‘Technology’ Articles

« Older Entries

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, Motivation, Positive Reinforcement, Technology, feedback

Don’t Fear Change

February 1st, 2012

No Comments »

BRI022

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

Culture "Change", Leadership, Negative Reinforcement, Performance, Positive Reinforcement, Technology

There they go again: National ban on texting while driving

December 27th, 2011

No Comments »

textingThere is no question that if no one used cell phones while driving, lives would be saved but so would not eating while driving or drinking a Coke or looking at GPS or talking to a passenger or solving disputes between children in the back seat or daydreaming or…(fill in the blank). It is a fact of life that distractions on the road are increasing and all of them increase the likelihood of an accident.

I believe that everyone who drives should keep his/her eyes on the road at all times and not attend to anything in or out of the car that would distract him or her. However, it ain’t going to happen. (Even in space the astronauts looked out the window.)

Cell phones are addictive in that they provide the user with a rate of reinforcement that is higher than almost anything else in the car. Therefore they are clearly the most dangerous. If we have just eaten we will not be likely to eat or drink in the car but if we have just talked to a friend while at the restaurant, it does not reduce the probability that we will not talk on the cell phone when we get back in the car. It may even increase it because we may remember something to tell the friend that we forgot when talking in the restaurant.

Employees at ADI responded to the NTSB’s recent national plea to ban cell phone use by making a pledge to stop using the phone while driving. It is a worthy goal. Only a week later, and none has been able to stop. They all said they are doing better but no one has stopped. Is it possible to develop a habit of driving without using a cell phone? It is, but it will take time, probably many weeks, even though they are not doing it under threat of getting a ticket or losing their license. It is a volunteer activity.

Why is it that the Department of Transportation only thinks of punishing those who do something wrong or dangerous as a way to stop the behavior? The first reason is that they want to give the public the impression that they are awake at the switch. The press release about “banning all cell phones” gives the appearance of taking the problem serious. Second, the statement by the chairman, Deborah Hersman that “We’re not here to win a popularity contest” makes it sound even more serious. Tough talk is often rewarded by the press and the public. Such speeches are make-work, “full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” In spite of appearing to be the right thing, they are the wrong thing to do for at least three reasons:

First, fining or even taking a license is a negative but uncertain consequence. No one using a cell phone thinks that s/he will get caught. When an uncertain negative consequence comes face to face with the positive immediate consequence of talking to someone about a problem, a girlfriend or boyfriend, an appointment, a dinner date, etc., the positive immediate consequence will win every time.

Second, the behavior of avoiding getting caught makes the use of the cell phone even more dangerous.

Third, how many times does the Department of Transportation have to come out with knee-jerk reactions and solutions with little evidence that they understand anything about human behavior until the public completely ignores their “warnings?” Think about compliance to speed limit signs.

I am bothered by drivers on the phone like everyone else. If a car is moving slowly in traffic or moving erratically, it angers me to see on passing that they are on the cellphone. However, I don’t want a legal or governmental solution since I know it won’t work. I also know that if a legal solution is advanced, it will never be repealed even though it doesn’t work.

I believe, as I have said before, that because of the positive immediate consequences provided by cell phone use, the only solution is a technological one. Make cell phones so that they will not work as long as the phone is moving. The sooner we come to that realization and put resources and time on that solution and less on pronouncements that won’t work, the sooner we will begin saving lives.

Behavior 101, Consequences, Negative Reinforcement, Technology

Twitter: More than a Social Platform—An Effective (and cool!) tool for building fluency in Pinpointing

June 8th, 2011

No Comments »

Guest Post by John Green

twitterWithout fail, one of the most challenging tasks managers and leaders face in building coaching fluency models is developing pinpointing skills. I see it consistently with my new clients during their upfront training sessions, as they struggle with being clear about “what they want”.  What they come to learn is that guiding them from the global high-level, often-subjective “feedback” to something that is a bit more specific and objective is probably the most important skill they need to build.

As I check-in with these same clients over the years I consistently hear that “pinpointing is hard” and a skill that they have to continuously work on.  It is no surprise that the more they practice the better they get.

As coaching models continue to move to an increasingly virtual environment, this skill becomes even more critical in shaping the behaviors that will have the desired impacts. Effective virtual coaching models should emphasize increasing both the quantity (do more coaching) and the quality (improve the value of your coaching) of their fluency.

By increasing touch points, coaches can increase the quantity of their coaching and therefore, how the skill of clear, objective coaching (pinpoints) influences the quality of these interactions.

For example, many of my clients are using text messaging as an effective tool for increasing touch points. Both coaches and performers like the flexibility and ease of using this technology to “communicate” on critical performance issues.

Twitter takes it a step further to enhance pinpointing skills. Because Twitter has a 140 character limitation per “tweet” it is an excellent tool to shape the pinpointing skill.  Here are two real life client examples:

A Pharmaceutical Sales client moved towards a virtual field trip model in lieu of the infrequent and highly formalized traditional Field Visits.

  • Pre-call Planning: “What is the one thing you want your physician to do or say today?” (65 characters)
  • Post-call debrief: “Tell me one thing you learned today about your physician’s prescribing habits?” (77 characters).
  • Touch Point: Who is your most important call today? Can I add any value to your call plan?” (77 characters).
  • Pinpoint: “Develop a question that will allow your physician to share her view of your product,” (87 characters).

A Banking/Financial Services client implemented a customer-centric selling model that is a key component to their strategic planning process. Coaches focused on shaping the behaviors that will result in clients perceiving this organization as “different” than other firms vying for their business.

  • Touch Point: “What was the next best step for your client identified in your strategy session today?” (87 characters).
  • Touch Point: “What was the impact of sending your team the client profile data 2 days prior to the strategy session?” (104 characters).
  • Post Call debrief: “What was one thing you learned was important to your client that was not part of your pre-call plan? (101 characters).

Both of these clients have reported that building this tool helps (forces!) them to practice pinpointing. Both the coaches and the performers are becoming increasingly comfortable with this dynamic and appreciate the level of specificity and objectiveness that comes along with it.

The next challenge is to help the performers shape their responses to “fit” the Twitter requirements. (More on this phase in my next posting).

Give this approach a try and let us know how it goes @greenjohnj and @aubreydaniels

Performance, Technology, coaching, feedback

Eliminating Rare Errors – Even Sleeping Air Traffic Controllers

April 10th, 2011

1 Comment »

It’s happened again! An air traffic controller deliberately made his bed and slept in it while 7 different aircraft were trying to safely land at a Tennessee airport. I think it’s safe to assume this controller is a fine person who means no ill will. So why would someone in such a critical role take such a risk?

While the FAA continues its investigation into this and other claims of sleeping air traffic controllers, those who understand behavior from a scientific perspective will tell you that the solution to this problem does not lie in adding another controller in the tower or in punishing the offender.

For a better understanding of what should be done to eliminate situations that lead to unsafe conditions, I invite you to view a new video interview where I discuss the topic of Eliminating the Rare Error.

Behavior Based Safety, Consequences, Motivation, Negative Reinforcement, Positive Reinforcement, Technology, training

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

Google Follow Up

December 30th, 2010

No Comments »

googleThe following is a comment on my post “What was Google thinking?!“.  My response required more than few words so you’ll find it below.

Question: What would be an appropriate model for fiduciary reinforcement in an organization like Google, where creativity is highly encouraged and employees are about as fully empowered as anywhere on earth? 

Smaller reinforcements are generally the norm and asking employees to give more and more discretionary effort when they are often already working 70 to 80 hours a week is a difficult proposition. 

I realize that an examination of the system would probably lead to a means of ensuring appropriate reinforcements are capitalized upon but I was wondering, given the information that is available, what would be your inclination?

My Response: Thank you for your questions.  

While it may be presumptuous of me to question anything about Google in view of their huge success, I know the laws of behavior will catch up with them if they keep doing what they are doing now and that is non-contingent pay and benefits. There is an old Greek saying, “Whom the gods would destroy, they first send forty years of success.”  That was said two thousand years ago when things moved much slower.  I am sure that the time has shrunk to 20 years and quite possibly less.

From what I have read, and I need to point out that is not always the best source for knowing factually about day to day practices,  current management seems to think that money will solve their problems.  That is why they gave the salary increases and bonuses.  I don’t think money is the problem. I think management is the problem.  There seems to be too little understanding of the basics of human motivation.  This is demonstrated in part by the fact that the work environment has too many positive reinforcers that compete with the doing work of Google.  Haircuts, billiards, ping pong or foosball and others too numerous to mention in this response are all done on company time.  In the early days when discoveries were being made by the minute this probably worked well as people would work all night and weekends fueled only by their creations.  Today employees complain that if they eat dinner in the company dining room, they are expected to work late and that in many cases working late is unproductive and may be better described as hanging around long enough to avoid the frowns. 

You state that ” asking employees to give more and more discretionary effort when they are often already working 70 to 80 hours a week is a difficult proposition.”  The fact is that if you have to ask for discretionary effort, it is an indicator that it is not being done because of positive reinforcement.  Discretionary effort is that which is given freely — not that which is expected, required or demanded.

There are several sources of reinforcement at work: 1) that which comes from the work, 2) that which comes from managers, 3) that which comes from peers, and 4) that which comes from policies, procedures and the physical environment.

I am quite sure that reinforcement that comes naturally from the work has diminished in the recent past. To quote a former Googler, “While outside, I had all these big ideas I could do if I worked there.  Once inside I discovered there were 18,000 googlers who thought the same.”  If you read the blog post in Tech Crunch by Michael Arrington, “Why Google Employees Quit,” you get the idea that reinforcement has been reduced from the other three as well. 

I would suggest that one of the things that is supporting Google these days is that their competitors are no better at management than they are.  My solution is that Google managers should learn something about the laws of human behavior.  Until they do things will not get better even if pay gets much better.  Thanks, Aubrey

Ask Aubrey, Consequences, Incentives, Motivation, Performance Pay, Rewards, Technology

TSA Brings Problems on Itself

November 23rd, 2010

6 Comments »

tsa copyAs the Thanksgiving travel begins to increase, so too do the TSA screening stories! If you have been watching TV in the last week, you are probably sick of the “should they – shouldn’t they” conduct security “pat downs”.  Polls have shown that a vast majority of travelers have no problem with the new procedure and I believe the coverage is conveniently swayed to those travelers who have a problem.  In fact, only 3% of travelers are subjected to additional screening or x-ray.  As a frequent traveler I have been subject to additional screening only once in the last year. 

That aside, having practiced as a clinical psychologist for a number of years, I do understand that there are people who have a problem being touched by anyone.  I know these people will experience a great deal of anxiety with the new pat-down procedures.  The problem for the TSA is should they allow a small percentage of passengers to change the system which will in turn cost many millions of dollars?  I think not.  This population is small in comparison, and I know that under certain conditions, their anxiety will diminish with subsequent screenings. 

The true problem is one that I think the TSA has brought on itself. What has caused the brouhaha? It’s poor customer service.  The sad fact is that when TSA agents are friendly and courteous they stand out because they are exceptional—not typical.  When I was pulled aside for additional screening, I didn’t understand why, and was slow to remove my pen and my watch as they were ok under the usual process.  I would have had a very different reaction if I had been told something like, “Sir, we select a certain percentage of travellers for additional screening and today is your day. You will need to remove your pen and watch for the x-ray screening.”  This was not done and I admit I was a little hesitant and obstinate during the process. A few kind words up front make a big difference for most people who are asked to cooperate in activities where they would otherwise be uncomfortable.

If you were to diagnose this further, the poor customer service is likely linked to a lack of training. I have to believe, based on my own experience, that these TSA representatives do not know their own process well enough and therefore fumble their way through the screening procedure, leaving everyone feeling uneasy. 

In the final analysis, the decision between being touched in ways that might cause me some increased tension or subject me to an additional dose of x-rays and having another act of terrorism in a plane is a no-brainer.  However, I believe that the TSA can do a better job to allay many fears using the present process and equipment which can be addressed with increased training and attention to the customer (ie. passengers).  Are there better ways to secure flights than are currently being used? Clearly.  Until the time those procedures and equipment are available, my advice, “Get over it.”

Behavior 101, Consequences, Negative Reinforcement, Technology, training

Breaking News: Texting while driving is dangerous. Duh!

September 29th, 2010

2 Comments »

textingAnyone who understands anything about behavior knows that the latest suggestion by Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood for dealing with the problem of texting while driving will not work. He suggested that cell phone manufacturers put a warning label “right on the box” and that sales persons should emphasize the danger of texting while driving when someone buys a cell phone. Secretary LaHood is one of many people who think telling people to behave will have an appreciable effect on their behavior. It is not that people don’t need to be warned about things that pose danger; the question is how to make them most effective. Case in point, millions, if not billions, of dollars has been spent warning smokers of the danger smoking poses to their health. Yet, there are still many millions of smokers. The solution to this problem does not reside with the warning but with the consequences of the behavior.

As I read about the solutions offered for this problem, most of them rely on changing the behavior by some form of “education or communication.” There is no doubt that the government will spend millions of dollars on such. I agree with David Champion of Consumer Reports who thinks this will be a waste of money.

Although most solutions directed toward changing consequences are antecedents, the ones that suggest consequences for texting behavior will be minimally effective. For example President Obama signed an executive order banning cellphone use by government workers while driving. In a similar vein, Secretary LaHood calls for highly visible enforcement of laws against this behavior. The problem with these actions (consequences) is that most people who text while driving will never get caught and face the consequences of the law or policy. Even with increased visible enforcement the driver texting will simply stop until the patrol car is out of sight. Since most people who get a ticket for speeding resume speeding after only a few miles, I am sure that the same thing will happen to most texters who get caught.

While I can’t write in this post all there is to know about how to make warnings and consequences effective, I can tell you that the behavior of texting is highly reinforcing to texters – immediately. As long as this source of reinforcement is available, threats of punishment and instances of punishment will have only limited impact on the problem. Writer Frank Herbert said it well, “The proximity of a desirable thing tempts one to overindulgence. On that path lies danger.”

On a positive note, I learned today about a technological solution to this behavioral problem. iZup is coming out with a phone app that will interrupt texting when the phone is moving over 5 mph. While people may be reluctant to buy this app for themselves, many parents will buy them for their children.

Behavior is changed by antecedents and consequences (what comes before and after behavior). When these scientific concepts are understood, they usually lead to more efficient and effective solutions to behavior problems. Texting is one that requires behavioral expertise and technological collaboration for the best effect.

I know they had many technology experts at the National Summit on Distracted Driving but wonder how many behavior analysts were invited. I think I know – none.

For further proof bans don’t work, read Texting bans for drivers increases crashes, study shows, New York Post, 9-28-10.

Consequences, Positive Reinforcement, Technology

Lifeguard on duty: Swim at Your Own Risk!

September 28th, 2010

No Comments »

lifeguardTypically when we read headlines that relate to personal safety, we are smacked in the face with the obvious.  In a recent New York Times article, they raised the issue, albeit late in the season, of lifeguards’ texting on the job and putting swimmers at risk. The article identifies many instances this past summer where swimmers were rescued by other swimmers or in some cases drowned while the lifeguard was busy thumbing away on his/her phone. Of course technology is one issue; we all know the age in which we live. The real concern is how to maintain a safe environment in the face of a world that produces increasing distractions and little reinforcement for doing the job you are being paid to do. 

Some jobs are just prone to low or no incidence of critical events. Some lifeguards work all summer and never see a person in danger of drowning. In other words, the primary reason for having the job doesn’t occur. By our very nature, our behavior, goes to the most reinforcing part of the environment. When a lifeguard goes for long periods with no reinforcement for scanning the ocean or the pool, their behavior will naturally turn to those things that offer more.  A cellphone offers an infinite variety of reinforcement, particularly for the young tech savvy person. The rate of reinforcement from devices such as cellphones captures one’s attention almost to the exclusion of job related activities.

Attempts to deal with such dereliction of duty are predictable, costly and mostly ineffective.  Employees are disciplined, fired, warned, threatened with loss of job or just plain “chewed-out.” Supervisors resort to dumping the offender in the pool with his/her phone in hand; lock the phone in the office or texting them, “You’re fired.”  Many managers say they have tried everything and nothing works. However, they have not tried everything as I have not read of a single occasion where anyone has tried an approach to make the “lifeguarding activities” more positively reinforcing. Some people have mentioned low pay as contributing to the problem but I can assure you, this is not about money. It is about everyday reinforcement on the job. Pay more if you can but doubling pay will not eliminate this problem.

Before mentioning a positive approach, let me say that I think the phones should be banned.  They are just too tempting to use. In addition, many pools or beaches issue a warning at first offense, even though the policy is firing for use of a cell phone on duty. That should be stopped. If cellphones are prohibited and the employee knows it is a firing offense to violate the policy, then fired they should be – on first offense!

On a positive side, what if we were to present situations requiring a lifeguard action in order to increase positive reinforcement for job related activities? What if we placed prohibited objects by the pool where lifeguards should spot them in a reasonable time and measure the accuracy and timeliness of their response? Why not have swimmers (not patrons but perhaps supervisors or other non-customers) do things that require some help from the guard and track these responses as well? In other words, introduce errors into the system for increasing reinforcement for desired behavior. Track what is caught and record the response time. Chart the data so that guards can see progress. Provide positive reinforcement for correctly spotting and responding to incidents and events (input errors). Set efficiency goals for the team and provide celebrations and rewards for achievement. By the way, do not punish what is missed since they are not real situations. If correct responding is low, increase the number of opportunities for things to catch. My co-author and I spell out the science and technology behind this approach in our forthcoming book Safe by Accident.  (Reserve a copy of the book today by visiting www.safebyaccident.com.) 

Because texting by lifeguards is just now being reported and because efforts to deal effectively with it have not been particularly successful, many managers have concluded that it is just something they will have to live with and that punishment is the only tool available. That is an unfortunate conclusion however, as the science of behavior offers effective, and positive, solutions.

Behavior Based Safety, Consequences, Positive Reinforcement, Technology

« Older Entries