‘Consequences’ Articles

Why is it always THE PEOPLE?

Maybe it is because I turned 78 last week, but it seems that every day I read something or see something on TV that drives me crazy. Even though by the usual standards, I am at the age where people mostly chill out, I seem to be going down a different path.

Today’s path to driving me crazy was a link sent to me by a friend, Drone pilot burnout triggers call for recruiting overhaul. The article starts with “Driving a war drone is a stressful business. Shifts up to 12 hours are stretches of dullness, watching and waiting, interrupted by flashes of intense activity in which pilots must make life-or-death decisions.”

What boils my blood is that when performance or morale issues become uneven or lagging, the first assumption that is usually made by management is that “we have hired the wrong people.” Not that that can sometimes be the problem but that is the first conclusion from these problems. Is it just possible that it could be management or the job design?

I would highly suggest that before the Air Force spends millions of dollars figuring out who to hire, they should look first at day to day supervision, policies and job design. Burnout is caused when the job requires more behaviors than are supported by the available reinforcers required to sustain the desirable performance. Long periods of looking for something and not finding it causes something known as extinction.  Staying alert in such conditions may be considered to be quite stressful. These conditions can be modified quite easily with modern technology by programing more things to find. These things can then be an occasion for either built in reinforcement or social reinforcers delivered by peers or managers.

It is my belief that every organization should use the best ways available to find employees who are likely to be successful. However, when positive reinforcement is not produced by the job and the people one works for and with, even the best candidate will not perform to his or her potential. Were I to be asked for my two cents worth of advice, I would suggest that the Air Force look first at the frequency of reinforcers produced by the job itself and then from supervisors and peers. Changing that will certainly be more cost effective for the tax payers and the Air Force than trying to find people who can tolerate “stretches of dullness, watching and waiting.”


Stay Connected           Ask Aubrey

Why We Will Never Forget ‘The Office’

After more than 200 episodes, the oddly quirky and debatably successful sitcom “The Office” came to an end last week. Even for those who didn’t watch, it was clear that the premise of the show was to unearth the totally inappropriate goings-on in the workplace, leaving viewers gasping, “Did that just happen?” Read entire post including tips for effectively managing others and avoiding mistakes common to television bosses at Talent Management Magazine.

Rutgers: A Metaphor for the Business Bully

Kicking, hitting, pushing, calling names — no, it’s not a 4-year-old kindergartner run amok, it’s the behavior of 44-year-old, (now former) Rutgers basketball coach Mike Rice. Apparently Rice has been positively reinforced and rewarded for this type of behavior since preschool because people don’t develop lifestyle strategies overnight. In early April of this year, Rice was fired by the university after (and only after) ESPN aired footage of his form of inspiring performance: nothing like the coach bashing your head with a basketball at close range to make you a better player, right? Read the entire post on Performance Reset at Talent Management Magazine.

I am not a category! Redux

I have written on this and will probably do so again but an email advertisement for a book, Wars at Work, caught my attention recently.  The author, Kaveh Mir, believes that psychometric tests provide the information necessary to solve differences at work that waste time, effort and have a negative impact on profits.  While I don’t argue with the fact that most disagreements at work have negative consequences to the company as well as the combatants, I do not believe that psychometric tests provide the answer.  I say that, coming from training and practice in those tests.  As a practicing clinical psychologist for many years, I gave more tests than I care to remember.  While there are many arguments to be made about their use, the foremost criticism is that it is very presumptuous to assume that from a paper/pencil test that it is possible to capture the essence of a person.  This is certainly a sampling error of the worst kind.  The second problem I have is while they are touted as producing valid and reliable measures of one’s behavior, they all have to be interpreted!  The interpretation depends on the training and experience of the interpreter.

I could go on and on but I believe that assessing an employees’ ability to get along at work, facilitated by personality tests, is another case of wasting time and money.  Categorizing people in any way violates their uniqueness.  Most people spend many years trying to rid themselves of prejudices based on treating people on the basis of particular group identification rather than by who they are as individuals. In the modern workplace, employees are placed in an environment where the widest range of personalities (however that may be assessed) exists and where they must learn to work cooperatively and effectively with them.  Changing behaviors related to increasing work efficiency, effectiveness and enjoying doing it with many different people starts with accepting them as they are, not due to any group affiliation they may have.  While grouping defines one’s heritage, it shouldn’t define how they behave toward others.


 

 


Stay Connected

 

 


Ask Aubrey

Results Only Work Environment? It’s a Leadership Problem

A reader recently asked me to comment on Best Buy’s latest management announcement. You see, Best Buy has joined Yahoo in ending work at home as an effort to improve performance. (Read Yahoo! Wrong Problem; Wrong Solution.) Both companies would benefit from treating work at home, even when the job will permit it, as a privilege, not a right. Read the entire post at Talent Management/Performance Reset.

Yahoo! Wrong problem; Wrong solution

It was announced this week that Yahoo CEO Marissa Mayer is calling all telecommuting employees back into the office; for good! Mayer cited the need to foster collaboration which can, according to Mayer, only be done in person.

The real problem at Yahoo is management, not where people work.  Bringing employees back into the office will not solve their performance problems or inspire more successful and effective innovation and collaboration.  If managers manage employees poorly at home, it is possible that they will manage them poorer at the office.  It is one thing to have a poor manager interact with you occasionally through email, text messages, or by phone but it is quite another to have the manager on your case all the time.

Yahoo needs managers who understand the science of human behavior and how to apply its principles and methods successfully in the workplace.  It is a proven fact that employees who are positively reinforced for their performance will undoubtedly continue to deliver improved performance (ie. Discretionary Effort).

Until the CEO fixes poor management and supervisory behaviors, in addition to the across the board executive decision making process, there will be more changes that employees won’t like such as increased job pressures and layoffs.

Read more about this in my latest Talent Management post, “Yahoo! Firestorm: Intention vs. Effect.”

 

Lincoln Learned to Lead

Abraham Lincoln was assassinated 148 years ago, yet millions of Americans honor his memory by visiting his memorial in Washington, D.C., every year. For many, Lincoln, our 16th president, remains an icon of leadership, a leadership that has been continually examined, most recently in Steven Spielberg’s award-winning film “Lincoln.” Read the entire post at Talent Management…

Consequences in Social Media

Guest Post by Julie Terling, AVP Marketing, ADI

Social Media tools and networks are being developed and launched at such a breakneck speed; it’s hard to keep up. Most of us come across these tools through word-of-mouth or by association; people we know and interact with entice us to use them.

For most of us, we enter into them for the social aspect, or to engage with people in ways that may lead to developing business relationships and/or new contacts.  But what we may not realize is how our behavior is shaped or extinguished by what does or does not happen to us as a result of our online actions.

Take for instance Facebook.  Understandably, Facebook lends itself to more personal types of interactions. Whether it is friends, family members or staying on top of what’s happening with a particular group you follow (bands, businesses, local chapters, etc.) your user behavior tends to be more relaxed and casual.  Have you stopped to think what happens to your behavior when you post a status update that no one “likes” or comments on?  Or worse yet, when you receive a comment that you view as negative?  Are you more or less likely to put yourself, and your thoughts, out there next time?

A recent study reported that 40% of people who were “unfriended” by someone on Facebook would avoid contact with that person in the “real world.” This same study also indicates that people spend 25% of their time online using social networks and that there is a different set of behaviors, language and etiquette for social media.  Where is the handbook for that? If you don’t know them, or learn them quickly, your time on social media will be punishing and short lived.

When we engage in social interactions, it’s easy to forget that behavior is behavior and that there are consequences associated with what we do and say. Knowing and understanding behavior scientifically can help improve any relationship, even those we have through social networks.  And, let’s face it, there is a business case for using social media whether we like it or not.   As the saying in business goes, “You can never know too many people.” One thing we know for sure, the more “likes” you get, the more apt you are to “like” others.  The laws of behavior are always at work.  When you understand them, social media will always increase the positive reinforcement in your life. If you don’t, then…

 

Breaking Bad Habits: How to Create Change that Sticks

Guest Post by Joe Laipple

When I first started working in a call center, I asked a supervisor of thirty years to estimate how many change initiatives she had seen in her career. I shouldn’t have been surprised when she said she had seen an average of one new initiative every six months. Those sixty new initiatives typically start with high promise, positive talk, and good intentions but then fade away. Read the entire post at Connections Magazine.

Leaving Groundhog Day Behind

If you’ve ever seen the movie “Groundhog Day” starring Bill Murray, you know it has less to do with the calendar date and Punxsutawney Phil (the groundhog) than it does with the concept of changing non-productive habits one small step at a time. In the movie, Murray (a curmudgeon and a cad) wakes up to the same day repeatedly and eventually learns that he can change the results of his life by making small daily changes in his behavior. By the end of the movie, he is transformed and moves forward into a new day as a better and happier man. Read my latest Talent Management Post to learn more.