‘feedback’ Articles

« Older Entries

Has the Daily Deal Lost Touch?

April 25th, 2012

1 Comment »

Guest Post by Bart Sevin, Ph.D.

It would go against logic to think that companies wouldn’t consider the customer first, especially today. Yet, I was surprised to read in a recent Fast Company article, Do Groupon and LivingSocial Do More Harm than Good? that despite taking in close to $3 billion in 2011, these daily deal providers seem to be declining after their meteoric rise.

While the concept seems simple, spend $20 to receive $40 to use in Restaurant A for example, why is it that there has been such significant decline?  One of the reasons many deal providers are losing money is the attrition of merchants who advertise via deal providers. The idea is that businesses can expand their customer bases quickly by reaching the masses via daily deal websites and email distribution lists with discounts that get new customers in the door, even though merchants typically lose money on the initial deal offering. Merchants of course accept the initial loss with the hope that once customers come into contact with their products and services, they will become repeat customers who continue to frequent their businesses, paying full retail prices after the deal is used. In most cases, that isn’t happening.

When new customers fail to turn into repeat customers, where does the accountability lie, with the deal providers or the merchants? Since it rarely helps to assign blame and point fingers, maybe it’s more helpful to ask, what can be done differently to increase the probability that customers will return for the same or new products and services after their initial experience?

Behavioral science offers a useful conceptual framework for understanding why this problem is occurring and what to do about it. Using the ABC model, in which the B stands for behavior, it tells us that there are two things that influence behavior, namely antecedents and consequences represented by the A and the C in the model. We know antecedents come before and prompt or trigger behavior, and that consequences, both positive and negative, follow behavior and determine whether it is strengthened or weakened over time (i.e., whether it’s repeated or it stops). So when customers purchase deal coupons, the deals themselves are antecedents for customers that prompt them to go try a merchant’s products or services maybe for the first time, and the deals do this well by reducing the costs associated with patronage. The experience the customer has when they interface with merchants is the consequence that determines whether customers will repeat the behavior of buying goods and services again or whether they leave and never return. The customer experience provided by the merchants, then, is where the rubber meets the road.

In the examples provided in the article of merchants who have and have not had success with deal providers, the ones who provided the best customer experiences got the most repeat business, and in turn returned to offer more deals through the providers. The ones who provided poor (i.e., negative) customer experiences generated little to no repeat business and in turn blamed the deal providers, and didn’t advertise with them again.  It is more than likely that the problem some merchants have in getting repeat business from customers is not exclusive to customers buying daily deals. But, if the customer experience is substandard, repeat business isn’t likely to be obtained regardless of how the customers were initially connected to the merchants.

With that said, what can merchants and providers do differently to develop a better return on their investments? Merchants can begin by asking some important questions such as, What do I want (new) customers to do and say when they walk in the door with (or without) deal coupons? One objective might be to get customers to ask questions about other goods and services and state what their current needs are. If so, merchants can ask, What can we do and say to prompt and reinforce these types of behaviors from customers?

If deal providers want repeat business from merchants, they should ask questions like, What do we want merchants to do and say when they advertise a deal with us? Objectives might be for merchants to first state a goal of how many deals they want sold and then acknowledge meeting or exceeding the goals. Providers might also state goals that report back on the amount of repeat business generated through daily deal advertising. Providers can then further ask, What can we say and do to help increase the likelihood of merchants’ success in these areas? Providers might consider offering recommendations and then following up with merchants.

In my research for this post, I spoke with a representative from RapidBuyr, a B2B daily deal provider specializing in providing companies with access to higher dollar services and products. He offered data-based guidance on the types of deals merchants are likely to sell. He also asked about the types of products and services we offered, and what kind of experience potential customers were likely to have if they purchased a deal. RapidBuyr representatives make a practice of circling back with merchants to follow up on the outcomes from advertising deals. In my opinion this deal provider is doing it well.

Asking these types of questions and offering guidance on strategies likely to help merchants reach their objectives are the types of provider behaviors that are likely to help merchants generate repeat business from advertising daily deals, which in turn will help providers get repeat business from merchants. Whether deal provider companies last over the long term remains to be seen, but it seems that a shift from providers simply advertising any and all merchant deals, to providers partnering together with merchants on strategies and providing ongoing support to identify what worked and what can be improved will be critical to the long-term success of the daily deal industry.

Behavior 101, feedback, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement, Results

Are nuclear power plants too safe?

March 11th, 2012

No Comments »

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.

Behavior Based Safety, Consequences, feedback, Technology

Feedback is the Breakfast of Champions

March 6th, 2012

No Comments »

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.

Consequences, feedback, Performance, Positive Reinforcement

Positive Reinforcement Can Kill

February 21st, 2012

No Comments »

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

Consequences, feedback, Motivation, Positive Reinforcement, Technology

New Year’s Resolutions: Beware!

January 3rd, 2012

2 Comments »

MH900438914The origin of New Year’s Resolutions can be linked to pre-Christian times in Rome, thousands of years ago.  So every year about this time, I ask audiences where I speak how many made New Year’s Resolutions.  What I have noticed is that fewer and fewer have gone through the ritual.  Does that mean that fewer people are interested in carrying on this ancient tradition?  I think not.  In fact, it’s been reported that more than half of those that proclaim resolutions fail at realizing them. The reality is that most people who make resolutions don’t keep them – many don’t keep them even for a day.

The primary mistake people make in making resolutions is that they think that changing some personal behavior or habit is simply a matter of will power or “making up your mind.”  It is as if people who fail don’t grunt enough, don’t have enough resolve (how do you get more of that?), are not really serious (How can you increase your “really seriousness?).

The real mistake lies in not planning or managing consequences well.  It is easy to resolve to quit drinking, lose weight, start exercising, etc. but it is harder to plan consequences that you will actually be able to self-administer to get the behavior change you seek.  Therefore, the resolution is nothing more than a goal, and goals aren’t reached by grunting, wishing or talking; they are reached when you have consequences that support the behavior change.

Here are some practical suggestions to help you be successful should you want to carry on the New Year’s Resolution tradition.

  1. Plan consequences for behavior change. Allow yourself to do things that you like contingent on a certain accomplishment. In other words, if you resolve to do some project in your house, commit to getting it done before you sit down to watch your favorite TV program.
  2. Set very small sub-goals. The more, the better.  If weight loss is a target, set a goal of no more than one pound a week.  The trick is to set a goal that you are almost sure to reach.  Less than a pound is ok if you can reliably measure it on your scales.  Smoke one cigarette less per day; walk around the block.  No goal can be too small at the beginning.
  3. Post a graph of your progress at home or in the office where everyone can see it.  Set the parameters so that progress is easy to see.  Tell family and co-workers what you are doing.  Use social media to show results.  Put the graph on Facebook, Twitter, etc. The more people who see your progress will reinforce you for it and in return you will be more motivated to keep at it.
  4. Celebrate every success (every goal accomplishment), no matter how small.  Reward yourself.  Publicize your small accomplishments.  “I am one step closer to finishing that big report.”
  5. In addition to rewards that cost money (buying something for yourself, dinner at a fancy restaurant, a movie, some new software for your computer, an iPad, etc.) think of rewards that have a low cost or have no financial cost.  Use the “IF I do X, then I will do Y” contingency.  Or, “when I do X, then I will do Y.”  If your resolution is to clean the attic, basement or garage, simply say, “When I put something in the trash, I will watch T.V, answer my email, play a computer game or go to McDonalds for breakfast.”  You will be surprised how quickly you finish the task with this simple start as long as you maintain the contingency “When…then.”

By the way don’t do it in reverse which most people are tempted to do, that is, “I will work in the attic after I come home from McDonalds.”  I call that bribery since it reinforces the wrong behavior.  You get the reward for promising to do the behavior, not for actually doing it.  Not a good plan.

Most failures to reach personal or work goals result from poor goal setting and from failure to plan positive reinforcers for success.  If you start the New Year with small goals and a multitude of reinforcement, 2012 may be your best year yet!

Behavior 101, Consequences, feedback, Goals, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Results

Why Some Managers Fail at Getting Effective and Efficient Performance

December 7th, 2011

1 Comment »

 MH900399109To succeed in business today, everything must constantly be scrutinized. As such, leaders and managers are forced to evaluate and reevaluate performance; specifically the performance of their people and its impact on the company’s bottom line. For some, their role is rewarding and the path forward is clear. For others, they are left wondering how to get direct reports to deliver the performance needed to achieve necessary business outcomes.

Effective performance is not something that only lucky managers can achieve from their employees. It’s also not something you’re born with. For those who find themselves challenged to get desired performance from direct reports, it’s likely they have fallen victim to some common traps. Here are two traps that failing managers can fall into:  

Using ineffective management practices: In management, just because something doesn’t work doesn’t mean managers won’t continue to use it. So many practices have been institutionalized through the years that it’s no wonder managers think nothing of adopting them. Ranking is one such practice whose intention is to drive motivation to be the best but in reality it devalues the performance of all those who aren’t at the top. What managers don’t understand is that, among other things, it creates internal competition and doesn’t motivate the ones on the bottom to improve or those at the top to reach higher. Unfortunately, it often creates enmity between those ranked higher and those rated lower. The reality is that if you aren’t at the top, or close to it, this process becomes demotivating as they realize they will never be able to perform better than those above them. 

Another common, and unintentional practice, is when managers use the ‘you did a good job but’ approach when providing feedback or attempting to correct poor performance. When managers provide reinforcement for the things employees did right but then end it on a note of what more they can improve, employees forget the good and focus only on what they did wrong. If this is done often, employees hate to hear the good because they know some criticism is likely to follow. They also begin to suspect that the only reason you say something good is to set them up for bad news.

A frequent mistake in correcting behavior is to “sandwich” the problem behavior between two compliments. Managers are often taught that saying something positive before mentioning the problem makes the employee more responsive to the negative and by ending with a positive it protects the person’s ego. What it does, in fact, is to dilute the message at best and provide positive reinforcement for the problem behavior at worst. Break this bad management practice. It may make you feel better about the correcting but has a very unreliable impact on the performer.

These methods even if done with the best of intentions are demotivating and usually result in employees doing only what they are required to do.

Unintentionally rewarding negative behavior: When managers don’t understand positive reinforcement as a scientific concept many problems usually occur in an effort to build a positive culture. For example, the worst advice you could ever give or get is: Always be positive! While it sounds good and many people strive to eliminate negativism from their relationships, we know that if you are positive at the wrong time, you will get more of the wrong behavior. Behavior that you want more of needs positive reinforcement; Behavior that you don’t want, does not.

A question to ask that will help you avoid rewarding negative behavior is, “What does the person want?” If bad behavior gets him what he wants, you can count on the fact that he will do it more often. For example, I have heard people say that “All he wants to do is argue.” If that is true, then arguing with him will only increase argumentative behavior. Positive reinforcement is a powerful interpersonal tool. Use it well and it will result in healthy, productive relationships. Use it poorly and it will make you and those you work with miserable, unhappy and unproductive. 

To create a productive and happy work group, you must:

  1. Know the reinforcers of those who work with you – everyone is different
  2. Establish yourself as a positive reinforcer – pair yourself with the delivery of meaningful reinforcers
  3. Reinforce incremental improvement – the smaller, the better
  4. Don’t stop – continue as long as you want performance

Behavior 101, Consequences, feedback, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement

Performance Management Isn’t What You Think

November 25th, 2011

No Comments »

R+ logo croppedYou may not want to miss my latest Talent Management Blog where I challenge readers on their definition of Performance Management and recommend that we rename Performance Appraisals to something that more clearly encompasses its original intent. Click over to find out what I think it ought to be called.

Also, don’t miss this month’s special report on Performance Management where you can read more from me and other leaders in the strategic HR arena.

Behavior 101, feedback, Goals, Leadership, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance Appraisal

Personal Responsibility within a Behavioral Approach

October 27th, 2011

1 Comment »

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.

Behavior Based Safety, Consequences, Culture "Change", feedback, Leadership, Motivation, Performance, Positive Reinforcement

Incident Investigation: Using Science to Develop Safe Working Habits

October 20th, 2011

No Comments »

Understanding human behavior scientifically is critical in safety, particularly when it comes to investigating when something has gone wrong. In this video blog, Dr. Judy Agnew and Dr. Aubrey Daniels explain how a scientific approach can lead to a safer workplace and why consequences are the most important thing in determining whether or not someone will do something again.


Behavior Based Safety, Consequences, feedback, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement, punishment, Videos

A Dozen Ways to Weather the Economic Storm

October 16th, 2011

1 Comment »

 

CB028070Guest Blogger: Darnell Lattal

Nowadays you can’t turn on the television, pick up a newspaper, or read a magazine without seeing headlines about jobs and the turbulent economy. Inundated with negative news and experiencing the all-too-real repercussions of a financial downturn can be downright depressing and can easily impact performance at work.

Believe it or not, there is something productive we can do. Managers and employees alike can infuse the workplace with meaningful activity by focusing on behaviors that lead to positive outcomes. The following twelve tips will help any manager wade through these difficult economic times; delivering their best performance and that of those who work with them.

• Be realistically optimistic. Don’t spend time worrying about things that are beyond your control. Focus only on those things you can control and provide a sense of realistic secure messages that, while times are difficult, there is a future.

• Communicate! When hard decisions are needed, make them and communicate them cleanly and clearly to the individuals involved. If you need to lay people off, consider how you can support them during that transition, through community services that might help or via other methods. Encourage dialogue and provide straightforward answers.

• Have a contingency plan. Look to your own level as to where you can cut, reduce, and manage, including your own pay before you begin looking at other levels of the organization. If you are at the executive level, you should be the first to step up. You can definitely share this information, but don’t advertise, “Hey I’m a good guy. I’ve just taken a pay cut!”

• Invite feedback. Figuring out the honorable thing to do when you’re under the gun and your company is in high distress is difficult. Have trusted advisors who will always challenge you to think clearly and correctly and listen to your clients’ difficulties as well. For example, if they need a certain period of delayed payments and it’s reasonable for you to consider that, try working out payment terms with your customers.

• Be energetic in your own efforts to find financial resources and clients for your company. Don’t retreat and don’t become too controlled by what you read or hear in the news. Look beyond the newspapers and examine what you’re actually seeing in your organization. Many times we may find that business continues and even develops, but if we get too gun-shy, too soon, we don’t test good opportunities.

• Be willing to spend money during this time. Even while you’re reserving money, don’t retrench so much that you fail to market and reach out. Be careful not to conserve in areas that really will harm your future and growth over the long run.

• Consider a pay-for-performance system. You may not be able to give wage increases but you can consider setting up pay-for-performance based on profit sharing. By doing so, you will keep the organization whole while keeping salaries in place. Even at a time when you can’t give raises, you can reward people’s dedication, commitment, and performance by including them in any profits. By having a well-structured, pay-for-performance system, you also make people aware of what it takes to get to that profit.

• Engage all employees. Use the skills of your staff to build tools, materials, and resources that you will need going forward. Give employees a sense of purpose by enlisting them in helping to complete those projects you’ve put on hold. That may mean you need to use some creativity but that’s essential because their effort to show up is a valuable gift to you. Treat it as such.

• Be flexible. Another alternative is to offer your employees flexible time for their extra efforts. For example, when it’s possible, let them work from home and save on the high cost of gas. But do so carefully, because part of getting through these rough spots is a sense of teamwork and collaboration that happens when people are together trying to solve problems.

• Be honest and forthright about the organization’s economic reality. Always keep the information flowing. Don’t freeze up on giving employees the data they need including where you are financially, what’s coming down the pike, and what the future looks like. Have one-on-one conversations with individuals. Be honest; tell them when things are tough and are not going to get better for a while. Let them know you will do all you can to make their lives good and that you’ll remember their contributions, but only if you mean it. In the meantime, do not punish people if they need to explore employment possibilities elsewhere.

• Empower employees. Encourage your employees to look for opportunities to find business. Have meetings and ask for suggestions about what the company can do. You might get some good ideas!

• Add fun and recognition. No matter what the economic times are, we can still bring in lunches and have little celebrations of events that are happening, just to keep the mood up. The company can support get-togethers such as going to the movies or taking a break in the middle of the day to go to the park. Try to think of events that will reinforce employees. During an economic downturn, management should step back and really look at people’s contributions. Take the time to remember people in specific ways for what they have done. Make that public, enjoy it, and celebrate even in the face of tough times. Employees can do the same with peer-to-peer appreciation. Sometimes that may be difficult to do, but it’s important.

  

Downsizing, feedback, Goals, Incentives, Leadership, Motivation, Performance Pay, Positive Reinforcement, Rewards

« Older Entries