‘Consequences’ Articles

Schools Can Learn a Better Way: Reverse Engineering the School Day

I am passionate about many things, not the least is what we could do in America’s classrooms. The thought occurred to me recently:  How long does it have to fail before someone realizes that the time for tweaking the current education system it over? By the government’s own figures, in 2007 only 29% of eighth graders were proficient in reading and 32% in math. Surprisingly over 90% of the teachers in high poverty schools were rated as “Highly Qualified.” So it must not be the teachers. To paraphrase Edwards Deming, the quality guru: If you put a good teacher in a bad system, the system will win every time. It is time to admit that the system is broken and time to start over.

Fundamental changes need to be made in the way we teach.  It is not about parents, the government or society as a whole. It is about fundamentally changing how children are taught.

That said, a news item about doing homework in class caught my attention this week. Salman Khan[i], who founded Kahn Academy in Mountain View, Ca. has flipped homework and class work by putting the lectures on the internet, as homework, and then doing what used to be homework in the classroom. As Mr. Kahn points out, he is not the first to advocate this. Individualized instruction has been around for decades but has been used only in small private schools or with students with disabilities because it has been very expensive. However, with the internet and the ability to record video, using at a minimum a cell phone, a practical way to have the time to individualize instruction is now available to every teacher willing to put in the time.

If the U.S. public schools adopted Kahn’s method, academic achievement would soar. It is well-known that lecture is an inefficient method of knowledge transfer.   Homework, unsupervised, has its problems as well in that it is difficult to tell how much of it was done by the parent, friend or sibling. Additionally, it is not the teacher’s favorite task. In spite of these problems, homework is still considerably more efficient than the lecture.  What Mr. Kahn has done is to minimize the drawbacks of each technique by reversing them for time and place. Students can watch the video at home, which most are more likely to do than read, and practice in the class room with expert individualized assistance.

Something that he could add that would increase learning even more is a behavioral technique called fluency. Fluency is defined as “automatic non-hesitant responding”—that means that the student knows the material so well that he doesn’t have to think about it. When asked, “What is 12 X 12?” the average adult doesn’t have to think about it but responds instantaneously, 144! Other benefits of fluency are that it produces rather permanent learning.  How long do you think you will know 12X12? When one is fluent, it increases endurance as responding requires less effort. It also increases creativity and resistance to distraction when problem solving. Developing fluency requires high rates of responding – many times more opportunities to practice than is available in the typical classroom.

Founded in 1980, Morningside Academy in Seattle has incorporated fluency into their methods of teaching and produced outstanding results. The results are so consistent that the school gives parents a money-back guarantee. In over 30 years less than one percent of parents have asked for their money back. In an 11 year study of academic achievement, Morningside students achieved a 2.5 years growth in reading, almost four years in language arts, and more than three years in math per school year. Two things that are noteworthy considering what the Kahn Academy has done are that Morningside students have no homework and take a report card home every day. Forty minutes of the classroom hour is spent in practice.

In an article titled, “The Shame of American Education,[ii]” written in 1984, B.F. Skinner stated “…one could teach what is now taught in American schools in half the time with half the effort.” To paraphrase Skinner further, the shame of American education was not that we knew then how to double the rates of learning in American schools in 1984 but that we had known how for over 20 years! That is still true 29 years later.

However, hope springs eternal. Just maybe with the impressive results produced at schools like the Kahn and Morningside academies, it might soon change. We must not go another 50 years before we utilize nationwide what has been known for so long about how to teach more effectively and efficiently. Effective methods are available supported by research that has been replicated many, many times. There are experts out there that we as a country continue to ignore. Not surprising most of them are not in traditional educational systems. Private schools are paving the way. Educators need to follow quickly as we have no time to waste!



[i] Look for him on TED.

[ii] Skinner, B.F., 1984, The Shame of American Education, The American Psychologist, 39 (September, 1984). Copyright by the American Psychological Association.

Science Made Simple

Watch this! It is a fun video but she is dead on. She presents scientific facts about reinforcement in a clever and very understandable way.  It is worth the time.

Use your Mega-Millions Jackpot to Fix the NCAA?

ADI guest blogger
Tom Spencer took his thoughts to Talent Management today where he plotted to fix NCAA officiating with his expected Mega Millions winnings. Quickly discovering that his plot would reward the wrong behavior, he offers tips to avoid the same misfortune in your organization.


Don’t Ruin My Basketball with your Mega Millions Jackpot

OSHA Memo Warning about Improper Use of Safety Incentives and Discipline

Guest post by Cloyd Hyten, Ph.D.

Managing consequences such as incentives and punishment are thorny issues in safety. ADI has long held that monetary bonuses based on injury counts/rates are problematic for a number of reasons including the likelihood of generating underreporting and coverups. We have also held that overusing punishment for injuries has the same effect. Safety is an area that requires a thorough understanding of how consequences such as incentives and discipline affect the behavior of employees and employers. It is rarely as simple as it seems.

In a March 12, 2012 memorandum from OSHA Deputy Assistant Secretary Richard Fairfax, Regional Administrators and Whistleblower Program Managers were warned to be on the lookout for several employer practices that may discourage reports of injuries, violating several OSHA regulations. Regarding punishment practices specifically, OSHA is concerned that practices such as disciplining employees for getting injured regardless of the circumstances surrounding the injury, or for failing to report that injury in the time or manner prescribed by the employer, or for violating a rule in the course of getting injured if this is merely a pretext for discipline, will all discourage reporting of injuries. Similarly, if an employer has a safety incentive program in place that has such strong incentives that a reasonable worker might be dissuaded from reporting injuries for fear of losing that incentive for him-/herself or for a group of people, such practices would be considered “unlawful discrimination” against a worker’s right to report injuries and invite further scrutiny from OSHA investigators.

Companies must be careful how they design consequence systems around safety. On the surface, a bonus for no injuries sounds like a good idea, but trying to reward outcomes like this leaves the chain of behaviors unspecified. True, one way to get fewer injuries is by being safer in all your actions, but an easier way is to simply do things as usual and suppress reports of injuries. Another way is through luck. Neither of these latter 2 strategies help create a safer workplace.

Similarly, when companies rely on punishment to do too much of the “heavy lifting” in managing safety, underreporting and coverups are common, and a safety culture where safety issues are openly and honestly discussed is out of reach. A successful safety program requires a sophisticated understanding of behavior and consequences.


See also Why Incentives and Safety Don’t Mix and Safe By Accident.

You don’t have to show them the money because it is not about the money!

42-16674140A colleague, Tyler, asked me the other day during a discussion about the pay for performance bounty escapade, “What is $1000 to a millionaire?”  That is like saying to your buddy at the bar, “Betcha a dollar.” The supposed $10,000 bounty on Bret Favre would have been like the average person winning $100 bucks.  What makes even less sense is that, under revised hitting guidelines, most plays that “knock players out of games” constitute an “illegal” hit which usually results in a $25,000+ fine-chump change to a multimillionaire.   No, it wasn’t about the money.  Too bad former Saints Defensive Coach Williams didn’t understand that.  He could have saved some money.  If it wasn’t about the money, what was it?  The players had to know that Williams’ pay-for-performance scheme was against the rules, so why risk the negative consequences of getting caught breaking the rules if it wasn’t about the money?

It was about positive reinforcement and lots of it.

One thing that the “pay for performance bounty” did was to focus reinforcement on activities that would likely hurt a player to the extent that he would have to leave the game.  To understand the sources of reinforcement, all you had to do was watch the reaction of the player as he raised his hands triumphantly after the hit.  Watch the other players as they jumped on him giving him approving hand gestures.  Listen to the team fans as they cheered loudly and approvingly.  Watch as the player returned to the sidelines as the other players on the bench greeted and congratulated him.  Watch Williams as the player came off the field.  Oh I am sure that none of the players refused the money but I suggest it was more like a trophy than cash that they would spend after practice.  It would not surprise me if some of the players had the money framed and hung on the wall at home.

I am glad to see that the league is taking this seriously as it is still in the news and being investigated several weeks after the scandal was reported.  I am still worried that those who were not directly involved, like Head Coach Sean Payton and the Saints GM, receive consequences that will cause them to stop this kind of behavior.  I doubt that they will.  In my opinion they have had serious lapses of judgment in their decision-making.  Unethical behavior is difficult to change and a monetary penalty or suspension from the sidelines for a few games will have little effect.  Barring the team from the playoffs might get their attention but I think that will still have minimal effect on their judgment of what behavior constitutes fair play when they get out of “the penalty box.”  Speaking of which, why not eject a player from the game when he has the second illegal hit in a game or when he has more than three or four in a season.

Football is fun and exciting because the league is a stickler for abiding by the rules.  What constitutes where the ball is placed, when the knee is on the ground, whether both feet were in bounds and the ball under control are all determined as precisely as the replay and camera angles can detect.  What constitutes fair competition and the penalties that will stop it should be taken just as seriously.  Can it really be fun to win an athletic competition by cheating?

Full disclosure and transparency requires me to say that as a die-hard Atlanta Falcons fan, “I knew they cheated.”


For more on this topic, read my latest Talent Management blog: Bounty scandal gives pay-for-performance a bad name.

Are nuclear power plants too safe?

tsunamiEven though the anniversary of the Japan tsunami is less than a year old, the U.S. is licensing new nuclear power plants for the first time since 1978.  While it would be understandable to react with caution to the Fukushima disaster by temporarily closing plants and suspending or cancelling new or existing plants, the U.S. is moving ahead.  And why shouldn’t they?  Nuclear power generation in the U.S. is very safe. In fact it may be too safe!

Although there are a lot of articles warning of the dangers of death and disease caused by nuclear power, most are based on estimates and speculation that are largely unconfirmed. What we do know is that fossil fuel power plants are a much more dangerous place to work than nuclear plants. In the last 15 years there have been no deaths at nuclear plants but over 400 at fossil fuel power plants.

The danger I see for the nuclear power industry comes from overconfidence resulting from the high reliability of processes and equipment in the industry.  Therefore, the real danger may be more from human performance than nuclear radiation. I say that because a lot of what employees do at nuclear power plants is to monitor, inspect and repair equipment.

What happens when you monitor something that, because of high reliability, never changes?  The non-scientific description of the result is “complacency.”  The scientific term for complacency is extinction.  It refers to the fact that previously reinforced behavior will eventually stop when it does not produce a reinforcer. Although it is invisible in that nothing is happening, the process does produce tell-tale signs that it is occurring.  Inattention is the one that is most pervasive and dangerous.  Under extinction there is a slowing response to changes, failure to see small changes, insensitivity to them and uncharacteristic emotional reactions to the behaviors of peers and management. All businesses face a similar problem when many jobs involve monitoring reliable processes.

The well-publicized examples of sleeping on the job that occurred in the air control towers last year are examples of what happens when there is no reinforcement for looking at the monitors. When data on monitors rarely change or where no response is required when processes are in control, it is unlikely that employees will be vigilant. The solution that the Transportation Secretary implemented in the control towers (adding another controller) will not fix the problem. The problem is not in the people.  It is in rate of reinforcement built into the job. In most cases it is woefully inadequate. Correcting such problems requires a more in-depth understanding of reinforcement than a pat-on-the-back, an atta-boy or a warm fuzzy.

While the nuclear industry pays great attention to processes and behavior surrounding them, the extinction problem may need to be identified and changes made to prevent it. Otherwise, it could be lulled into complacency by being “too safe.”


Read the latest on safety regulations put in place by the NRC in this New York Times article.

Feedback is the Breakfast of Champions

Guest post by Russell Justice (aka Mr. Whiskers)

timerMy mentor and friend Aubrey Daniels first introduced me to this principle years ago. Since then, it continues to prove itself true in my life and work. From feedback to children on thumb sucking, stops on the soccer field, or doing the daily chore list; to feedback on classroom performance to students and blocking efficiency for football players; to progress on house construction, selling $ million medical equipment or response time to customer requests, feedback is indeed the Breakfast of Champions. Those pursuing and achieving excellence thrive on feedback. Not just feedback on results—not at all—feedback on progress, even tiny steps of progress.  In fact, the smaller the increment used to measure progress (and reinforce it), the faster the performance will increase (shaping).

This week a milestone event reminded me again of the value of feedback.  I turned the 6000th mile on my blue Trek bicycle. The milestone made me thankful for the Cateye “computer” that keeps track of my miles, minutes, trips and speed.

At times when I am on some other bicycle, like at the beach or when riding with a friend, and that bicycle does not have an odometer,  my enthusiasm for riding and my energy diminish.  There is something powerful about having the dial in front of me, showing me my speed and each hundredth of a mile—and giving me credit for it. I can’t count the times that feedback has pushed me on to finish my goal of 20 miles when I wanted to quit at mile 17 or 18.  There is nothing imaginary about this—the fact is, the emotional and physical energy is not there without the feedback. Feedback is indeed the Breakfast of Champions.

Given that feedback is the Breakfast of Champions—do you have something in your life (exercise routine), in your family (staying in budget), in your work (reducing waste), in your Sunday school class (new members), or with your baseball team (reducing errors) that you would like to see improve?  Then, finding a way to measure and provide specific and timely feedback is the starting point.  Without it, your improvement efforts are mere talk.

Helping and when it doesn’t

moneyThere is much being said by politicians these days about helping the poor.  The problem is that everything done by Congress for the past 40 years has not helped.  Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and other programs by church, charity and the government have done little to help people escape from poverty.  Poverty levels, as defined by the U.S. Government, have remained between 14 and 15% since 1970. After the trillions of tax dollars that have been spent over that time period taxpayers and the poor deserve better.  If the goal of this expenditure is to lift people out of poverty, it doesn’t.  Something is terribly wrong.

We have the same problem with foreign aid.  How many friends have we made with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in the last decade — Afghanistan?  Iraq? Pakistan? Egypt?   The desire to help the poor in the U.S. and in the developing countries of the world is commendable.  The intent is correct; the impact is minimal.

This week when the U.S. Government was considering withholding aid to Egypt in the light of the Americans, who were imprisoned there, I couldn’t help but think of the movie from the 50’s starring Peter Sellers titled, The Mouse that roared.  The plot involved the leaders of The Duchy of Grand Fenwick who decided that the only way the country could get out of its economic woes was to declare war on the United States, lose and accept the traditional foreign aid.

The problem in both these situations is that the contingencies of reinforcement are wrong.  People in charge of dispensing billions of dollars seem unaware of what behaviors they are reinforcing when they give out the money.  The way it appears to be done is akin to a situation that is mishandled by many parents every day.  They say to a crying or whining child, “If you will stop crying, I will get it for you.”  While on the face of it, it seems right.  The problem is that the next time they want something they will cry because in order to stop crying, you must first start crying.  The behavior chain that is strengthened by this tactic is: start crying; stop crying; get something you want.

Reinforcement strengthens the behavior required to get it.  Some people are helped when you give them money. Academic scholarships are typically effective because the classes of behaviors that are usually rewarded are industriousness and academic achievement.  The hard-working poor often need help, and the help, money or otherwise, is usually productive.  By productive I mean that the person uses the money or other resources wisely and is more independent as a result.  However, giving street beggars money increases begging.  It almost never does anything to help the person become independent.  Actually it does the opposite.  It makes them dependent on the largess of the passersby.

Since money is such a powerful motivator it must be used carefully.  It can be used to create good or evil, productivity or idleness, efficiency or wastefulness, competition or cooperation.  Whether the former or the latter, it is determined by the contingency of reinforcement, that is, what one actually has to do to get the reinforcement.  If all candidates for public office have to do to get people to vote for them is to make a promise, then what s/he will be good at in office is making promises, not necessarily good at delivering what was promised.  If you give people who are not industrious money for promising they will spend it wisely, don’t be surprised when they waste the money and come back with a promise not to do it next time.  If a beggar wins the lottery, it is unlikely that he will be prosperous years later.  As Tug McGraw, famous, or infamous, pitcher of the New York Mets once said about how he would spend his plush salary, “Ninety percent I’ll spend on good times, women and Irish whiskey.  The other ten percent I’ll probably waste.”

I have often said that if you give someone something for nothing, you will make him/her “good for nothing.”  There is a body of research that shows that non-contingent reinforcement decreases motivation and may degrade performance.  Whether at home, in the workplace or even in social relationships, consider the behavior that is being reinforced.   For example, a chore-based allowance is better for children than a weekly allowance since completing chores is required to get the reinforcement.  The weekly allowance becomes an entitlement since being a member of the family is the reinforcement contingency that entitles the child to the money.  Even though the chore-based allowance produces competence and confidence, the weekly one is more preferred by parents because it is easier for them to administer than a chore-based one, where follow-up is necessary.  Think earn.

The science of behavior has demonstrated how to use money to help people be more independent and self-reliable at home, at work, in the community and how to create friends of America abroad.  The secret is in knowing the science of behavior.

Positive Reinforcement Can Kill

Guest post by Tom Spencer

MP910221033The news media recently reported the death of a man in a gaming café. He had been playing League of Legends for 23 hours. Police suspected that “a combination of tiredness, lack of movement and the cold weather could have caused blood clots and a heart attack.” He literally gamed himself to death.

A high frequency of positive reinforcement and rewards is a critical feature of video game design. Player skill and advancement is shaped through progressively more challenging levels and a schedule of reinforcement so dense that it often can be measured in reinforcers-per-second. Not only was this man so absorbed by his gaming experience that it turned into a 23-hour gaming marathon and ultimately his death, but others were so absorbed that nearly 9 hours passed before anyone noticed he had died. The café was full of gamers earning points and leveling up.

Herrnstein’s matching law [1] helps explain this kind of persistence during intense gaming sessions: the rate of behavior in a situation is proportionate to the rate of reinforcement available for that behavior. The availability and density of reinforcement from his gaming were so great that other behaviors were shut out. The gamer who died couldn’t pull himself away from his game, and the other gamers were so focused on their games that they didn’t notice the corpse in the room.  Aubrey summed it up in his book, Other People’s Habits when he said, “behavior goes where reinforcement flows.”

This unfortunate story provides some reminders about positive reinforcement:

  • Positive reinforcement is neither good nor bad – Positive reinforcement strengthens the behavior that it follows. It makes the behavior more likely to occur again regardless of what the behavior is. Positive reinforcement affects unhealthy, unproductive, unsafe, and unethical behaviors just as effectively as it does healthy, productive, safe, and ethical behaviors. Whether or not positive reinforcement produces a desirable result depends on whether or not the behavior being reinforced is something that you want or don’t want. Effective behavior change strategies often require eliminating positive reinforcement for what you don’t want and adding positive reinforcement for what you do want. This application of the matching law gets reinforcement flowing to the right behavior.
  • You get more of what’s being reinforced – Regardless of your intentions and what you ask for from others, the behaviors getting the most relative reinforcement will be the most likely to occur. Virtually all work environments have uncontrolled sources of consequences that pull behavior in different directions, sometimes encouraging what you don’t want and discouraging what you do want. Two primary sources of this reinforcement are natural consequences (e.g., work gets done faster or easier) and what peers and managers say and do in response to behavior. If you’re getting too much of the wrong behavior despite clear expectations and demonstrated capability, look to the consequences to find the source of the problem.
  • Positive reinforcement can suppress other desired behaviors – When positive reinforcement is much more readily available for one behavior or task than for others, you might get much more of that behavior than you want. This can start in well intended ways such as reinforcing behavior that leads to high productivity. However, if all of the reinforcement is directed toward increasing productivity, safe behavior and behavior aimed at ensuring quality may take a back seat. In extreme cases, addictive behavior can develop when the reinforcement availability and density for that behavior is so high that it suppresses other desired behavior. When reinforcing behavior, be mindful of the range of behavior you’re looking for so that your reinforcement of one behavior does not become detrimental to other desired behaviors.

[1]see Performance Management: Changing Behavior that Drives Organizational Effectiveness

Why Wall Street won’t ever change their spending ways

business man with piggy bank on head and hands onI’m going to get right to the point.  I have little faith that Wall Street will ever get smarter about how they spend their money. The reality is they have too much of other people’s money and deal in such large amounts day to day that they will never take seriously the efficiency and effectiveness of their own management systems.  They have seen good times and bad.  While they are talking about making dramatic changes now, history has proven that they will only be temporary.  Even though they are in a position now where their financial belts will have to be tightened, it will be only for a short time because when the economy improves they will return to their spendthrift ways.  Why?  Because they don’t know any better and since they are in the business of selling money have come to believe that money will solve their problems only if it is given in large amounts.  It is an environment where $100,000 is considered “chump change.”

What prompted this blog was an article in Bloomberg News titled, “Wall Street Mulls Partial Pay Freeze” by Jeffery McCracken and Christine Harper.  They talk about the fact that revenues in the investment-banking business have been so bad that they might have to resort to eliminating the practice of boosting pay automatically each year.  They quote Joseph Sorrentino of Steven Hall & Partners, an executive-compensation consultancy who said, “Pay increases have been traditionally automatic because there are traditionally very long hours in terms of the amount of work and this is another way to try to boost their morale and signify that they’re a strong part of the firm and that they’re appreciated.”  This quote cracks me up because it shows the almost total lack of understanding of the laws of behavior.

I can assure you that Mr. Sorrentino has no data showing that the way these investment banking firms structure bonuses improves junior bankers’ performance, retention or morale.  It is naïve to think that you can treat people poorly day to day, give them money at the end of the year and think that will create the feeling that “they’re a strong part of the firm and that they’re appreciated.”

The reason these firms can get away with wasting millions of compensation dollars is because practically every company in the industry is using the same poor uninformed compensation practices.  Therefore, no firm has an advantage or disadvantage.  The customer pays the freight.

If these firms ever get to a point where they must operate in a more sound way financially, I can suggest several things.

  1. Every problem cannot be solved with money, even on Wall Street.  What causes people to quit and go to another company is more about the way they are managed than the money they make.  If employees are treated poorly, they will leave for a dollar more.  If they are treated well, it will take a lot more to hire them away.  Make no mistake, loyalty cannot be bought.  Big bonuses have often helped a disaffected employee start a competitive company or retire early.

  2. Bonuses that are not earned, more often than not, do not strengthen productive behavior because that is not the contingency involved in receiving the bonus.  While upper management believes that annual bonuses increase loyalty and performance, they do neither because they don’t have to be loyal or productive to receive one.  They have to do just enough to stay on the payroll.  Of course management doesn’t believe this because if they did, they would make immediate changes where nothing would be automatic that was not individually earned.  A system where employees knew the personal accomplishments they had to achieve to earn the money would be far superior and less costly.

  3. Forget what rival firms do.  Focus on promoting to management only those who have good social skills and an understanding of the science of behavior.  Pinpoint the behaviors and results that are valuable and generously reinforce those behaviors and reward those who produce the results.  That way, the only thing that executives will have to “mull over” will be how to spend the money that is left over.