‘Motivation’ Articles

« Older Entries

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

April 30th, 2012

1 Comment »

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.

Consequences, Culture "Change", Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Results

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

Science Made Simple

April 23rd, 2012

No Comments »

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.

Behavior 101, Consequences, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement

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

March 14th, 2012

No Comments »

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.

Consequences, Leadership, Motivation, Performance Pay, Positive Reinforcement

Helping and when it doesn’t

March 5th, 2012

No Comments »

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.

Behavior 101, Consequences, Incentives, Motivation, Performance, Performance Pay, Positive Reinforcement

Productive Plan for 99ers

February 28th, 2012

No Comments »

Man Circling Help Wanted AdsI happened to catch the Platform to Employment segment on 60 Minutes this week and couldn’t help but applaud!  Now this is a productive plan. This non-profit has gone well above and beyond typical outsourcing activities to develop and support a program for those who are still deeply affected by unemployment and have tried, with no success, to secure a job on their own.  Referred to as 99ers, these are the very capable unemployed whose benefits have been extended for up to 99 weeks and whose personal self-worth can be described as dismal. For most, they see their skills becoming less relevant, their once vibrant careers slipping steadily away, and their financial net worth eroded.

Platform to Employment (P2E) was developed by The WorkPlace, an incorporated group that supports, collaborates and advocates for workforce development regionally in Connecticut, as well as nationally by sharing best practices and lessons learned. With a tagline of think it forward it’s no wonder this group has innovatively found a way to get Americans feeling more productive, confident, and self-sufficient.

In effect, this program can be compared to pay for performance only its performance for employment.  Folks who participate are taken through three tiers of support: Tier One – job readiness; Tier Two – emotional readiness; Tier Three – 8 week work experience. During the first two tiers of the program, those who have struggled with unemployment and have heard ‘no’ more times than we can think are coached and trained back from the social, emotional, and technical deficiencies they felt as a result of their long term unemployment status. Most importantly, the emphasis is put on improving performance, managing change, problem solving, and effective communication.  They are essentially being taught how to be the best employee they can be, in spite of their past circumstances.

The final phase is where performance for employment comes in.  P2E secures an eight week work-for-hire, matching companies who are looking for skilled candidates. By reducing the risk of the hiring company, candidates have the opportunity to earn a position by performing their way to employment.

I applaud the companies that have stepped up to participate in getting Americans back to work, and to P2E for their innovative program. I hope to see P2E replicated all over the country in months to come.

Leadership, Motivation, Performance, training

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

How to Kick Start Your Career

January 4th, 2012

1 Comment »

Aubrey-Daniels-and-Natalie-There is no better way to start out the New Year than to be invited to CNN.  I had the pleasure of sharing some tips for kick starting your career for the New Year.  Whether you are looking for advancement or still seeking employment in this difficult business climate, I hope this CNN video offers you some ideas for making the most of your career and finding the positives in your work environment.

Watch video…

Goals, Leadership, Motivation, Performance, Promotions, Videos

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

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

« Older Entries