‘Positive Reinforcement’ Articles

Little Evidence of Talent in the Winter Olympics: Business should take a lesson

wb051353I watched a lot of the Olympics over the past two weeks and the skill levels were amazing.  There were not just a few skilled performers, there were many.  Often the difference between Gold Medal Performance and Bronze was a second or less.  I said skilled rather than talented because in post event interviews when asked how they medaled, I never once heard an athlete say, “I guess it was just God-given talent.”  They all said the reason they won was because they had trained very hard for the last four or more years.

I think the problem is that they made their performance look incredibly easy, almost as if they were born doing it.  When people see someone execute a complex task easily, they want to attribute it to “talent.”  When people say someone is talented, they usually don’t realize that it devalues the accomplishment.  If God did it, what role did the individual play?  It diminishes the sacrifices the athlete made to pursue his or her dream.  They could have been relaxing, partying or hanging-out with friends.  It devalues the discipline required to practice in uncomfortable and occasionally miserable weather conditions, not to mention a schedule that requires rising to practice before school or work and again later that day before bed.

I define “talent” as unrecognized practice.  There was no one who won who did not practice, and most often practice more than the ones that didn’t win.  You can’t see the practice when they perform.  Maybe they should post the number of hours practiced on the TV screen to put their performance in a perspective that would allow viewers to better value the accomplishment.

While it is not worth the ink to argue the fact that we all come into this world with different behavioral predispositions (if you want to see it, go to a hospital nursery and watch the newborn), but the evidence shows that it is more about good coaching and practice than it is what you start with.

Business should take a lesson. 

From Enron to AIG, we’ve seen that an organization’s success is not assured by having smart and talented people.

I think business should stop focusing solely on talent and begin to look instead at evidence that the perspective employee has a history of discipline and hard work.  Talent management people should admit that they are selecting people for increased coaching and practice, not because they have some God-given ability.  I believe that we should always select the best candidate for the job, however, the problem is in how we determine “best candidate.”  If it is determined by intelligence, we are looking at the wrong thing.  Look for accomplishments that reflect behavior patterns that have value for the corporation.

This is an important lesson for all managers as their actions or lack there of impacts whether or not an employee reaches his or her highest potential.  Managers don’t teach someone to the limit of the employee’s ability, but rather to the limit of the managers’ ability.  Managers should focus on the following:

  1. Aggressively train and promote people: As a manager, it is your job to retain and develop people. A part of any reward system for managers and supervisors should be the number of employees they keep and promote within the organization.
  2. Spend the time and money to train people to fluency: One of the most costly mistakes companies make is to put people in jobs before they are fluent in the critical aspects of the job.  The amount of repetition required for fluency is far more than the average trainer understands, but the extra time pays off in happier customers and more confident and competent employees.
  3. Have a way of positively reinforcing and rewarding employees who put in extra time and effort: This requires observing behavior to make sure that htose people who put in the extra effort are not overlooked or ignored.  It has been proven that people who are rewarded for extra effort not only work harder on assigned tasks but also work harder on other tasks as well.

The business that understands that outstanding accomplishments come from good coaching and lots of practice rather than native talent and intelligence, open up an unlimited pool of potentially outstanding performers.

If you missed Undercover Boss, watch the re-run

After an intense Super Bowl game does not seem like a prime spot in the TV schedule to premiere a new show, but according to ratings, Undercover Boss proved to be one of the most watched post-Superbowl shows, and I can understand why. I thought it was a very good show, with a very important message.  If you did miss it, I highly recommend watching the rerun, particularly if you are a manager or executive in your company.  The show had humor, touching emotions, empathy, sympathy and revelations about work that I am satisfied executives can get from no other experience.

Photo Credit: CBS

The pilot episode was about the President of Waste Management, Larry O’Donnell, who went undercover and posed as an entry level employee for several different jobs in the company.   Although the presence of cameras weren’t well explained (it might have been the hour or the post-game let-down (I was pulling for the Colts) it didn’t seem to affect the employees as they seemed to cut the boss no slack.  He was even terminated by one supervisor because of poor performance.  He sorted cardboard from paper, cleaned portable toilets, did administrative tasks and collected residential garbage.  I won’t spoil the show by relating the details, but to say that I was personally touched by Larry and am sure that the experience changed him forever.

Let me list some lessons that I took away from the first episode:

1.       Every job is a skilled job.  The skills may not require a lot of formal education, but they are skills nevertheless.  Picking up paper on a windy hillside seems like a snap, until you have to do it.  You will probably learn quickly, as Larry did, that it requires more physical conditioning, coordination and persistence than you may possess initially.

2.       Every company has incredible people who give discretionary effort in repetitive, low-paying jobs.  What makes a job meaningful is determined by the consequences you experience daily, not the pay and benefits or the behaviors involved.

3.       People in “dirty jobs” often do them cheerfully and with pride.  Who would think that cleaning portable toilets every day could be done with a whistle, a smile and a lift in your step? For some employees, it’s all in what you make of it.

4.       Variance in how senior-level decisions are implemented is huge by the time they reach the frontline of the organization.   I predict that in future episodes of the show, many executives will be frightened by what they see supervisors doing in an effort to get the results required by policy and process changes coming from corporate.  This will always be a problem if initiatives are not started at the front-line.  This is the very thing that created the problems on Wall Street and Enron, to name two management disasters of the recent past.

Photo Credit: CBS

Hats off to Larry!  He is the kind of person for whom I would want to work. 

I don’t think that all the Undercover Boss shows will be as uplifting and rich in real human stories as this one, but I think all the executives will learn valuable lessons in leadership from the experience.  I predict that many other executives will try this (not on TV) and will make a mess of it. They will end up punishing more people than they reinforce and will in some cases punish the wrong people. 

Some executives will try to get the same information not going undercover but by visiting people on the frontline.  That won’t work for at least three reasons: First, you can’t watch frontline employees do what they do and understand all the things that impact the performer.  Second, watching employees do jobs that they have done for some time makes the job look easy when it is not.  Third, the fact is that when an executive watches employees work, it changes what they do and what they say to the boss.

Watch the show.  It will entertain you, surprise you, disgust you and possibly even educate you.



Photo Credits: CBS

How The Mighty Fall

42-16673940With 1:55 left in the game and with the Minnesota Vikings leading the Dallas Cowboys 27 to 3, the Cowboys had no real chance of winning. Surprisingly to many, Viking’s quarterback Brett Favre completed a pass in the end zone to Visanthe Shiancoe for the final score. There was conversation in the announcer’s booth about “running up the score” and Terry Bradshaw, my movie double, was indignant. He said that when he was playing, he called his own plays and he would never do what Favre did. In other words, it was unsportsmanlike to score that late in the game when the game was won. Only one of his fellow sports announcers disagreed.

Is it unsportsmanlike to run up the score? Think of it this way, if a team plays in a way not to score, is it fair to the fans? If the game is won, why not just stop playing? Why doesn’t the losing team declare the game over? There is no point to further play.

Can you imagine a coach saying to his/her team before playing a clearly inferior team, “Good news, you don’t have to do your best to win today.” Most sports fans would think that absurd. What about saying in the last two minutes of a game, “Looks like we have this one in the bag, so just go through the motions till the game is over.” How patronizing is that? Do we play just good enough to win and then lay back? Is that enough? Any team or company for that matter that plays only good enough to win will ultimately lose.

Corporations should take heed. Too many companies that once dominated their industry and business sector no longer exist. I would suggest that one of the main contributors to their demise was the fact that when you are on top, there is a period of time when employees no longer have to do their best to stay on top. During that time bad habits can develop. When you are on top the acceptable margin of error is very small and taking your eye off the ball for an instant can cause major problems. Even mighty Toyota is learning that lesson with the current recall of millions of vehicles. The problem affects a very small number of cars, but it has shaken the confidence of many Toyota owners and perspective buyers. Unfortunately, many companies only realize habits have changed when it is too late because you cannot talk yourself out of a bad habit or into a new one. Mark Twain said it best, “Habit is habit and not to be flung out of the window by any man, but coaxed downstairs a step at a time.”

Years ago in the textile industry, there were companies that could actually sell off-quality goods for a higher price than first quality – a perverse situation, to say the least. In the mid-seventies demand for their products was so high, many textile companies were “sold out.” The only way that new customers could get product was to buy “second quality goods.”

In the five years between 1974 and 1980, the inflation rate was 49.33%. Because the first-quality prices were locked-in by long term contracts, some companies were actually losing money due to what the high rate of inflation had done to their costs. Price increases were possible only for off-quality goods. Unfortunately, the natural consequences favored producing poor quality, and lots of it.

The problem came when a recession hit the textile business in the early ‘80s. Over night the demand for off-quality goods was zero. Now customers were looking very carefully for the slightest defect as a reason to reject a shipment and get out of a high-priced contract. Habits that had been developed when quality was not important could not be turned around on a dime and some companies failed to adjust in time and went out of business.

The lesson for business and sports is this, play every play as though it will be the determining factor between success and failure. This is the only way that you can stay on top of your game. Just one play where a player gives a half-hearted effort weakens habits and the drive to excel on the next play. The seduction for managers and coaches alike is that the change in a habit after one play is imperceptible but the effect is cumulative over time and eventually shows itself in inattention to detail and a lackadaisical approach to the task.

There is an old saying, “Every success sows its seeds of destruction.” For teams that are good enough to win easily, each easy victory has the potential of undermining motivation. It is the best coaches who understand that fact and create positive reinforcers for players and employees to give their all on every play. The score should be of no concern to the players. The already legendary basketball coach, John Wooden, said he never told players to win– only to play their competitive best. He said that if the players played their competitive best and the team lost, that was a reflection of his behavior, not the players.

I hope no one who reads this will assume that I am saying that we live in a “dog eat dog” world in which you should attempt to win at all costs. Lack of civility is all too common in the world today and it is of great concern to me. Doing your best in sports and at work should in no way refer to aggressive, mean, unfair, illegal, unethical or immoral behavior. It simply means playing to your competitive best within the context of what society expects from its heroes.

When your mother told you to always do your best, she knew what she was talking about. Follow her advice and you will always be on the top of your game.

“DRiVE” Me Crazy!

Dan PinkIn his new book, Drive: The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us (www.danpink.com), Dan Pink says that a new motivational operating system, what he calls Motivation 3.0, is needed for today’s business because what science has discovered is that people are “intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers.”  The book jacket says, “He (Pink) demonstrates that while carrots and sticks worked successfully in the twentieth century, that’s precisely the wrong way to motivate people for today’s challenges.” 

These kinds of statements drive me crazy.  What does “intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers” mean?  Did “carrot and stick” ever really work?

Philosophers, religious leaders, and psychologists through the ages write that we all strive for a purpose that is greater than we are. The humanity contained in such a vision is very compelling and Pink does a good job of linking his ideas to that striving. However, he mixes this very appealing concept with his ill-defined view of what is in fact a well defined, continuously researched science of motivation. In the end, this book adds more confusion than clarity to a topic that is critically important to the future of our workplaces, indeed, to our society.  

 According to Pink, today’s employees feel constrained and controlled by rewards and reinforcement, as though each word meant the same as the other. He states that Motivation 1.0 was adequate for the caveman and, even now, in highly repetitive jobs, but claims it is woefully inadequate in today’s workplace that depends on high rates of creativity to survive. 

Is it true that people in the caveman era were not creative? I am sure that the caveman of the television ads, “So easy a caveman can do it” fame would be offended.  Imagine the ‘thinking outside the box’ caveman who came upon the act of fire starting, and then repeated until finally controlling fire.  Accidental and serendipitous, or novel problem solving? How did we get to where we are today if not for highly creative individuals, most of whom worked in companies that used the very “If you do this, then you get that” approach that Pink says is precisely wrong for the 21st Century? 

Indeed, the workplaces of today are often more complex, requiring greater variance in problem solving, fast action, and creative effort, as well as repetitive tasks done with viligence and incredible attention to detail.  Creativity is needed as is repetitive task completion. We must know what we really need more of if we are to be competitive in this modern world.  The way to define what is needed (in this case, creative acts or repetitive acts) comes from an understanding of the outcomes desired, and how reinforcement supports and sustains needed patterns of behavior. 

Contrary to what Pink asserts in his book, the surprising truth about what motivates us is that reinforcement always works, but not always as it is intended.  The science of behavior has validated that fact in thousands of research studies over the last century.  You don’t always get more of the behavior you reward, but you always get more of any behavior that is reinforced.  That is true today and it was true thousands of years ago.  If creative behavior is reinforced, you (the company, the person) will do more of it.  Count on it.  When work environments are properly arranged to produce positive reinforcers for highly productive, creative outcomes, they always do produce such outcomes.

The operating system on which behavior depends is the same today as it was in ancient times.  We are still living in a Motivation 1.0 world.  Motivation is the system that we must understand. There is no ‘new system of motivation’—what was real about the principles of motivation in the caveman’s era is true today. 

Pink shifts from motivation, the science of learning, to talking about methods of ‘using’ motivational properties to get what is wanted. There is no Motivation 3.0 world that operates differently in this century because we need different behaviors. There is only motivation. Call it 1.0 or 3.0, if you wish.  What is needed is a clear understanding of the science of behavior, and how to arrange motivational systems, clearly understood, to produce the behaviors needed in complex settings. 

Pink says the “carrot and stick” approach worked well in the 20th century.  It never worked well—and it is no system of motivation.  It is a coercive technique of managing others that uses threat and fear to get what is wanted. It is based on a very faulty understanding of motivation as a way to accelerate and sustain human excellence.

Many great things were accomplished in the 20th century but it wasn’t because businesses used rewards well.  Today, businesses still use concepts that produce inefficient and ineffective management practices.  I have documented some of these in my latest book, Oops: 13 Management Practices that Waste Time and Money.   Businesses did not use the science of behavior to design and manage processes, policies and management practices a thousand years ago and are still not doing it today.  There are new examples every day where catastrophic failures have been produced because business and government failed to use reinforcement and rewards properly.  Enron, the Wall Street bailouts and the economic stimulus did not work out as desired because of improperly designed contingencies of reinforcement.

The motivational system that Pink advances ignores the science of behavior—a science that advances by increasing its understanding of the fundamentals — the laws of behavior. Modern life has not changed the laws of behavior.  Have the laws of gravity been changed by modern life?  Did quantum physics change gravity? Do some objects respond to Physics 1.0 (Newtonian) and others only to Physics 3.0 (Quantum Physics)?  The laws of gravity haven’t changed and the laws of human behavior have not changed either.  Our understanding of both is what has changed.

Pink never adequately addresses the problem of where intrinsic motivation comes from.  To say that people are “intrinsically motivated purpose maximizers” is hardly prescriptive.  I can tell you from 40 years of experience, where organizations understand the science of behavior, and use positive reinforcement and rewards consistent with that science, such practices not only produce high-performing organizations but organizations where people love their work—they talk about the intrinsic value and purpose that they give to their work.  It matters not whether they are doing highly repetitive work or are working to create new products and services.  The laws of behavior work for all.

While I understand some of Pink’s vision of a more effective and efficient workplace, I think his solution is confusing and wrong-headed.  In a future Blog, I will have more to say about what we know about ensuring creativity at work.

The “Underwear Bomber” Incident – My two cents

underwear bomber

Almost everyone has written or talked ad nauseum about Abdul, etc. so I might as well weigh in.  I am reminded of one of our customers in the carpet hauling business where they would put carpet on a truck containing what was to the managers an obvious error.  They would then ship it so that it had to pass through many hands as it was moved from Dalton, GA to San Francisco, CA.  I really believe that the Quality/Customer Service managers hoped that it made it all the way to California, because that way they could chew ass from coast to coast, their big positive reinforcer.

Certainly with Abdul there was plenty of positive reinforcement to go around all the talk shows and bloggers.  Fire or not fire.  Reorganize, or not reorganize.  Change the procedures or not change them.  The ideas were legion. 

In my opinion, firing would accomplish nothing, except increase blame and hiding mistakes.  Reorganizing would just lead to more reorganizing in the future wasting time and taxpayer dollars.  Changing the procedures would be useless if you don’t understand why the current procedures are not being followed.  No, to me the problem is a rare error problem and because there is little understanding of the behavioral processes that produce the rare error, these errors will continue to occur, often with disastrous consequences.

Think for a moment of the number of people on the “no-fly list.”  Although the actual number on the list is secret, the guesses range from a few thousand to tens of thousands.  Even if the number is 100,000 that number is a very small percentage of the number passengers flying daily. 

It is estimated that there are about 2,000,000 people flying every day.  When you consider that only a fraction of those on the No Fly list fly, on any given day, it is possible that a million or more people could be screened without encountering a No-flier.  The behavioral problem is that looking for something that almost never occurs produces extinction of the “looking behavior.”  No matter how vigilant the performer tries to be, the low number of reinforcers produced by such low rates of occurrence is almost guaranteed to produce an absence of the desirable behaviors at all levels of the process.

The sad thing is that behavior analysts know how to keep employees throughout the TSA chain vigilant and even enthusiastic about that kind of behavior.  The technology requires training to the level of fluency and then following up with exposure in the real situation at frequencies high enough to maintain vigilance.  I suspect that TSA screeners are not trained to fluency and that “checks” are too infrequent to create high levels of alertness.

The problem is that the actions by the President and the various agencies will appear to work because the problem occurs at such at such an infrequent rate.  In other words, there might not be another incident for a couple of years if the government does nothing.

I continue to sound the same alarm.  Until executives in the security system understand behavior as a science, there is not a chance that the system will attain and maintain the integrity that the public expects.  Let’s just hope that we don’t continue to repeat the same solutions that don’t have a prayer of working in the long term before someone realizes that there is a behavioral solution.

The Folly of Early Commitment in Washington

j0255561As one who studies behavior for a living, I couldn’t help analyzing last week’s “horse-trading” in the Senate around the health care reform bill.  Do the leaders in Congress ever concern themselves with long-term consequences of their actions or is it that they just don’t understand the laws of behavior?  I think it is the latter because they think they are considering the long-term consequences, especially Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska who bargained his vote for a permanent dispensation for the Medicaid program in his state.  So let’s consider the laws of behavior as they relate to recent behavior in Washington.

The behavior is, “I am not going to vote for this bill as it currently stands.”  The consequence is millions of dollars for his/her state.  The laws of behavior predict more of that behavior in the future.  Will it be harder or easier to pass future legislation because of such inappropriate rewards?  You can bet that it will be harder.  Of the several Senators who were reluctant to vote for the bill, as far as I have been able to determine, all of them were paid to vote for it in the end.  Senator Mary Landrieu of Louisiana reportedly received $300 million in Medicaid subsidies for her state in what has been called by some, “the New Louisiana purchase.”  Senator Nelson reportedly received a permanent exemption for Nebraska from increases in Medicaid funding.  Interestingly, this was given to the state because Nelson was holding the Democrats hostage over the abortion language in the bill.  Personally, I don’t get it.  He was so concerned about the abortion issue that he capitulated when given Medicaid money.  Nelson’s response, “I didn’t ask for a special favor here, I didn’t ask for a carve out”   I guess because he didn’t ask for it, it makes it ok.  It seems like I remember many bribery cases where the same defense was mounted.

Putting issues of bribery, etc. aside, what is the impact of these decisions on the legislative process?  For one thing, it makes the other Senators look weak since they didn’t work as hard for the citizens of their states.  The other thing is that it shows them the advantages of holding out. Don’t be surprised if more hold out in the future.  If “holding out” is rewarded, you can bet there will be more of it.

Another defense that has been put forth by the leaders in Congress is that “this is the way the legislative process works.”  I have news for them.  That may be the way that it worked in the past when the “horse-trading” was done in smoked-filled back rooms in secret but with the new media, that can no longer be done.  Legislative actions are subject to different consequences now.  In the past Nelson’s behavior may not have come to light for months, if ever.  Now it is known almost immediately and he is already receiving considerable backlash, even within his state.

The other issue for Nelson is that if he thinks his decision has made him more popular in his state, I think he is in for a surprise.  I suspect that most Nebraskans don’t really care much about Medicaid because they don’t expect to be personally affected by it.  Most Nebraskans do care about the character and decisions of their Senator.  If he will sell out on one issue, what will it take for him to sell his vote on others?

Behavior is lawful.  We know that behavior that is positively reinforced will occur more often.  Stay tuned to see what behavior is being positively reinforced.  I am confident that Congressional leaders don’t know.  However, they won’t be able to keep it a secret because the increases in their behavior will give it away.

Great Example of Natural Reinforcement In Action

The Fun Theory is a clever marketing campaign from Volkswagon that has caught the attention of behavior analysts because it shows how to change behavior (in this example increase exercise) by building positive reinforcers into the process of walking up the stairs.  This is a great example of how to create natural reinforcers that don’t require human presence for the purposes of providing social reinforcement for the new behavior.  The creators call it the “fun theory” but we know it as building PICs into a process or more specifically, applying the science of behavior analysis to change the ways the world works. 

Fun with Positive Reinforcement

Praising the boss on Boss’s Day? Not so fast.

bosses-dayPatricia Bays Haroski who worked for her father in a State Farm Insurance Agency in Deerfield, Ill., registered October 16 as Boss’s Day with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1958. She chose October 16 because it was her father’s birthday and the story goes that she forgot his birthday and that by making it a holiday, she would not only recover from her oversight, but would never forget again. Of course, retailers have since capitalized on the holiday as an additional way to sell greeting cards, candy, mugs, and balloons.

Wikipedia defines Boss’s Day as a day when employees thank their boss for being kind, fair, honest, and awesome throughout the year. While I have nothing against thanking the boss, the National holiday celebration does put pressure on everyone, even those who don’t have an awesome boss. The social pressure probably causes more than a few people to do something to thank him/her even though their hearts are not in it…

Googling “bad boss” gets 166,000 hits (’good boss’ yields only slightly less – 164,000). I am aware that people are more likely to talk and write about bad bosses more than good ones but it is clear that even after 40 years of teaching managers, executives and supervisors to use positive methods to get superior results I still have a lot of work to do.

One of the problems with this holiday is that if a bad boss is rewarded in even some small way, it will not make him/her a better boss but will actually make him/her a worse one. So we can expect that next week there will be many bosses who will be worse than they are this week because of boss’s day.

That problem aside, most bosses are good and do deserve more recognition for what they do to create a positive workplace than they get. I have often said that if you think that you get too little recognition or positive reinforcement for what you do at work, think of your boss because he/she gets less. So if you are one of the lucky ones who has a good or awesome boss here are some suggestions of how to positively reinforce the boss without coming off as buttering her up or brown-nosing.

  1. Make recognition of the boss a frequent event. Remember that if the only time you think about recognizing you boss is on Boss’ Day, you have a problem. Think what it would be like if the only time you told you mother that you love or appreciate what she does for you was on Mother’s Day. How do you think she would respond to that? While Boss’s Day is a day to pause and do something out of the ordinary, there are about two hundred days that the boss may be doing things to make your life at work better. Recognition is as important on those days as it is on Boss’ Day. 
  2. Thank the boss for helping you. I think that praising the boss on Boss’ Day is highly suspect anytime. However, I believe that thanking the boss for something that she has done that is helpful to you in some way is always appropriate, never suspect and almost always appreciated by the boss. I can recount many cases where bosses have done things that were later abandoned because all the boss heard was from those who had a problem with the boss’s decisions or actions. The president of one of our customers told me that he gauged whether employees liked his decisions by the number of complaints he received. The fewer complaints he received the better he assumed that employees liked what he did. There is an old saying that goes, “if people are not told clearly and overtly that they are appreciated, they will assume the opposite.” 
  3. Keep the boss informed. This is a positive reinforcer for almost every boss I know. Keeping the boss informed about things that are not going well is as important as keeping him informed about things that are going well. 
  4. Help your boss be successful. Helping your boss be successful by responding positively to her initiatives, priorities and decisions always puts you in a favored place by every boss. This assumes, of course, that you think these things are good. In the current economic environment a positive response to the boss’s initiatives, actions and decisions are positively reinforcing as most bosses are struggling to keep the company afloat. Pessimism is not appreciated anytime but especially now. A “Can Do” attitude in today’s economy is priceless.  
  5. Helping others. Go out of your way to help others who are working to implement and address the boss’s initiatives and priorities. This causes most bosses these days to relax as they are able to see that the total burden of creating results does not fall on their shoulders. Employees who help peers solve problems before they get to the boss are particularly prized today.
  6.  

 All people need positive reinforcement in order to do their best – bosses included. Position on an organization chart neither increases nor decreases that need. You have the ability to strengthen your boss’s good habits and improve other behaviors by how you respond to the boss’s behavior. Positive reinforcement will do the trick. Do it often and you and your boss will be the better for it.

bob2covernew

 

Additional Resources: Bringing Out the Best in People Seminar in Atlanta, GA, October 26-27, 2009

Google is looking for answers in the wrong place

googleplex

In a May 19th article in the WSJ, Scott Morrison wrote, Google Searches for Staffing Answers.  The article is about the fact that Google has recently lost a number of top executives and other midlevel employees.  Google’s approach to solving this problem is what you would expect, given the nature of their business.  They are working on a mathematical formula to predict employees who are likely to quit.

I will be interested to know what Google plans to do when they find these people.  No doubt there will be a lot of false positives, i.e., people who they identify as likely to quit, when in fact they have no intention of quitting.  But in any event, once they have a list, what will they do?  Will they give them a raise, a new benefit, a promotion or a new title?  Any one of these actions will create more problems for the company than it will solve. (more…)