Home | Login | Recent Changes | Search | All Pages | Help

SessionOne031

Catch 'Em Doing It Right!
DaniWeinberg, MarianneTromp

Since Skinner's time, we've learned much more about possible consequences, and especially about how to use positive reinforcement to change behavior. Many effective managers today subscribe to the motto: "Catch 'em doing it right!" You will too, after you've taken this session.

As a manager, you are faced daily with trying to influence the behavior of the people you work with in order to accomplish your objectives. In this session, you will learn how to use the principles of Operant Conditioning to change behavior, in yourself and in others.

What kind of feedback diagram would you draw to show the effects of a recognition program based on Operant Conditioning? -SteveSmith

I have tried creating a diagram of effects for operant conditioning in the past. I have not been happy with the results. From the manager's perspective it appears to be simply a matter of reinforcing a particular behavior in order to get it to happen more frequently. That would be a simple loop to create: behavior observed; reinforcement provided.

However, what happens when the desired behavior is not evident? That's when operant conditioning becomes interesting to me; and that's when my skills at diagraming are insufficient. I have included a diagram from the perspective of the individual who is changing her behavior. An individual performs a behavior and perceives one of two types of consequences; based on the perception of the consequences the tendency to behave in this way will increase or decrease.

This model provides me with the basis for how I might influence this individual.

MarianneTromp

The inner loop shows the effect of shaping behavior at the individual and team level. The outer loop shows the shaping and amplication of similar, effective behavior at the team and organizational level.

For instance, a manager of ACEware notices that the quality of a team's products has increased after it began using weekly measures to gauge their effectiveness. The manager knows that the team likes to socialize together so she rewards them with a special half day tour at a local air space museum. She also publically recognizes the teams accomplishments and methods. She notices similar measurement programs beginning in other areas. When the quality of their products increases, she rewards them with something they like.

I suspect using the outer loop -- public recognition -- isn't always a desirable action to take, especially at the individual level. My experience is that some shy people would prefer just a private reward. So, the manager gets the benefits of the inner loop, but not the amplification that occurs with the outer loop. -SteveSmith

I like your diagram and your example. A change I would make is to replace the word "shaping" in your description of the outer loop with the word "recognition". Your sentence would then read: The outer loop shows the recognition and amplification of similar, effective behavior at the team and organizational level.

Marianne

I am interested in these concepts, but wonder if you touch on, what I (non-expert that I am) see as the flip side.

I've seen large chunks of development organizations demotivated when, e.g. crisis cowboys are publically rewarded. I've been part of an organization that became dominated by such people because of such rewards (the majority were happy riding the crises and highly motivated to solve them), only to watch it fail shortly thereafter because the customer was doing the product testing.

How do we avoid, call it, over-motivation in what should be isolated circumstances? We want the crises solved, but we don't want more of them because that is what is rewarded. I confess I've bothered my current director by pointing this out to him, particularly since I didn't have an alternative for thanking those who helped solve crises.

MikeMelendez

Mike,

Thanks for your excellent question. Your question actually raises some interesting issues in Behavior Analysis/Operant Conditioning. Yes, we will be talking about some of these issues in our session, but let me give you a brief response now.

The very first principle underlying Operant Conditioning (OC) is this: you get what you reinforce! (Sounds a bit like computer programming, doesn't it! You get what you code.) So as long as a company gives heavy reinforcement (R+, or positive reinforcement) to these "crisis cowboys," their behavior will continue.

And there's another factor at work here too that complicates matters. Some behaviors are self-reinforcing (e.g., eating when you're hungry), and I suspect that many of these Crisis Cowboys find intrinsic pleasure in doing their thing. Even if you're not of that bent (and you can talk to Pat Snipp about what role Type plays in this), I think we've all experienced the "rush" of working under pressure and succeeding - the Hero Complex, you might call it. So even if this behavior was not reinforced, chances are it would continue for some of these people.

Second point I want to make. Companies where you see this kind of thing (heavy R+ for the Crisis Cowboys) are also companies whose culture has evolved over time into a Crisis Culture - i.e., always working under extreme pressure, always running late, always requiring heroic efforts just to get the simplest job done. I've consulted in many companies like this. They're awfully hard to live in (unless you're one of those natural Crisis Cowboys!).

So I think the problem is not one of "over-motivation," as you suggest, but rather has its roots much deeper than that, in the company culture that's been allowed (or encouraged) to develop.

If I were consulting to a company like this, the first thing I'd need to do would be to find out if they really want to change. That would entail somehow showing them a real picture of what's going on and, once they could see that, suggesting that there might be other ways to live and still get the job done - in fact, to get it done more effectively and with less human wear-and-tear.

I hope you'll come to our session so that we can talk more about this.

Dani

Mike's questions prompted some of my own: What if the person we need to "correct" is not the crisis cowboy, but the manager who promotes the problem to crisis and also gets a few rewards for the solution. My experience is that this can be nipped further up the chain - to mix a few metaphors.

Dani, is that is what you are getting at with the cultural change? Now, how can Mike (realizing that the director is part of the problem) suggest something to elicit a positive response?

I still have a button from the Sixties that says "If you aren't part of the solution, you must be part of the problem". Wisdom from Eldridge Cleaver who certainly had cultural insight. It has always been on my bulletin board (where all philosophy resides) and I love it.

BeckyWinant

My wife, Diane, likes the variant "If you aren't part of the solution, you must be part of the precipitate", but then she's done more chemistry than I have.

MikeMelendez

One reason that removing the rewards for short term behavior will not make a difference is that the short term behavior may have become a habit that feels familiar. The feeling of familiarity has become the reinforcer of the behavior.

Changing a habit is easier when you can replace it with a new behavior. To do that you first need to identify what the new way of doing things looks, feels and sounds like. Then you can start reinforcing tendencies toward that new behavior.

Knowing what you don't want is not enough (e.g. I don't want this short-term behavior). I find that there are more "don't wants" in a particular problem space than there are "wants." Focusing on the "wants" provides more leverage because these are elements that you can reinforce (strengthen).

Does this partially address your comments?

MarianneTromp 13Dec2001

I also like your addition of a date. These wiki conversations are scattered in space and time. The date provides an anchor.

MikeMelendez 13Dec2001