‘Culture “Change”’ 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.

Could Shareholders Finally Be Getting the Message?

With the economy being what it is, everybody is concerned about getting value for the dollar.  The days of shareholders rubber stamping management plans, particularly about executive compensation, are over.  Stockholders want to make sure that every dollar spent is an investment in future earnings – not a cost. The world is changing and everybody wants transparency and accountability.  See my post in Talent Management Magazine about CitiGroup shareholders.

Women (and Men) in the C-Suite

Messages about how women can rise to the top shouldn’t be delivered only to women. Men and women both need to understand and embrace the skill sets they were predisposed to, and those they learned along the way, to stand tall in the board room, equally. In this recent blog post for Talent Management, Aubrey challenges readers to learn from each other while not losing or changing the things that make each gender unique.

What Women Can Bring to the C-Suite

Don’t Fear Change

BRI022

I hope you find comfort in my latest Talent Management blog post where I explain why we shouldn’t fear change. In this post, I also debunk the myths that surround it and discuss ways you can achieve meaningful change in yourself and in others.

U73J86UXP4NZ

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.

Ethical Lessons for Every Workplace

CB100464The recent scandals at Penn State and Syracuse have ignited larger concern over whether or not organizations devote the proper attention and care to building ethical structures in their workplace.  My colleague, and ADI President and CEO, Darnell Lattal, was interviewed recently for both Training Magazine and Talent Management as she has written extensively on the topic of Ethics at work.  I encourage all to read and consider how behavioral science should be used to ensure that your organization builds an “ethical infrastructure” that defines, measures, and reinforces ethical behavior.

Good Intentions, Bad Effects

ethicsGuest post by Darnell Lattal

Throughout the past several years, ethics has made its way into business headlines, more often than not for bad rather than good. What people may be surprised to know though is that to get an organization to behave in ethical ways, it takes more than good people seeking to do good. It takes more than rules of conduct.  Ethical behavior is what is shaped day in and day out by unintended consequences that occur as work is done. To “be ethical” requires a very deliberate focus on the impact, not the intention, of actions. It is also a clear-eyed review of how behavior got going to begin with and the unethical effects on the organization.  It requires looking ahead at impact, not what has happened but what could happen and evaluating the degree of harm or good such impact could have.

There are things that each of us can do to contribute to a stronger ethical workplace. The best way to protect you and your organization is to understand how consequences increase or decrease the likely occurrence of certain kinds of behavior now and in the future. Here are a few suggestions:

  1. Talk openly. Make ethics a part of your workplace culture by talking openly and often about it.  When you provide examples and take the time to communicate its importance, individuals will have a stronger understanding of how to avoid slippery slopes.
  2. Build ethics into hiring and training. Include ethics as part of your selection interview. Examine a person’s responses to ethical dilemmas and identify specific actions to take. Ask about times when they did something wrong and how they decided what to do. Look at a candidate’s ability to balance among conflicting values and how the individual might apply his/her judgment to “messy customer situations” or with coworkers. In training, have your employees define terms such as treating others with respect and how they demonstrate that in their behavior. Present case studies that require discriminations among choices and discuss the implications. Have individuals bring real-life ethical dilemmas to the team for discussion and resolution.
  3. Focus on consequences. Attach consequences to desired behavior and measure its occurrence. Extreme behaviors lead to immediate termination, but most actions are not stuff of moral outrage. Remember that ethical discrimination is shaped, reinforced, maintained and changed by the contingencies that surround and support individual actions. Make your expectations clear and then follow up.
  4. Define criteria. Establish a set of criteria to evaluate your own actions and share those with others.
  5. Support others. Encourage, model and help others establish a method to discuss actions and increase alertness to the ethical issues in everyday decisions.
  6. Monitor and enforce ethical behavior. Assure that structure and resources exist to monitor and enforce commitment to an ethical climate. Regular coaching and feedback, training sessions to increase skills, customer and employee feedback, structures, systems and processes that allow for the orderly flow of work are all important in reinforcing ethical behavior.

Be alert to what the longer term effects of consequences are for individuals and for the culture of an organization. The ethical traps, unintended consequences, are easy to fall into and none of us are immune from the fall.


Read more…

Personal Responsibility within a Behavioral Approach

42-15501641Guest post by
Judy Agnew

We have received much positive feedback on our book Safe by Accident and we are delighted that so many people find it helpful.  There is one issue that some people are struggling with so we want to take this opportunity to clarify.  Some readers are having trouble reconciling our discussion of the influence of organizational/management systems on at-risk behavior and the concept of personal responsibility for safety.  The question is: if at-risk behavior is found to be influenced by management-controlled organizational systems, does that let the frontline performer off the hook?

To some extent this is a philosophical issue.  The notion of personal responsibility is embedded in our culture.  It is present in our judicial, political and social systems and has served us well in many respects.  In a work setting, telling employees that they are “responsible for their personal safety” at work is helpful as a broad antecedent.  It sets the expectation that each person must do what they can to protect themselves and others.  The question is what specifically are they responsible for?  Telling miners they are responsible for their own safety and then sending them into a mine that is poorly ventilated and structurally unsound is absurd.  They cannot be responsible for their own safety under those conditions because they do not control them.  We think everyone will agree with this extreme example.  The difficulty comes with less extreme examples.  Workers who are trained in procedures but don’t follow them consistently, for example.  Our position is that there is shared responsibility in most cases.  Our concern with the notion of “personal responsibility” is that it sounds like an easy solution to a very complex problem.  We are sure that some of you have told employees in your organization that they are responsible for their personal safety.  We assume since you are reading this, that hasn’t solved all your safety problems.  Antecedents rarely do.

So where does personal responsibility fit in?

Let’s back up. The goal in safety is to prevent injury and illness.  If we say that people are responsible for their own safety, then it follows that if they are not safe, they are to blame. Our point is that blaming people for things that are, at least to some extent, outside of their control does not accomplish the goal.  If it did more organizations would be perfectly safe by now.  But let us be very clear: we are not suggesting that accountability (a synonym of responsibility) is bad.  Accountability is essential in safety.  However, it is critical that organizations first determine WHO should be accountable for WHAT.  The word, accountability, is often code for whom to punish.  The issue is not who should be punished but what actions will correct the situation so that it will not recur.  Although punishment is appropriate under certain circumstances, we see too often that organizations punish only the person at the point of the accident without fully understanding the systemic issues that have contributed. This is not only unjust, but it fails to rectify the situation.

Systems are designed and maintained by people.   Therefore, there should be accountability for those who control the systems to change the systems if they are faulty.  Once the systems are changed then everyone who works in those systems should be held accountable (positively reinforced for engaging in safe behaviors and corrected when they are not).  This is not about absolving personal responsibility–quite the opposite.  It is about establishing accountability, at all levels, that will lead to true improvement.  Frontline performers need to be held accountable for those things under their control.  They should be responsible for reporting hazards, providing feedback to keep peers safe, participating in safety meetings, talking to management when systems make working safely more difficult, offering solutions, and working to improve their own safe behaviors.  Frontline performers will be more successful in “taking personal responsibility for their safety” if they work in partnership with management and those who control the organizational systems within which they work.

Schools and our Children: Administrations and the U.S. Education System get a failing grade

42-16604280School bells may be ringing across the country but I am convinced now more than ever that we are not prepared to provide the best education possible for our kids.

I was disheartened to learn of the cheating scandal that is rocking the Atlanta Public Schools. And to further hear of the reoccurring issues with the government’s No Child Left Behind program. More than half the nation’s schools are in jeopardy of failing to meet reading and math adequacy standards. More than half! Monetary implications aside, what are we doing to today’s youth? And to our nation’s future?

It is clear, as was evident in the Atlanta Public Schools fiasco, that what was well-intended when the No Child Left Behind program was initiated has set up a culture of penalty and punishment if targets are not achieved. It can be said based on past history that the federal government spends little time when it designs regulations to consider how to create student success through policy.  Little thought of how such a policy, if designed thoughtfully, can shape educational cultures of delight where students learn at high and steady rates. What we see instead are policies that often set a goal—and attach a penalty if the school does not do it.

What No Child has done is create threat and fear, in the administration, with the teachers, and even down to the students themselves.  Teachers and administrators who participated in the Atlanta scandal, it’s fair to surmise, were doing what they thought ‘best’ in the name of avoiding the loss of funding they would be awarded by meeting government-set standards.

A major overhaul needs to be undertaken in Atlanta and across the country; and we must look to the context—the requirements that are naïve at best!

Much of what is wrong with these programs can be fixed and the yield will be outstanding and effective teachers and students that reach higher levels of learning.  The solution is an understanding of behavior, not from a common sense perspective but a scientific one.

I believe the Atlanta Public School has done the right thing in firing school personnel who have been caught changing test scores.  Not that cheaters cannot be changed but in my experience, lying, cheating and stealing have always been firing offenses.  The problem in changing such behavior is that it is very difficult to put immediate consequences on the negative behavior (i.e. changing test scores) and therefore it makes the delivery of effective consequences necessary to change the bad habits difficult to manage.

Although I am sure that the problem was produced by ineffective leadership at the highest level that deliberately or accidentally created a system that tempted wrongdoing, it is better to eliminate those who folded under the pressure to produce false results.

The incident reminds me of when I was a lieutenant in the Army.  If I heard it one time, I must have heard it one hundred, “I don’t care how you get it, just get it.  And by the way I don’t want to know how you get it…”  Although I am sure this was never said by school administration, the pervasiveness of the behavior indicates that the pressure was there.

Until there is an administration where leaders understand the direct and indirect impact of their policies, procedures and management and supervisory behaviors on the behavior of teachers, the problem will not go away. When you award a bonus for increasing test scores, you can hardly claim lack of culpability in the scandal as there are people who will lie, cheat and steal to get it.  They may think they are working for the greater good—the survival of the school system, the obtaining of needed resources for the children, and of course, their own self-interest—continued employment.

When you only look at results and not behaviors, people often find “more than one way to skin a cat.”  Taking the test for the student is one. That slippery slope of how we reach incredibly wrong decisions often starts with subtle or visible threat and fear, not from the ‘bad character’ of a few.  In spite of the bonus, I am confident that most people who were caught did not do it for the bonus but because of the negative consequences around failing to produce the required progress.

I submit that all staff in the system is there for one reason – to help children learn.  By doing some reverse behavioral engineering (RBE), the criticality of those jobs can be determined fairly quickly.  By RBE, I mean start with the student and ask how a job helps the student learn.  Of course the main responsibility falls on the teacher.  Therefore most staff positions should exist to support the teacher in being effective in the class room.  In my experience, most staff positions make it more difficult rather than easier to do the job.

As far as testing goes, the teacher should be evaluated on the number of children who perform to some standard or show significant improvement – not an average for the class but the number who are successful. The teacher’s success metric is ‘number of individual students making progress above their baseline’.   Dr. Fred Keller, a pioneer researcher and teacher said, “If the student doesn’t learn, he wasn’t taught.”  Local administrators should be measured on the number of successful teachers, and so on up the line.  Rewards and punishment should not be delivered on results without factoring in how the results were obtained.  This means that teachers should be observed so that inefficient and ineffective practices can be determined and corrected when they happen.  The measure of observer (coach) effectiveness is whether teachers ask for the help.  Artists want people to see their work; athletes want people watch them play; musicians want people to listen to them play.  Why would teachers who are good at what they do not want people to see how they do what they do.  They will when they are successful.  If coaches (i.e. administration) help teachers teach more effectively, they want people to know and will welcome observers in their classrooms.  What this means is that results will never be a surprise as problems will be identified and corrected in real time. Over time most of the observations will be positive as the students will be achieving at high rates.

In 1983, Dr. B.F.Skinner wrote in “The Shame of American Education” that the data showed that the technology of teaching existed to teach twice as much in half the time.  That was almost 30 years ago.  It has been done in only a very few places.  It has been verified and documented in the toughest of schools and with a wide variety of students, some who are labeled as hyperactive, from poor homes, without qualities of persistence, without learning being a value in their home environments, all the things that have been said about why teaching is so hard. These processes have created eager learners, wanting to go to school, teachers who find joy in their impact, parents who are amazed and delighted with new found love of learning in their children and our society that benefits as these students go on to make a difference in our world. What better time than now to do it in the Atlanta City Schools and throughout the country.

Do Relationships Matter in Safety?

When it comes to safety, organizations need more than just compliance; they need people to follow the rules all the time, even when no one is watching. In this short video segment, Dr. Judy Agnew discusses why relationships are important and what it takes to build a strong safety culture. This video also explains why discretionary effort and trust are key to ensuring employees engage in safe behaviors around the clock.


Like us on Facebook