Managing the “Balance of Consequences”
Even in a lean organization, with lean culture, you are confronted with the need to manage human behavior and performance, and address behavior problems. Sometimes old ideas, and even small ideas, can have a big impact. In every complex system, small changes can produce hugely significant consequences. Those who scoff at climate change research should be reminded that the great Ice Age resulted from only a six degree change in the average temperature in North America. Current climate chaos cannot be explained in a linear direct relationship between any two events. It can only be understood by understanding complex systems (or chaos) theory. Organization culture, like the natural environment, is a complex system in which slight changes in one sub-system can trigger changes in other sub-systems and can precipitate significant changes in outcome for the entire system.
As many of you know, I started my career working in prisons in North Carolina where I implemented a “token economy”, actually a checking economy, behind prison walls. This was an exercise in “behaviorism,” behavior modification, or organizational behavior management. One of the core beliefs of behaviorists is that “the data speaks”, or as B. F. Skinner said, “the pigeon is never wrong.” So, in my prison we kept data on almost every type of inmate and guard behavior we thought might be influenced by the implementation of our system of positive reinforcement for good behavior. I actually employed a college student to sit in the dormitories at night and record inmate-to-inmate and inmate-to-guard interactions, categorizing them into positive and negative, who initiated them, etc.
- The Balance of Consequences
The result of this data was to conclude that while behavior in the work area had improved as a result of new forms of positive reinforcement for good work behavior, behavior in the dormitories had not improved. This was logical since the change in consequences to behavior was in the work areas. The good behavior did not generalize to the dormitories and interaction with guards. So… we came up with a scheme to cause the guards to interact more positively with the inmates. We gave them “bonus points” to hand out for agreed upon good behavior of inmates. These behaviors included helping other inmates; studying at night; cleaning the area, etc. It was a small thing. But, it tipped the “balance of consequences” for the guards. It resulted in a huge change in the behavior of both inmates and guards. Not only did the guards initiate more positive interactions, the inmates initiates more positive interactions with both guards and other inmates. In other words, the degree to which inmates were managing the guard’s behavior decreased and the degree to which the guards were managing inmate behavior increased.
The idea of a balance of consequences is that for every decision or behavior, there are likely to be consequences, both positive and negative, on both sides of the equation. Deciding to take job A or to take job B involves assessing the balance of consequences, potential rewards and potential negative events for either choice. It doesn’t require shifting all of the weight in one direction, it only requires a slight shift in consequences to tip the teeter-totter.
One reality of most work setting is that the first level of management works very closely with the work force. The front line supervisor or team leader is closely tied to the social system of the first level workers. It is natural that they want to get along with them, even seek there approval. It was clear in the prison that most guards had good relationships with most inmates and they were reluctant to punish bad behavior, thereby causing negative consequences that would come back to them. They “got-along” with the inmates by ignoring some behavior that they should not have ignored. Given the realities of the system, they were intelligently managing their relationships, those that mattered in their day-to-day world.
- Tipping the Scales
Managers do the same. Often their behavior is managed upward. Employees have many ways of displaying approval and disapproval of the managers behavior and it is natural that they seek approval. This, however, can result in the front line manager ignoring or letting pass slow or sloppy work.
I am reminded of a research project done some years ago in a classroom. The researcher instructed the children, in the teachers absence, to “attend” to the teacher (give eye contact, lean forward, nod their heads) when the teacher was on the left side of the room, and to ignore the teacher when she was on the right side of the room. The classroom was video taped before and after and, not surprisingly, the teacher “learned” to stand to the left side of the classroom the majority of the day. The researcher then reversed the procedure and, again, the teacher responded by modifying her behavior to gain the attention of the students. To some degree, every manager is like that teacher, seeking approval from those they manage.
But, what happens when the team members approve of the leader ignoring their poor or slow work? The question then comes, how do you create less dependence on the approval of the workforce, and more willingness on the part of the first level leader to both recognize good performance and to respond to poor performance? Here are a couple possibilities. I would like to hear your ideas:
1. Adherence to standards and standard work: In a traditional assembly line factory there are generally work standards and standard work. An employee is expected to produce X amount by doing Y tasks in the specified way. There are both standard work outputs and there are standardized tasks. Leader standard work generally includes the tasks of the leader to measure, observe and provide feedback on the degree of conformance to these standards. However, most work today is not of this assembly line or routine factory type. For example, the maintenance function in manufacturing involves a high degree of variability. How long does it take to fix different equipment under different conditions? It is often non-standard. In many cases it is possible for the team leader to use his or her judgment to determine how long repairing equipment should take. Getting them to assert that judgment in the face of pressure from employees is the problem.
2. Creating Connections to Larger Outcomes: We are often not able to see the direct connection between our work and larger outcomes for the organization. If I arrive to work on time, will the company be more profitable and will my job security increase? Probably, but the connections are too remove. Creating “line-of-sight” is one of management’s jobs. In other words, if I perform in X manner, that contributes to Y performance of the larger group. We have to make work important. A good example is the hospital worker who cleans halls and rooms. You can simply call him a “maintenance man.” Or, you can define his job as “reducing the risk of infection for patients.” He is part of the team, one whose work contributes to successful health outcomes for patients. This is similar to Disney’s practices of defining every employee at their theme parks as “members of the cast.” Maids cleaning room are taught that how they clean, how the talk to guests, is part of the total entertainment experience. They are cast members. These definitions help the employee understand the “line-of-sight” from their work to the more significant organization outcomes. What are some other ways of creating this “line-of-sight?”
3. Tip the Balance-of-Consequences for the Team Leader: You will never remove the potential of employees managing upward. Sometimes that is a positive force. But, sometimes that works against taking action against poor performers. Remember the balance of consequences. You don’t have to shift all of the consequences in on direction. You simply have to make a slight shift that tips the balance. How are team leaders rewarded for the good performance of their teams? If there is strong positive reinforcement for the manager, he or she is more likely to take action to enhance the performance of the entire team. You have to make performance matter for both first level employees and first level team leaders.
Ask yourself this question: “If the performance of the team increases, what is the so-what for the leader? Why does it matter for the leader?” And, what are the consequences if performance decreases? If there are no significant consequences for the team leader, then it is likely that the consequences of team member approval will outweigh the need to act on poor performance.
4. Tip the Balance-of-Consequences for the Entire Team: Never under estimate the power of peer approval or pressure. Team members often perform to please other team members. What happens if the entire team improves its performance? What are the consequences? How can you increase the positive consequences through recognition, incentives, opportunities, etc., for the entire team? Or, are there currently forms of reinforcement for the team slowing down their work? How can the system be changed to eliminate this reinforcement for poor performance? Here are just a few ideas for tipping the scales:
- How is team performance measured so that records are set? It is always fun to compete for and set new records for any performance. This is a strong bias in our culture. When you watch any sport, think about how often records are discussed, competed for, and celebrated. How often does this happen at work? Why not?
- Is there a team of the week, month or year award? How can you celebrate outstanding team performance?
- Is there an award for team performance improvement or cost savings ideas?
- Is there a system by which one team, who may be the customer of another internal team, can positively recognize the performance of that team? For example, if maintenance work is completed rapidly, can the the team who uses the equipment recognize the maintenance team? Can the maintenance team recognize line teams for doing preventive maintenance and causing fewer repairs?
What have you found to be effective in tipping the balance of consequences, the motivation for first level managers, so that they will confront poor performance and recognize the good performance of their front line teams? It would be useful to compile a list of things that have worked in one place and might then be tried in another.
Most important, experiment! Be the scientist, trying out different things until you find the system that works best in your organization. After all they are all different.
Managing the culture is the art of managing a complex system, managing through chaos. Analyzing human behavior and motivation is a key skill for all managers. But, no where is it more essential than in that first level relationship between team leaders and team members.
Larry,
Thanks for the thought provoking post. I was wondering if you discuss how these rules apply to knowledge work and guidelines for intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivators?
It’s my understanding we can use an extrinsic motivator like a token to elicit a behavior, but when it is removed the behavior not only goes away, it is decreases below the point it was originally because now the person has an expectation that behaving “good” is something they should be payed for. Intrinsic motivation becomes depressed.
With knowledge work, the work and learning is it’s reward. It’s intrinsic. For example, if I give a reward for every idea submitted that is implemented, so employees stop collaborating and sharing their thoughts because they won’t get the credit? If you use an extrinsic motivator, what happens to the system?
Thanks,
-greg
Greg:
This is a rather long and technical answer, but I think it addresses your question in a way that will allow you to use operant conditioning (the study of the application of consequences, both positive and negative, to change behavior.)
The schedule used to reinforce behavior makes a big difference as to whether the behavior will continue or stop (called extinguish) after the reward system is discontinued. There are essentially two points at which to reward behavior: for the first display of the target behavior after the passage of time (called an interval schedule) or after the behavior has been exhibited a specific number of times (called a ratio schedule).
Rewarding behavior when it occurs is much preferrable to rewarding behavior after a passage of time. This is one reason why work and school schedules of reinforcement (pay every week, every two weeks, once a month; spelling test on Fridays or test every two weeks) are so inefficient.
Providing reinforcment can also be classified as either fixed or variable. When you provide a reinforcement for every display of the target behavior, that is a fixed ratio schedule of one (FR-1), which is also called continuous reinforcement. As you stated in your question, when behavior is reinforced using this schedule it will terminate immediately (extinguish) as soon as the reinforcement stops. However, this is the best way to get a new behavior started. The key is to move gradually to a different schedule so that the behavior will not stop even after reinforcement is not delivered quite as often.
To do this first reward every other behavior (FR-2), then every third behavior (FR-3), and then move to a variable schedule. In a variable schedule, you would reward “on the average” of a certain number of behaviors. For example, a variable ratio schedule of three (VR-3) states that on the average every third display of the target behavior will be reinforced but the actual number could be 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5. The individual would know that a reinforcer is coming, but does not know exactly when.
A lot of behaviors (such as gambling, cheating, dating) are reinforced on a variable ratio schedule. The behavior continues even though it is only rewarded every once in a while. However, as you imply in your question, if the behavior does not become habit (i.e., done automatically), then the behavior will eventually stop if it is no longer reinforced, no matter what the schedule used.
Bill: I understand schedules of reinforcement. But… how do you apply that knowledge to the case of getting the front line manager to take action contrary to the interests of the work team. Do you have a practical application of schedules in a case like this?
As you know, the basic assumption of operant conditioning is that all behavior is under the control of reinforcers and punishers. For front line supervisors to use this technique, they would need to identify a specific target behavior and then systematically reward that behavior first continuously, then intermittently, extending the fixed number of rewards until the delivery of reinforcers is on a variable schedule.
The challenge in only using techniques derirved from this theory to change the behavior of front line managers is that the amount of interaction between the manager and subordinates far outweighs the amount of interaction between the manager and his or her supervisor. The sheer number of interactions makes for a very challenging situation. It is much easier to teach workers to manage their supervisors as you stated in your original blog. I see this all the time in working with classroom teachers.
I have found two basic strategies that tend to work with educators. The first is to work with students and teachers to think differently about student classroom behavior. Instead of trying to control student behavior through the use of rewards and punishers, teach educators and students that their behavior is under their conscious control. This is essentially a social, emotional, volitional approach to human behavior that stands in sharp contrast to an operant conditioning view. The approach I like best is called “Conscious Discipline” developed by Becky Baily. She teaches 7 basic skills that I believe could be relatively easily translated into adult language.
The second strategy I have used is a team approach to professional development for educators. Teachers are trained to work as a team to faciliate excellent classroom practice. The essential elements of this approach are to collect classroom data and then discuss how to change those data based on information regarding best practices. The most important feature of this approach is that I and my colleagues are working to develop the team; the team is actually making decisions; we provide training on data collection and possible best practices for them to evaluate. Losada and Fredrickson have actually done work on evaluating the functioning of the team, but I have not personally tried to do that. Their findings are very similar to that found by John Gottman in his work with couples. A ratio of 3:1 of positive to negative statements for workgroups and 5:1 for spouses makes for a more high functioning team or relationship.
At least with my work with educators, the stategies of changing people’s thinking and their social-emotional skills and/or team development are far superior to having the principal attempt to control teacher behavior or the teacher controlling student behavior via the use of rewards and punishers. I suspect the same would be true in corporations.
Greg, regarding intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and the potential decline after removal of the extrinsic reinforcer: There are several issues here. First, all behavior needs to be reinforced in some manner in order for it to continue. In shaping behavior and learning new behavior, it is assumed that a) the extrinsic reinforcer is gradually withdrawn by using a “thinner” schedule of reinforcement, more intermittent. This increases resistance to extinction. Secondly,you are generally reinforcing behavior that will be maintained by reinforcement in the natural environment, absent the “programmed” extrinsic reinforcement. We assume that when we reinforce our children for doing homework and getting good grades they will learn that this behavior is then reinforced in the classroom and beyond. In the case described, however, if reinforcement of supervisors is temporary, it is most likely that their behavior will again come under the control of the team members. What is needed, in my view, is not a temporary reinforcer, but a system change that has some permanence.
Bill,
You said “A ratio of 3:1 of positive to negative statements for workgroups and 5:1 for spouses makes for a more high functioning team or relationship.”
That’s funny. Spouses would require a higher ratio of reinforcement, wouldn’t they. I have always taught the 4:1 Principle based on Ogden Lindsey’s research in classrooms that demonstrated that 3.57:1 was optimum.
Anyway, I think the idea of cognitive intervention, teaching the front line manager to understand how the contingencies of reinforcement are driving his own behavior, may very well be an effective strategy. This really gets to Skinner’s point in Beyond Freedom and Dignity, that if you understand how your behavior is influenced you gain greater personal freedom by your ability to manage those contingencies.
I will look into the Conscious Discipline idea.
Thanks.
Hi Larry,
I am always eager to receive and read your posts – thank you so much.
During the change process, I teach and emphasize the differences between the (1) Fear Zone, (2) Comfort Zone and (3) Learning Zone. In my opinion, a leader’s responsibility is to move their respective team from the Fear or Comfort Zone into a “deep self reflective” condition …. Learning. This is typically where organizations and people perform and contribute at the most optimal levels.
Please share your own insight and thoughts involving this teaching principle.
Regards,
John
John, your comment makes a lot of sense. I have a graphic that describes the psychology at different stages of the change process. Perhaps I should do a blog post around that.
Larry:
I completely agree that teaching everyone about conditioning is very important. I believe that one of the deficiencies in Pink’s discussion of motivation in Drive (Autonomy, Mastery, Purpose) is his omission of any social motivators such as belonginess and esteem which are major components of Erikson’s theory on personality development. Understanding how the group is (probably unknowingly) influencing one’s behavior because of the strength of one’s need for belonging to the group can be a potent counter influence.
And thank you for reminding me of Lindsey’s work in special ed classrooms. That certainly fits into the framework: as the intimacy of the relationship or the vulnerability of the other person(s) increases, the ratio of positive to negative increases. The top end is somewhere around 11:1 so a good strategy is to err on the side of making too many pleasant statements rather than too little.
Larry:
I would like to read a blog on the different stages of the change process. I have a graphic and an explanation that expands the traditional steps (plan-act-observe-reflect) and maps them onto the steps in using the scientific method. My proposal is that when one carefully self-regulates one’s own change, the person is learning to think like a scientist.
Hi Larry,
As I’ve indicated in prior correspondence, I’m captivated by the concept of organizational culture and culture change. In that regard, I find your framework/model depicting the dimensions of culture both fascinatingly comprehensive and very complex. Relative to the complexity aspect, it has been my experience – in working with organizations undertaking major transformational (aka capability building) initiatives – that contrasting insights (derived from the likes of Peter Drucker and the attributed belief that changing culture is “like pushing on a string… it’s better to pull than to push”)have proven to be quite effective in their simplicity of application. To illustrate this point, I rely on the following quote from C.S. Lewis’ Mere Christianity. I believe it says a great deal about what’s required to catalyze an alteration in human behavior and the related consequences…
“The rule for all of us is perfectly simple. Do not waste time bothering [determining] whether you [believe you do or must] ‘love’ your neighbour; [simply] act as if you did. As soon as we do this we find one of the great secrets. When you are behaving as if you loved someone, you will presently come to love him.”
It’s in the context of bringing about rapid and lasting culture change that I take the translation of this passage/quotation to mean that inculcating a belief in whatever behavior or attitude is desired or expected of one individual toward another need not precede the “acting or doing”. Rather, the mere act of doing often leads to a transformation of the belief system… typical as a result of the realization of the benefits associated with the action. Ergo, it seems most logical to me that in an organizational transformation context, where culture change is a central issue, getting employees to act in the desired manner best precedes any attempt(s) to alter their belief system (which appears at the center of your framework). And again, based on personal experience, it has been through the applied use of learning laboratories (i.e., intentionally created safe environments in which experimental learning, rapid/adaptive problem-solving, and modified behaviors can be put into effect) that rapid culture changes can be “seeded” into an organization. However, one of the keys to having such seedings take root is the ability to create and sustain a fertile environment. And maybe that’s where the complexity of your framework comes into play? It’s in the context of creating and sustaining such an environment,one that’s conducive to the desired behaviors and consequences, that I can see your framework functioning as a planning/assessment mechanism. Unless it’s clearly understood and demonstrable up front what behaviors are the desired ones and which existing ones need to be replaced and why (thereby defining a gap), it seems to me your framework alone would be rather difficult to leverage from the get-go in bringing about the desired cultural and associated behavioral changes. Your thoughts?
Jay,
Great thoughts. Rather than reply in the comments section here, I think I will take your post and quote from it to make a new blog entry.
Hi Larry,
On a slightly different note, it’s my understanding that system dynamics and chaos theory represent two distinct bodies of knowledge and analytical perspectives. I concur with your reference to system dynamics as a mental and/or mathematical framework for depicting the interactions/interdependencies between inter-related components comprising an overall system; along with the notion that there can be potentially dramatic impacts on overall system behavior stemming from slight changes in one or more of the system components. In contrast, it’s my understanding of chaos theory that it represents a body of tools, techniques, and methods for dealing with or deciphering the seemingly choatic patterns of behavior in non-linear, yet deterministic systems. As the most fundamental level, system dynamics is a framework for modeling/understanding complex systems behaviors by defining the components that make up the system and the relationships that exist between those components. And chaos theory is an approach to understanding/modeling complex system behaviors not by looking at the components within the system, but rather by modeling the system as a whole… thereby requiring a completely different set of methods, tools, techniques. System dynamics thinking tends to operate on a micro scale, where chaos theory tends to operate on a macro scale (because of the greater tendency for non-linear/chaotic/random behavior to be manifest at the micro level (i.e., regional vs local weather).
Based on these distinctions, I find it more difficult to relate chaos theory to organizational culture dynamics than system dynamics thinking.
Jay, I am going to copy your comment over to my more recent post to which it relates.