately lose.
Corporations should take heed. Too many companies that once dominated their industry and business sector no longer exist. I would suggest that one of the main contributors to their demise was the fact that when you are on top, there is a period of time when employees no longer have to do their best to stay on top. During that time bad habits can develop. When you are on top the acceptable margin of error is very small and taking your eye off the ball for an instant can cause major problems. Even mighty Toyota is learning that lesson with the current recall of millions of vehicles. The problem affects a very small number of cars, but it has shaken the confidence of many Toyota owners and perspective buyers. Unfortunately, many companies only realize habits have changed when it is too late because you cannot talk yourself out of a bad habit or into a new one. Mark Twain said it best, “Habit is habit and not to be flung out of the window by any man, but coaxed downstairs a step at a time.”
Years ago in the textile industry, there were companies that could actually sell off-quality goods for a higher price than first quality – a perverse situation, to say the least. In the mid-seventies demand for their products was so high, many textile companies were “sold out.” The only way that new customers could get product was to buy “second quality goods.”
In the five years between 1974 and 1980, the inflation rate was 49.33%. Because the first-quality prices were locked-in by long term contracts, some companies were actually losing money due to what the high rate of inflation had done to their costs. Price increases were possible only for off-quality goods. Unfortunately, the natural consequences favored producing poor quality, and lots of it.
The problem came when a recession hit the textile business in the early ‘80s. Over night the demand for off-quality goods was zero. Now customers were looking very carefully for the slightest defect as a reason to reject a shipment and get out of a high-priced contract. Habits that had been developed when quality was not important could not be turned around on a dime and some companies failed to adjust in time and went out of business.
The lesson for business and sports is this, play every play as though it will be the determining factor between success and failure. This is the only way that you can stay on top of your game. Just one play where a player gives a half-hearted effort weakens habits and the drive to excel on the next play. The seduction for managers and coaches alike is that the change in a habit after one play is imperceptible but the effect is cumulative over time and eventually shows itself in inattention to detail and a lackadaisical approach to the task.
There is an old saying, “Every success sows its seeds of destruction.” For teams that are good enough to win easily, each easy victory has the potential of undermining motivation. It is the best coaches who understand that fact and create positive reinforcers for players and employees to give their all on every play. The score should be of no concern to the players. The already legendary basketball coach, John Wooden, said he never told players to win– only to play their competitive best. He said that if the players played their competitive best and the team lost, that was a reflection of his behavior, not the players.
I hope no one who reads this will assume that I am saying that we live in a “dog eat dog” world in which you should attempt to win at all costs. Lack of civility is all too common in the world today and it is of great concern to me. Doing your best in sports and at work should in no way refer to aggressive, mean, unfair, illegal, unethical or immoral behavior. It simply means playing to your competitive best within the context of what society expects from its heroes.
When your mother told you to always do your best, she knew what she was talking about. Follow her advice and you will always be on the top of your game.
“DRiVE” Me Crazy!
In his new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (www.danpink.com), Dan Pink says that a new motivational operating system, what he calls Motivation 3.0, is needed for today’s business because what science has discovered is that people are “intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers.” The book jacket says, “He (Pink) demonstrates that while carrots and sticks worked successfully in the twentieth century, that’s precisely the wrong way to motivate people for today’s challenges.”
These kinds of statements drive me crazy. What does “intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers” mean? Did “carrot and stick” ever really work?
Philosophers, religious leaders, and psychologists through the ages write that we all strive for a purpose that is greater than we are. The humanity contained in such a vision is very compelling and Pink does a good job of linking his ideas to that striving. However, he mixes this very appealing concept with his ill-defined view of what is in fact a well defined, continuously researched science of motivation. In the end, this book adds more confusion than clarity to a topic that is critically important to the future of our workplaces, indeed, to our society.
According to Pink, today’s employees feel constrained and controlled by rewards and reinforcement, as though each word meant the same as the other. He states that Motivation 1.0 was adequate for the caveman and, even now, in highly repetitive jobs, but claims it is woefully inadequate in today’s workplace that depends on high rates of creativity to survive.
Is it true that people in the caveman era were not creative? I am sure that the caveman of the television ads, “So easy a caveman can do it” fame would be offended. Imagine the ‘thinking outside the box’ caveman who came upon the act of fire starting, and then repeated until finally controlling fire. Accidental and serendipitous, or novel problem solving? How did we get to where we are today if not for highly creative individuals, most of whom worked in companies that used the very “If you do this, then you get that” approach that Pink says is precisely wrong for the 21st Century?
Indeed, the workplaces of today are often more complex, requiring greater variance in problem solving, fast action, and creative effort, as well as repetitive tasks done with viligence and incredible attention to detail. Creativity is needed as is repetitive task completion. We must know what we really need more of if we are to be competitive in this modern world. The way to define what is needed (in this case, creative acts or repetitive acts) comes from an understanding of the outcomes desired, and how reinforcement supports and sustains needed patterns of behavior.
Contrary to what Pink asserts in his book, the surprising truth about what motivates us is that reinforcement always works, but not always as it is intended. The science of behavior has validated that fact in thousands of research studies over the last century. You don’t always get more of the behavior you reward, but you always get more of any behavior that is reinforced. That is true today and it was true thousands of years ago. If creative behavior is reinforced, you (the company, the person) will do more of it. Count on it. When work environments are properly arranged to produce positive reinforcers for highly productive, creative outcomes, they always do produce such outcomes.
The operating system on which behavior depends is the same today as it was in ancient times. We are still living in a Motivation 1.0 world. Motivation is the system that we must understand. There is no ‘new system of motivation’—what was real about the principles of motivation in the caveman’s era is true today.
Pink shifts from motivation, the science of learning, to talking about methods of ‘using’ motivational properties to get what is wanted. There is no Motivation 3.0 world that operates differently in this century because we need different behaviors. There is only motivation. Call it 1.0 or 3.0, if you wish. What is needed is a clear understanding of the science of behavior, and how to arrange motivational systems, clearly understood, to produce the behaviors needed in complex settings.
Pink says the “carrot and stick” approach worked well in the 20th century. It never worked well—and it is no system of motivation. It is a coercive technique of managing others that uses threat and fear to get what is wanted. It is based on a very faulty understanding of motivation as a way to accelerate and sustain human excellence.
Many great things were accomplished in the 20th century but it wasn’t because businesses used rewards well. Today, businesses still use concepts that produce inefficient and ineffective management practices. I have documented some of these in my latest book, Oops: 13 Management Practices that Waste Time and Money. Businesses did not use the science of behavior to design and manage processes, policies and management practices a thousand years ago and are still not doing it today. There are new examples every day where catastrophic failures have been produced because business and government failed to use reinforcement and rewards properly. Enron, the Wall Street bailouts and the economic stimulus did not work out as desired because of improperly designed contingencies of reinforcement.
The motivational system that Pink advances ignores the science of behavior—a science that advances by increasing its understanding of the fundamentals — the laws of behavior. Modern life has not changed the laws of behavior. Have the laws of gravity been changed by modern life? Did quantum physics change gravity? Do some objects respond to Physics 1.0 (Newtonian) and others only to Physics 3.0 (Quantum Physics)? The laws of gravity haven’t changed and the laws of human behavior have not changed either. Our understanding of both is what has changed.
Pink never adequately addresses the problem of where intrinsic motivation comes from. To say that people are “intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers” is hardly prescriptive. I can tell you from 40 years of experience, where organizations understand the science of behavior, and use positive reinforcement and rewards consistent with that science, such practices not only produce high-performing organizations but organizations where people love their work—they talk about the intrinsic value and purpose that they give to their work. It matters not whether they are doing highly repetitive work or are working to create new products and services. The laws of behavior work for all.
While I understand some of Pink’s vision of a more effective and efficient workplace, I think his solution is confusing and wrong-headed. In a future Blog, I will have more to say about what we know about ensuring creativity at work.
The “Underwear Bomber” Incident – My two cents
Almost everyone has written or talked ad nauseum about Abdul, etc. so I might as well weigh in. I am reminded of one of our customers in the carpet hauling business where they would put carpet on a truck containing what was to the managers an obvious error. They would then ship it so that it had to pass through many hands as it was moved from Dalton, GA to San Francisco, CA. I really believe that the Quality/Customer Service managers hoped that it made it all the way to California, because that way they could chew ass from coast to coast, their big positive reinforcer.
Certainly with Abdul there was plenty of positive reinforcement to go around all the talk shows and bloggers. Fire or not fire. Reorganize, or not reorganize. Change the procedures or not change them. The ideas were legion.
In my opinion, firing would accomplish nothing, except increase blame and hiding mistakes. Reorganizing would just lead to more reorganizing in the future wasting time and taxpayer dollars. Changing the procedures would be useless if you don’t understand why the current procedures are not being followed. No, to me the problem is a rare error problem and because there is little understanding of the behavioral processes that produce the rare error, these errors will continue to occur, often with disastrous consequences.
Think for a moment of the number of people on the “no-fly list.” Although the actual number on the list is secret, the guesses range from a few thousand to tens of thousands. Even if the number is 100,000 that number is a very small percentage of the number passengers flying daily.
It is estimated that there are about 2,000,000 people flying every day. When you consider that only a fraction of those on the No Fly list fly, on any given day, it is possible that a million or more people could be screened without encountering a No-flier. The behavioral problem is that looking for something that almost never occurs produces extinction of the “looking behavior.” No matter how vigilant the performer tries to be, the low number of reinforcers produced by such low rates of occurrence is almost guaranteed to produce an absence of the desirable behaviors at all levels of the process.
The sad thing is that behavior analysts know how to keep employees throughout the TSA chain vigilant and even enthusiastic about that kind of behavior. The technology requires training to the level of fluency and then following up with exposure in the real situation at frequencies high enough to maintain vigilance. I suspect that TSA screeners are not trained to fluency and that “checks” are too infrequent to create high levels of alertness.
The problem is that the actions by the President and the various agencies will appear to work because the problem occurs at such at such an infrequent rate. In other words, there might not be another incident for a couple of years if the government does nothing.
I continue to sound the same alarm. Until executives in the security system understand behavior as a science, there is not a chance that the system will attain and maintain the integrity that the public expects. Let’s just hope that we don’t continue to repeat the same solutions that don’t have a prayer of working in the long term before someone realizes that there is a behavioral solution.
Hope Springs Eternal
I have quoted the poet, Alexander Pope, a lot lately, but he wrote so many good things. He wrote, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast; …”
As I think back about all the problems in our country now and look ahead to 2010, I am reminded of that quote. Even though I have been pegged as the eternal optimist by many, some things get me down. When I see so many problems in the world and know that we have the knowledge and technology to solve them and still see business writers, leaders and politicians who in attempt to make the world a better place, make it worse because they don’t know the science of human behavior, it can depress one. However, as I look to the horizon, I am reminded of David Palmer’s words that I quoted in OOPS:
“Science is like a river, flowing inexorably downstream, freshened and swollen by rivulets of data. Our attempts to dam or divert it are too puny to prevail for long against the gathering weight; sooner or later all obstacles are swept away, and the river resumes its natural course. We can force Galileo to recant, but we cannot force the earth to stand still, eventually the astronomer is vindicated.”
We can accelerate or slow change, but we cannot stop it. The laws of nature prevail.
Skinner wrote in The Shame of American Education that, “A culture that is not willing to accept scientific advances made in the understanding of human behavior will eventually be replaced by one that is.”
I am optimistic because I have seen an increasing number of people this year who understand how the science of behavior (behavior analysis), can lead to a more productive, happy and peaceful world and I know that number will increase in 2010.
While I am optimistic, I am impatient because it can’t happen too soon.
Resources:
OOPS! 13 Management Practices that Waste Time & Money (and what to do instead).
The Folly of Early Commitment in Washington
As one who studies behavior for a living, I couldn’t help analyzing last week’s “horse-trading” in the Senate around the health care reform bill. Do the leaders in Congress ever concern themselves with long-term consequences of their actions or is it that they just don’t understand the laws of behavior? I think it is the latter because they think they are considering the long-term consequences, especially Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska who bargained his vote for a permanent dispensation for the Medicaid program in his state. So let’s consider the laws of behavior as they relate to recent behavior in Washington.
The behavior is, “I am not going to vote for this bill as it currently stands.” The consequence is millions of dollars for his/her state. The laws of behavior predict more of that behavior in the future. Will it be harder or easier to pass future legislation because of such inappropriate rewards? You can bet that it will be harder. Of the several Senators who were reluctant to vote for the bill, as far as I have been able to determine, all of them were paid to vote for it in the end. Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana reportedly received $300 million in Medicaid subsidies for her state in what has been called by some, “the New Louisiana purchase.” Senator Nelson reportedly received a permanent exemption for Nebraska from increases in Medicaid funding. Interestingly, this was given to the state because Nelson was holding the Democrats hostage over the abortion language in the bill. Personally, I don’t get it. He was so concerned about the abortion issue that he capitulated when given Medicaid money. Nelson’s response, “I didn’t ask for a special favor here, I didn’t ask for a carve out” I guess because he didn’t ask for it, it makes it ok. It seems like I remember many bribery cases where the same defense was mounted.
Putting issues of bribery, etc. aside, what is the impact of these decisions on the legislative process? For one thing, it makes the other Senators look weak since they didn’t work as hard for the citizens of their states. The other thing is that it shows them the advantages of holding out. Don’t be surprised if more hold out in the future. If “holding out” is rewarded, you can bet there will be more of it.
Another defense that has been put forth by the leaders in Congress is that “this is the way the legislative process works.” I have news for them. That may be the way that it worked in the past when the “horse-trading” was done in smoked-filled back rooms in secret but with the new media, that can no longer be done. Legislative actions are subject to different consequences now. In the past Nelson’s behavior may not have come to light for months, if ever. Now it is known almost immediately and he is already receiving considerable backlash, even within his state.
The other issue for Nelson is that if he thinks his decision has made him more popular in his state, I think he is in for a surprise. I suspect that most Nebraskans don’t really care much about Medicaid because they don’t expect to be personally affected by it. Most Nebraskans do care about the character and decisions of their Senator. If he will sell out on one issue, what will it take for him to sell his vote on others?
Behavior is lawful. We know that behavior that is positively reinforced will occur more often. Stay tuned to see what behavior is being positively reinforced. I am confident that Congressional leaders don’t know. However, they won’t be able to keep it a secret because the increases in their behavior will give it away.
The reason some athletes think they are above the law is because they are!
My opinion of Falcon’s head coach, Mike Smith, dropped several notches week before last because of his action in the Babineaux case. For those who don’t follow the Falcons NFL football team, Babineaux is a star defensive player for the Falcons. He was arrested earlier in the week for felony possession of marijuana, an expired license tag, no valid driver’s license, really dark tinted windows, and a burned out tag light. As one blogger wrote, “why not just wave a big banner saying, “STOP ME, I HAVE DRUGS!!” Jeez….some of these guys are just absolutely clueless.” More…
Top Ten Reasons why you should NOT give your boss a holiday gift (Christmas, or otherwise)
I wrote a blog several weeks ago in which I mentioned that it might be a bad idea to give the boss a gift on boss’ day. I have been amazed at the comments and interviews that I have received since. The response has been more than anything I have written lately. So I decided that in light of the approaching holidays, I might write a “Top Ten List,” a la David Letterman.
Here are my top ten reasons “why you should NOT give your boss a holiday gift”:
10. If you do it because others do it, you are doing it for the wrong reason and you will probably resent it
9. If the boss expects it, s/he is a bad boss to begin with and a gift may act as a positive reinforcer for bad boss behavior
8. If a gift affects the boss’ behavior toward you, it is not a healthy work situation for you or the boss
7. It puts pressure on the boss to reciprocate and it is not a good idea to put pressure on the boss
6. It gets expensive for the boss if there are a number of direct or indirect reports who need reciprocating
5. It is the economy, stupid
4. It may cause the boss to question your motive
3. It is a good time to break this bad habit
2. A card with a hand written note is probably more meaningful – and it is a better, more appropriate habit
1. The boss doesn’t need it – give it to someone who does
In addition to writing your boss a note, here are some more suggestions of how to recognize and positively reinforce your boss in a meaningful way all year round.
“Up In The Air”
With all the buzz surrounding the new movie “Up in the Air” I’ve put it on my must see movie list for the Holidays. I’m particularly interested because in today’s business environment, these situations are more real than fiction. From what I’ve read about the storyline, George Clooney plays a corporate downsizing expert who travels from city to city laying off employees for bosses that were too cowardly to do it themselves. With the film spotlighting a practice that many managers will eventually have to face, I am particularly interested to see what can be learned or shared from this. Tune in after the Holidays with my take on this form of corporate downsizing.
Additional Resources on Downsizing: