Aubrey Daniels' Blog

Feedback is the Breakfast of Champions

aubreydaniels — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 09:45:34 +0000

Guest post by Russell Justice (aka Mr. Whiskers)

My mentor and friend Aubrey Daniels first introduced me to this principle years ago. Since then, it continues to prove itself true in my life and work. From feedback to children on thumb sucking, stops on the soccer field, or doing the daily chore list; to feedback on classroom performance to students and blocking efficiency for football players; to progress on house construction, selling $ million medical equipment or response time to customer requests, feedback is indeed the Breakfast of Champions. Those pursuing and achieving excellence thrive on feedback. Not just feedback on results—not at all—feedback on progress, even tiny steps of progress. In fact, the smaller the increment used to measure progress (and reinforce it), the faster the performance will increase (shaping).

This week a milestone event reminded me again of the value of feedback. I turned the 6000^th mile on my blue Trek bicycle. The milestone made me thankful for the Cateye “computer” that keeps track of my miles, minutes, trips and speed.

At times when I am on some other bicycle, like at the beach or when riding with a friend, and that bicycle does not have an odometer, my enthusiasm for riding and my energy diminish. There is something powerful about having the dial in front of me, showing me my speed and each hundredth of a mile—and giving me credit for it. I can’t count the times that feedback has pushed me on to finish my goal of 20 miles when I wanted to quit at mile 17 or 18. There is nothing imaginary about this—the fact is, the emotional and physical energy is not there without the feedback. Feedback is indeed the Breakfast of Champions.

Given that feedback is the Breakfast of Champions—do you have something in your life (exercise routine), in your family (staying in budget), in your work (reducing waste), in your Sunday school class (new members), or with your baseball team (reducing errors) that you would like to see improve? Then, finding a way to measure and provide specific and timely feedback is the starting point. Without it, your improvement efforts are mere talk.

Ask Aubrey: Unions and Performance Feedback Q: I was recently promoted to a supervisory position at...
New Year’s Resolutions: Beware! The origin of New Year’s Resolutions can be linked to...
Ask Aubrey: Performance Feedback A recent vistor asked, Could you clarify why you do...

Helping and when it doesn’t

aubreydaniels — Mon, 05 Mar 2012 15:31:21 +0000

There is much being said by politicians these days about helping the poor. The problem is that everything done by Congress for the past 40 years has not helped. Earned Income Tax Credit, Food Stamps, Aid to Families with Dependent Children and other programs by church, charity and the government have done little to help people escape from poverty. Poverty levels, as defined by the U.S. Government, have remained between 14 and 15% since 1970. After the trillions of tax dollars that have been spent over that time period taxpayers and the poor deserve better. If the goal of this expenditure is to lift people out of poverty, it doesn’t. Something is terribly wrong.

We have the same problem with foreign aid. How many friends have we made with the hundreds of billions of dollars spent in the last decade — Afghanistan? Iraq? Pakistan? Egypt? The desire to help the poor in the U.S. and in the developing countries of the world is commendable. The intent is correct; the impact is minimal.

This week when the U.S. Government was considering withholding aid to Egypt in the light of the Americans, who were imprisoned there, I couldn’t help but think of the movie from the 50’s starring Peter Sellers titled, The Mouse that roared. The plot involved the leaders of The Duchy of Grand Fenwick who decided that the only way the country could get out of its economic woes was to declare war on the United States, lose and accept the traditional foreign aid.

The problem in both these situations is that the contingencies of reinforcement are wrong. People in charge of dispensing billions of dollars seem unaware of what behaviors they are reinforcing when they give out the money. The way it appears to be done is akin to a situation that is mishandled by many parents every day. They say to a crying or whining child, “If you will stop crying, I will get it for you.” While on the face of it, it seems right. The problem is that the next time they want something they will cry because in order to stop crying, you must first start crying. The behavior chain that is strengthened by this tactic is: start crying; stop crying; get something you want.

Reinforcement strengthens the behavior required to get it. Some people are helped when you give them money. Academic scholarships are typically effective because the classes of behaviors that are usually rewarded are industriousness and academic achievement. The hard-working poor often need help, and the help, money or otherwise, is usually productive. By productive I mean that the person uses the money or other resources wisely and is more independent as a result. However, giving street beggars money increases begging. It almost never does anything to help the person become independent. Actually it does the opposite. It makes them dependent on the largess of the passersby.

Since money is such a powerful motivator it must be used carefully. It can be used to create good or evil, productivity or idleness, efficiency or wastefulness, competition or cooperation. Whether the former or the latter, it is determined by the contingency of reinforcement, that is, what one actually has to do to get the reinforcement. If all candidates for public office have to do to get people to vote for them is to make a promise, then what s/he will be good at in office is making promises, not necessarily good at delivering what was promised. If you give people who are not industrious money for promising they will spend it wisely, don’t be surprised when they waste the money and come back with a promise not to do it next time. If a beggar wins the lottery, it is unlikely that he will be prosperous years later. As Tug McGraw, famous, or infamous, pitcher of the New York Mets once said about how he would spend his plush salary, “Ninety percent I’ll spend on good times, women and Irish whiskey. The other ten percent I’ll probably waste.”

I have often said that if you give someone something for nothing, you will make him/her “good for nothing.” There is a body of research that shows that non-contingent reinforcement decreases motivation and may degrade performance. Whether at home, in the workplace or even in social relationships, consider the behavior that is being reinforced. For example, a chore-based allowance is better for children than a weekly allowance since completing chores is required to get the reinforcement. The weekly allowance becomes an entitlement since being a member of the family is the reinforcement contingency that entitles the child to the money. Even though the chore-based allowance produces competence and confidence, the weekly one is more preferred by parents because it is easier for them to administer than a chore-based one, where follow-up is necessary. Think earn.

The science of behavior has demonstrated how to use money to help people be more independent and self-reliable at home, at work, in the community and how to create friends of America abroad. The secret is in knowing the science of behavior.

Why Wall Street won’t ever change their spending ways I’m going to get right to the point. I have...
Does Money Make You Smart? Let’s say that you make business decisions where the impact...
What was Google thinking! The headline read “Google Gives All Employees Surprise $1,000 Cash...

Productive Plan for 99ers

aubreydaniels — Tue, 28 Feb 2012 18:43:19 +0000

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

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

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

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

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

My 30 Day Plan to Create Jobs How long do you think it will take the government...
How to Kick Start Your Career There is no better way to start out the New...
A Teacher Puts “Behavior” Into Action Some really get this behavior thing. I received this email...

Positive Reinforcement Can Kill

aubreydaniels — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 09:00:24 +0000

Guest post by Tom Spencer

The 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

Horrible Boss? KILL them with kindness…or more specifically, Positive Reinforcement! With all of the hype surrounding the new movie release...
Fun with Positive Reinforcement ...
Can you Speak Up? I Can’t Hear You Guest post by Bart Sevin, Ph.D. Maureen Dowd recently wrote...

Don’t Fear Change

aubreydaniels — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 17:25:13 +0000

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.

U73J86UXP4NZ

Why Wall Street won’t ever change their spending ways I’m going to get right to the point. I have...
Employees have spoken…fear and failed leadership prove disastrous in safety Guest post by Judy Agnew. Finally, we hear the truth!...
Engaging Employees: Do You Have What it Takes? In my latest Talent Management Blog, I define employee engagement...

Why Wall Street won’t ever change their spending ways

aubreydaniels — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 19:10:34 +0000

I’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.

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.

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.

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.

AIG gives Bonuses a bad name Everybody is talking about AIG again. The conversation is about...
What was Google thinking! The headline read “Google Gives All Employees Surprise $1,000 Cash...
A Dozen Ways to Weather the Economic Storm Guest Blogger: Darnell Lattal Nowadays you can’t turn on...

Ethical Lessons for Every Workplace

aubreydaniels — Fri, 06 Jan 2012 11:00:15 +0000

The recent scandals at Penn State and Syracuse have ignited larger concern over whether or not organizations devote the proper attention and care to building ethical structures in their workplace. My colleague, and ADI President and CEO, Darnell Lattal, was interviewed recently for both Training Magazine and Talent Management as she has written extensively on the topic of Ethics at work. I encourage all to read and consider how behavioral science should be used to ensure that your organization builds an “ethical infrastructure” that defines, measures, and reinforces ethical behavior.

Good Intentions, Bad Effects Guest post by Darnell Lattal Throughout the past several years,...
Lessons from BP -with Judy Agnew CEBViews recently posted an article Learning from BP...
Workplace Tips from Brad Pitt Well, not exactly but I did have the privilege of...

How to Kick Start Your Career

aubreydaniels — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 20:53:25 +0000

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

Watch video…

For Women Only: When is talking about yourself helpful to your career? While reading an article from the Huffington Post by Marcia...
Productive Plan for 99ers I happened to catch the Platform to Employment segment on...
Raises Are Forever The modern organization wastes more time and money in the...

New Year’s Resolutions: Beware!

aubreydaniels — Tue, 03 Jan 2012 11:58:15 +0000

The 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.

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.
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.
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.
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.”
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!

Just do it! Guest post by Christina Simms Understanding why we procrastinate and...
Survey Says? Surveys can uncover a lot, but it’s what you do...
“Let Me Speak to Your Supervisor” Guest post by John Green Does customer service have to...

There they go again: National ban on texting while driving

aubreydaniels — Tue, 27 Dec 2011 14:10:32 +0000

There 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.

Breaking News: Texting while driving is dangerous. Duh! Anyone who understands anything about behavior knows that the latest...
Texting & Driving Debate Puts Spotlight on Behavior-Based Safety This graphic video on the dangers of texting and driving has...
Lifeguard on duty: Swim at Your Own Risk! Typically when we read headlines that relate to personal safety,...