‘Results’ Articles

Why Wall Street won’t ever change their spending ways

January 13th, 2012

No Comments »

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

Ask Aubrey, Behavior 101, Consequences, Culture "Change", Incentives, Leadership, Performance Pay, Positive Reinforcement, Results, Rewards

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, Goals, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Results, feedback

Just do it!

October 26th, 2011

No Comments »

Guest post by Christina Simms

CB055359Understanding why we procrastinate and how to beat it.

Having trouble whittling down your To-Do list? Do you find yourself saying (albeit with confidence) “I’ll get to that tomorrow.”? You aren’t alone. Procrastination seems to be the one thing you can almost always count on people getting done. But why do we seem to keep putting off for tomorrow what we could do today?

Every week I go through the same routine. I make a to-do list with the good intention of crossing everything off. I do the easiest, quickest things first; mark them off with a wonderful feeling of satisfaction and typically leave the more complex, challenging to-do’s for tomorrow. Before I know it, two weeks have passed and my list is that much longer.

People procrastinate on all sorts of things. We put off taking out the trash, mowing the lawn, doing our taxes, mailing Christmas cards. Most of the time, we find ourselves avoiding tasks because something about doing them is tedious, unpleasant, time consuming, or in some way negative. The science of behavior, specifically behavior analysis, provides not only the answers to ‘why’ but also how we can overcome our own procrastination.

The science of behavior tells us that it is consequences that determine whether or not we will do something again in the future. If you receive a negative consequence as a result of something you did (ie. a behavior) then you are less likely to do that behavior again in the future.  Alternatively, if there are positive consequences associated with something you have done, then you are more likely to repeat that behavior in the future.

Many years ago, Aubrey developed a tool to examine consequences called the PIC/NIC Analysis®. Again, the science tells us that consequences can be positive or negative, immediate or future, and certain or uncertain. The most powerful consequences are the positive/immediate/certain and negative/immediate/certain ones. In this age of instant gratification, procrastination has become even more prevalent. Lots of things are competing for our attention and the ones that win are the PICs because, frankly, they are more reinforcing to us. College students turn to Facebook instead of starting their 20 page papers, kids spend hours hooked on video games instead of cleaning their rooms, and 9-5 workers choose catching up on their favorite TV shows over an evening work-out.

This may sound like common sense, but if we all understood so well how behavior works, we wouldn’t be in danger of becoming Procrastination Nation. I turned to Dr. Aubrey Daniels for some wise advice about how to beat procrastination and get things done.

It is tempting to start by picking the low hanging fruit, but Dr. Daniels warns against this common practice. Instead, he suggests an alternative method to working through your To-do list. Start by making a list of everything you need to do. Next, rank the items from most desirable to least desirable. Now comes the hard part— start at the bottom of the list! If you can get yourself to do the worst half of the list first, finishing the other half will be a breeze. Dr. Daniels also recommends using the Premack Principle. Tell yourself “when I do this (undesirable task), then I can do that” (something fun and enjoyable). Of course the key to both of these solutions is to practice self-control, something that may take time to improve. Changing your habits can be hard to do, so start small and don’t forget to reward yourself as you begin to notice changes in how you approach your projects at work or chores around the house.

For more on the Premack Principle and PIC/NIC Analysis® read Performance Management: Changing Behavior that Drives Organizational Effectiveness

Ask Aubrey, Consequences, Goals, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Results

Translating Sports Philosophies to Business: A lesson for us all

March 30th, 2011

No Comments »

CB106837Just recently I was asked to comment for an article that was published on Mainstreet.com, Famous Sports Wisdom to Use at Work. This was no far stretch for me as I have collected various quotes delivered by coaches and players alike through the years.  With the start of MLB a day away, I shamelessly feel the need to share my outtakes that didn’t get published in the piece.  There is much we can take from sports coaches, players and executives to use in understanding your business environment.  Enjoy.

  • Coach K (Duke): “Effective teamwork begins and ends with communication.”

Believe it or not, Coach K is wrong.  Effective teamwork in business, as in sports, begins when each player is positively reinforced for helping a teammate be successful.

  • Mike Tyson: “It’s nothing personal, but I’m going to kill this guy.”

In the final analysis, in business and in sports everything is personal.  If you don’t think so, do something to upset your star performer and watch what happens.

  • Yogi Berra: “The future ain’t what it used to be.”

Organizations create the future by the behavior they positively reinforce today.  It used to be that only hard work and accomplishments were rewarded but today we tend to reinforce everything that moves.  Therefore the future ain’t what it used to be as Yogi correctly asserted.

  • Lance Armstrong: “A boo is a lot louder than a cheer. If you have 10 people cheering and one person booing, all you hear is the booing.”

The average person has been punished more for doing something wrong than praised for doing it correctly.

  • Bill Veeck (former baseball executive): “It isn’t the high price of stars that is expensive, it’s the high price of mediocrity.”

When pay is based on performance the organization wants you to make a lot.  Salaries are a high price to pay when doing just enough to get by will keep you on the payroll.

  • Michael Jordan: “Republicans buy sneakers too.”

Stay out of politics.  It is bad for business.

  • John Wooden: “If you let your emotions take over, you will be outplayed.”

Negative emotions almost always lead to poor decision-making.

  • John Wooden: “It takes 10 hands to make a basket.”

As the former Governor of Georgia once said, “If you see a turtle on the fence post, you know he didn’t get there by himself.” In business, as in any team sport, very little is accomplished by an individual acting alone.

  • John Wooden (you can tell I think very highly of Coach Wooden): “Think small; work hard; get good.”

Those who accomplish the most got good by working hard on the details.

    Now let’s play ball! (Go Braves)

Consequences, Performance Pay, Positive Reinforcement, Results, coaching, punishment

Are Googlers really that different from the rest of us?

March 23rd, 2011

No Comments »

GoogleplexwelcomesignThis is not the first blog I have written about mistakes I think Google is making in how they are managing the company.  It will probably not be the last.  This blog was prompted by an article a friend sent me from the New York Times by Adam Bryant, Google’s Quest to Build a Better Boss. 

It appears that Google has invested quite a sum to determine what kind of boss they need to manage their company in the future.  As Bryant says, “So as only a data-mining giant like Google can do, it began analyzing performance reviews, feedback surveys and nominations for top-manager awards,  they correlated phrases, words, praise and complaints.”  He also reported, “Once they had some working theories, they figured out a system for interviewing managers to gather more data, and to look for evidence that supported their notions (bold italics are mine).  This activity involved more than 10,000 interviews and over 100 variables.

With this kind of “research” it is no wonder that the results were “so forehead-slappingly obvious.”  They found—get this—that managers had a greater impact on employees’ performance and how they felt about their job than any other factor.  How many thousands of employee hours and company resources did it consume to come to this conclusion?

Google now trains managers based on the results of this study.  Quotes from a couple of managers who had been through the training speak to what they learned.  One said, “…two of the most important things I can do is just make sure I have some time for them and to be consistent.  And that’s more important than doing the rest of the stuff.”  Another said the training helped him understand the importance of giving clear and direct feedback. 

While I understand that someone who is inconsistent and does not give clear and direct feedback will be less effective than those who do, those things will not create a company that brings out the best in its employees.   Even spending time with employees does not guarantee an improvement in morale or performance.  It is possible that spending time with the boss can be a punishing experience.  Many managers who give clear and consistent feedback are also very punishing, and can therefore create employees who are only willing to give just enough do get by.

The most important thing Google can teach its managers is how to deliver contingent positive reinforcement.  They are not likely to do that since their culture is built on non-contingent reinforcement.  Indeed one of their 10 Golden Rules for managing knowledge workers is to cater to their every need. I think they have misinterpreted Peter Drucker who said to strip away everything that gets in their way.  I think Drucker meant that a company should eliminate all the unnecessary administrative goobledegoop.  What Google has interpreted it to mean is to provide things like first-class dining facilities, gyms, laundry rooms, massage rooms, haircuts, carwashes, dry cleaning, commuting buses—just about anything a hardworking engineer might want.   The problem is that they are also all the things a non-hardworking engineer might want.  The assumption is that having these things available for employees will cause them to spend more time in productive work.  I know of no research to support this notion.

It seems to me that Google has spent a lot of time and money to learn that employees at Google are just like employees everywhere else.  They all respond to the laws of human behavior.  Googlers are not so special that they follow their own set of behavioral laws.  By learning those laws, executives and other managers at Google can save a lot of time and money and develop truly effective managers who bring out the best in all employees.

Behavior 101, Consequences, Leadership, Performance Appraisal, Positive Reinforcement, Results, Technology, feedback

Will Safety Issues entangle Spiderman?

March 8th, 2011

No Comments »

spidermanWorkplace Safety will not improve until OSHA learns the basics of behavior change

I couldn’t help but be amused about an article in the New York Times reporting the latest citation by Federal regulators for safety violations in the Broadway production of Spider-man: Turn off the Dark.  OSHA “regulators” have been “citing” the play for over a year.  Why they call them “regulators” I don’t know because their citations change no behavior, they regulate nothing.  One thing they do is keep the play in the public eye, a plus for the production company.  The total sum fined over the past year is $12,600, considerably small in terms of the value the play received in free publicity.

When will “regulators” learn that the citations don’t work?  Massey Mine had 1300 citations, BP had 360, and the company involved in the egg recall also had  a long history of citations over the years. OSHA keeps giving citations, but in many, many cases nothing changes.  As the New York Time article points out, the Spider-man production was in violation last year and they are still in violation today. 

Let me put it this way.  The closest thing we have to a behavioral law, as gravity is a law of physics, is that behavior is a function of its consequences.  Consequences change behavior not citations.  Telling them they are unsafe, although meant to be a punisher, is apparently a reinforcer- the behavior continues.  Although OSHA attempts to punish violators with citations and fines, they are not punishers since punishment stops behavior.  If OSHA invested the small amount of time it would take regulators to become fluent and develop skills in behavior change, workplace safety, or in this case the safety of everyone associated with the production of Spiderman, would be significantly improved.

I believe that OSHA should focus on increasing safety compliance. (I’ll bet they think they do that now.)  Only reinforcement increases behavior.  If companies experience with OSHA was to help them improve safety while decreasing cost and improving the quality of their products and services, the agency would be inundated with requests for help.  As it is, when OSHA regulators appear on site, employees don’t rush to show them items of concern, they hide them or try to steer regulators away from them.

There is a better way to improve safety. Punishment or attempts at punishment won’t.  Because of that, OSHA’s efforts are of little help to Spider-man. Nevertheless, as they say in the business, citation or no citation, the show must go on.


Behavior Based Safety, Results, punishment, training

Survey Says?

January 20th, 2011

1 Comment »

surveySurveys can uncover a lot, but it’s what you do with that information that counts. While organizations commonly use surveys to gather information and identify opportunities for improvement, very few organizations capitalize on the investment of their people’s time and trust. Let’s face it, everywhere you look someone is asking for input on your experience with someone or something. Whether it’s at the checkout line, from a service department, in your office or on the phone, people want to know what you think. But how often do you ever hear back on your feedback? Organizations that properly prepare and follow up with survey respondents will gain more in the long run.

The following tips will help you take care of those who are making the effort to provide you with open and honest survey feedback.

Tell them why: Properly prepare your survey respondents by telling them why you are looking for their feedback and what you plan to do with it. Ideally this explanation will specify a future benefit for them such as improved customer service, enhanced product features, or simpler online tools.

Ask fewer questions: Have you ever started an online survey that fools you into thinking that the survey is short but then ends up asking what seems like 20 sets of five questions? Surveys, like conversations, should end before someone starts to think, “I’ve had enough of this.” The fewer questions you ask, the more likely the survey respondents will be to complete future surveys, and the more you will carefully consider what you’re asking and why you’re asking it. This applies to comment questions too. By including fewer questions that ask for comments, you’ll get better quality written feedback and avoid respondents being burned out before they get to critical questions. (Of course, you’re only asking critical questions, right?)

Ask the right questions: Before you write a single question, clearly identify the objectives of your survey and the information that you’ll need to plan meaningful follow-up. Be certain to ask questions that provide you with objective data.  With objective data, you can pinpoint behaviors that you want more of (those that are contributing to better performance) and those you want less of (those that are keeping you from the results you want). If survey respondents are scratching their head when completing the survey, wondering why in the world you are asking some of your questions, they are likely to begin thinking that you are wasting their time. If your survey is well crafted, it will tell you what you think you need to know and what the respondents think you need to know—what is important to them. If the respondents never think, “I’m glad they asked that!” when completing your survey, you’ve probably missed the mark.

Keep it confidential:  Be sure to administer your survey in a way that provides strict anonymity for the respondents. If you are administering the survey internally, ensure those involved in the survey administration process understand the importance of keeping data confidential, including written feedback. Nothing will shut down responding to surveys faster than fear that responses and comments will be traced back to individuals.

Close the loop:  Thank respondents when they complete the survey. At the end of the survey period, announce the overall response rate and thank those who completed the survey.  As soon as possible afterwards, provide a high-level summary of the survey results and your plan to make improvements where necessary.

Act on the data: You’ve got the data, now do something with it! Identify what is working and what is not.  Prepare specific plans for improvement and define measures for success. Responding to surveys will extinguish if the respondents feel like no one ever acts on their feedback.

Communicate your progress: Let the survey respondents know what you are doing and how it is going.  By communicating along the way, you’ll help reinforce their speaking up and create an engaged workforce or customer base that feels like it is making a real difference.

Check your progress: Your survey results are only as good as your last survey.  Take time to respond to what you learn from your initial survey but be sure to follow up in 6 to 12 months and survey again.  The more you ask your employees for input, and then take action on what you learn, the more your employees will offer feedback for improvement.

If interested, I suggest you learn more about ADI surveys and take a free survey demo.

Culture "Change", Leadership, Performance, Results, feedback

When watching “LOST”; think “Washington”

February 25th, 2010

1 Comment »

lost1Last week at the insistence of Tyler, our Assessments & Surveys Guru, I watched an episode of the TV series, LOST, and boy was I lost!  I quickly concluded this is not the kind of series that you can join in on the 108th episode and make any sense of what is going on.  Characters are flashing forward, backward, and sideways; a series of numbers from previous episodes reappear; clues to old mysteries pop up around every turn in the jungle path; and challenges to leadership are apparently on-going and critical to the preservation of the island and its powers.

As I was struggling to make sense of what was happening, I couldn’t help but think about Washington.  It seems to me that our elected officials are lost.  We elect leaders who create some followers and wander around till the followers realize they are not getting anywhere.  Then another leader emerges, or re-emerges, to say he knows the way out. After passing familiar landmarks along the trail, the followers realize the new leader is really no better than the last.  While some long for the last leader, some say that the new leader just needs more time to find the way, and others claim that only a new leader can ever hope to take them in a direction that will solve their problems.

A friend from New Zealand, Stig Ehnbom recently sent me a Spiegel On-line article on monetary policy, “China Has a Plan; Washington Doesn’t.”  His comment on the article was, “Considering also that China is buying up resources all over the world – mines, oil and gas deposits, forests, fishing rights, land for gowning food, water resources for farming and that China controls 95% of the world known REE’s (Rare Earth Elements) forming key parts in batteries and electronics for defense and imagery – China has a plan all right and working on it while we in the West are flying around the world attending conferences at exotic resorts exchanging hot air and dreams. Dreams without money (China has got the purse) are called hallucinations and it is a sign of senility to keep doing the same thing and expecting different results.”

Indeed we do seem to keep doing the same thing repeatedly, expecting a different result.  Politicians long for the days of Clinton or Reagan, acting as though nothing has changed in the world for the last 20 years and that the same things they did would work now.

The problem as I see it is even when we have a plan we never seem to learn from its success or failure.  In fact, we can’t even tell if we had a success or failure.

I remember several months ago when the $787 billion stimulus was being debated in Congress, a reporter questioned a Congressman about the wisdom of the stimulus.  His response was, “We’ve got to do something.”  In other words he had no idea whether it would work but thought that a $787 billion experiment, with no effective experimental design, was a wise thing to do.  Clearly, he was lost.  How many times have you heard a politician tell you that even though the country is not making progress on jobs, if we hadn’t done what we did it would have been worse?   I don’t think there is any evidence to support such claims.  How can they prove such a statement?  How can they prove that anything they do is helpful?  Most people seem to believe that the best situation for the citizens is when one party controls the White House and another controls the Senate and the House.  That way the politicians can work long and hard on laws that the President can veto.  At least their waste of time would not cost the taxpayers much tax.

I think Congress is  lost on most of the problems they are trying to solve.  Whether it is health care, global warming or the stimulus, politicians rarely put themselves in a position to be wrong.  With the possibility of being wrong, there is accountability – what politicians want from everyone but themselves. 

I think that every law that is passed and every government program that Congress institutes should include a document specifying its clearly intended outcomes, the measures of success, to include timelines for achieving it, and Senators and Congressmen who sign-on should be praised for success and required to stand and explain faulty logic and execution in their failures.  This way the public can see who is qualified to make our laws and spend our money in ways that really benefits the public they serve.

What is the probability that will happen?  It is about the same as the characters on LOST finding out their true purpose for being on the island. However, as the show’s creators insist, all of our questions will be answered in this final season. When might we expect such assurance from our elected officials in Washington?

Consequences, Leadership, Results

If you missed Undercover Boss, watch the re-run

February 11th, 2010

1 Comment »

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

Consequences, Leadership, Positive Reinforcement, Results