While rummaging through some old newsletter files, I cam across this article which I had written ten years ago. It is based on the A-B-C management principles defined by Leslie Wilk Braksick, PhD in her book UNLOCK BEHAVIOR, UNLEASH PROFITS
In re-reading it yesterday, I concluded it would be worth sharing with you on this blog site.
We teach new hires how to clean efficiently and effectively. We explain how wearing the apron helps save time by keeping their tools and supplies with them so they don’t have to retrace their steps. We show them how to start in one place in the room, clean top to bottom, back to front, and left to right. We explain how we go around the bathroom twice, once to do the wet work and the second time to clean the other areas. We explain that “efficiency” doesn’t mean working faster; it means working smarter.
During the interview and orientation process, we explain that since we work in teams, prompt attendance is critical. If they’re late, they will be holding up the other team members and delaying the start of the work day for everyone, including our clients. We emphasize the importance of perfect attendance; if they don’t show up for work their absenteeism creates chaotic working conditions for their team members, the office staff and their clients.
Surprise! People Don’t Always Do What You Tell Them To Do.
After putting our new hires through orientation and training, what happens as often as not?
Instead of putting their spray bottles back in their apron loops, they put them down on the counter. They’re constantly going back across the room to pick up their cleaning tray and bottles. Instead of working smarter, they work harder. They clean what’s clean. They figure that if a little bit of all-purpose or glass cleaner is good, a whole bunch is better, and then work twice as hard wiping it up. They translate “speed cleaning” to mean moving fast, rather than working efficiently.
Simply showing and telling people what to do does not ensure that they will do it. Getting angry and yelling at them is not the long-term solution to achieving the desired result, which is doing what you want them to do.
 |
| This new updated version can be purchased at Amazon for $18.95 |
Antecedents have limited control over behavior. The role of an antecedent is to get a behavior to occur once. It is the role of a “consequence” of a behavior to get the behavior to occur again. The consequence is what always follows a behavior. Antecedents get us going, but consequences keep us going. People do what they do because of what happens to them when they do it.
Consequences Reinforce Behavior.
You instruct an employee to wear the apron (the antecedent). She wears the apron (the behavior). The apron is uncomfortable and she feels clumsy (the consequence). The consequence of her behavior is Negative (for the performer), it is Immediate and it is Certain. It IS easier to put the spray bottles down on the counter than it is to remember to put them back in the apron loops. The apron IS heavy and awkward until one becomes accustomed to it. To change the undesired behavior (in this case, not wearing the apron and/or not putting the spray cleaners back in the apron instead of down on the countertop), it is necessary to reinforce positive consequences for the person performing the behavior.
The 4 Consequences Of Behavior And Their Effects.
Behavioral consequences are defined as: Those things and events that follow a behavior and change the probability that the behavior will be repeated in the future.
Some of the 1,000 daily behavioral consequences occur naturally. The team’s driver puts the car in gear, presses down on the accelerator and the vehicle moves forward. An employee puts the house key in the lock at a client’s home, turns the knob and the door opens. A team member hits the “on” switch on the vacuum cleaner, and it turns on.
Another portion of the 1,000 daily behaviors is followed by consequences provided by fellow employees. An employee smiles, says “good morning”, and she receives a cheery “good morning” in return. She tells a joke, and her team mates laugh.
Still another portion of the 1,000 behaviors is followed by consequences provided by supervisors and the business owner. These consequences should increase the behaviors that directly add value to your business and decrease those which interfere with value-added performance.
Here are a few examples of how the 4 consequences of behavior are at work every day, along with how they are likely to reinforce the future behavior connected with each consequence:
(1) A team member puts the team control book on top of her car while helping to load supplies. She drives off without retrieving it and it’s gone forever (penalty). This consequence is likely to decrease the likelihood of this behavior reoccurring in the future.
(2) A new employee tries to follow the cleaning methods taught by her franchise owner, but the team leader chews her out for being too slow (punishment). She decides that its more important to work quickly than it is to work efficiently. The consequence reduces the probability of the right behavior being repeated in the future.
(3) A team is cleaning a home for a particularly fussy client. The team leader takes extra quality control measures because she knows this client will call the office and complain if your client finds any dust or finger prints after the team has left. She wants to avoid being reprimanded and forced to go back and re-clean (negative reinforcement).
(4) You share a letter of appreciation with employees of team two from Mrs. Smith praising their work. During the next week you get back a higher than normal number of excellent performance questionnaires from team two’s clients (positive reinforcement).
To Get A Desired Behavior, Provide Positive Consequences
If you look at the Summary of the Four Behavioral Consequences and Their Effects and review these examples again, you will see that an employee’s behaviors can be directed by altering the consequences of behavior. Needless to say, the right antecedents need to be in place to launch the desired behavior in the first place (training, coaching, instructing, the working environment, and supervisory leadership).
If an employee is not adequately taught to perform the desired behavior, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know that we can’t expect her to exhibit the behavior we’re looking for.
Let’s use the situation we referenced at the beginning of this article, dealing with the undesirable behavior of not using the apron properly. How might we go about achieving the correct behavior by changing the consequences for performing this behavior?
We have a new team member who tries to follow the rule about putting the spray bottles back in the apron loops, but becomes frustrated because she finds it awkward and keeps forgetting (punishment). She reverts back to what comes more naturally to her and leaves her AP and GC bottles on the counter instead of trying to follow the system. In this instance, the wrong behavior is being reinforced, thereby decreasing the chance that the right behavior will be repeated.
We know that the eventual consequence for this worker is that she will save time and effort when she gets into the habit of putting her sprayers back in the apron loops instead of down on the counter, and then having to retrace her steps to retrieve them. The consequence will then become something she “wants” to do because it will make her job easier. She’s been told that and knows it’s what she’s supposed to do. Still, the wrong behavior persists because the immediate consequence of doing it the right way is punishment (it is unnatural and more difficult at first).
In an effort to correct this behavior, a trainer or team leader will often verbally chastise the employee for not using the desired behavior. Because the employee is likely to want to avoid the displeasure of her supervisor in the future, this may achieve the desired results . . . at least, temporarily. This is an example of “negative reinforcement” (negative reinforcement is a consquence by which the behavior allows the performer to escape or avoid something they don't want). Negative reinforcement can alter a behavior, but the performer’s behavioral change is likely to show minimal compliance. It may only exhibit itself under direct supervision thereafter, almost begrudgingly. Negative reinforcement tends to produce behavioral performance that is “just good enough to get by.”
The best way to change behavior is to eliminate or minimize any punishment or penalty which may be a consequence to the employee for performing a desired behavior, and provide positive reinforcement as a consequence for doing so (or that results in a positive consequence that far outweighs any immediate punishment or penatly associated with performing the desired behavior).
So, how can we get our new employee to perform the desired behavior of always putting her APC and GC bottles back in her apron loops using positive reinforcement? Think about it for a moment. It is our objective to get our worker to perform the desired behavior to “get something she wants” as a consequence of performing the behavior.
Actually, this is a bigger issue than merely getting our employee to use the apron properly. This behavior is just one element of the whole issue of performing specific desired behaviors that are required to do the work efficiently.
Not using efficient cleaning methods (which include the proper use of the apron, and ALWAYS putting the spray bottles back in the apron loops) means that the employee will have to work harder. I don’t know of too many people who would rather find a way to work harder than they have to. Do you?
Your challenge is that until this new employee masters our efficient cleaning methods, the “positive” consequence promised is “future” and “uncertain” to the employee. While she’s learning, the consequence to the employee for performing the desired behavior is usually “negative”, “immediate” and “certain”.
An owner might say, “This is nonsense! I’m paying her to do the job the way I tell her to do it, and she better do it or else!” News flash! The prospect of losing one’s job might have been a feared penalty at one time. But this is the year 2000, and that threat is not a big stick these days. We have all heard of that little thing called employee turnover. Furthermore, what you really want out of your employees is “discretionary behavior” (which translates to behaviors that exceed the bare minimum performance required to “just get by”).
The reality of this situation is that positive reinforcement needs to occur during the initial training period. You can’t change the fact that learning efficient cleaning techniques may prove to be uncomfortable and unnatural for new employees. But you can minimize the punishment the employee experiences during this time and replace it with a consequence the employee will want to experience: recognition for her progress and praise for performing the desired behaviors. WE SHOULD NOT UNDERESTIMATE THE POWERFUL IMPACT THAT POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT HAS ON ACHIEVING A DESIRED BEHAVIOR. This positive reinforcement must begin during the initial training process.
The person responsible for training a new hire needs to understand the principle of positive reinforcement of desired behavior. From the very first time a new employee follows direction, she needs to receive positive reinforcement for this behavior. “Way to go! That’s it, keep doing it that way.” Making a game of the training process can make this easier for both trainer and trainee. “Spray, loop, wipe. Spray, loop, wipe. Spray, loop, wipe,” repeated while teaching a new hire to apply cleaner, put the sprayer back in the apron loop, and wipe the surface as she cleans is just one example. “That’s it, you’re getting it. Good job. You’re learning well,” is positive reinforcement to your new worker. And the trainer must not skimp on providing constant praise as the new person continues to learn new procedures.
Continuous positive reinforcement of the desired behaviors of your new trainee needs to offset the negative consequences, which are going to be experienced by your new employee during the learning process. As she learns the right behaviors, she gains confidence (positive reinforcement), starts to experience the benefits of efficient methodology (positive reinforcement) and becomes accepted as a peer by her coworkers (positive reinforcement).
Training Is The Antecedent
Remember that “training and guidance” are the antecedents to workplace behavior. How we provide this training and guidance sets up the behavior and can positively or negatively impact the consequences that follow the behavior.
Inadequate or cursory training of a new employee will not beget the desired behavior, and the consequence will be a negative experience for the trainee. When you’re in a situation where you need an extra pair of hands on a team, the temptation is to short-circuit the training process. However, this management decision inevitably leads to a revolving door of new hires coming and going.
A seasoned team has been programmed to get the job done efficiently. They’re used to getting in and out of Mrs. Smith’s home in 45 minutes. They know how to produce quality work within a certain time frame. The sooner they can get their day’s cleanings done, the sooner they can get home to the kids. Now you introduce a new, unseasoned pair of hands to the mix.
Instead of being an asset to the team, this new person is a liability. She hasn’t learned the system, she’s slow and unsure, and her work has to be monitored closely. She drags the team’s efficiency down. Instead of finishing up in 45 minutes, the team is still not finished after being in the house an hour. The team leader loses patience, the other experienced coworker becomes exasperated, and the entire experience is frustrating and bewildering to the trainee. The consequence is that everyone is punished. Not only do you stand to lose the new employee, but if the scenario continues to repeat itself (new people coming and going on the team), you risk demoralizing and losing even your seasoned workers.
Most team leaders dislike training. The scenario pinpointed in the preceding paragraph defines the reason why. Certainly, the long-term consequences can be positive for the team ¾ if and when the new team member is experienced and up to speed. But when the new person is assigned to a team, the consequence, although potentially “positive”, it is “future” and “uncertain”. The initial consequence to the experienced team members is “negative”, “immediate” and “certain”. It is uncertain whether the new hire will be around in the future to contribute efficiently, but it’s certain that there will be an immediate negative impact on the team’s efficiency.
This scenario is yet another example of where negative consequences influence future behavior, in this instance, the behavior of the team leader (assuming she is the one responsible for training the new hire), as well as the behavior of the third experienced team member.
How do you change the behavior of the team to which the new person will be assigned? The same formula; you change the consequence of performing the desired behavior from negative to positive. So how do you do that?
First of all, the trainer needs to be trained on how to train. A new hire can certainly learn through osmosis by observing what the trainer does. This is how most ms expect a new person to learn. The team leader shows the trainee once, twice, perhaps three times, then expects them to perform the behavior expertly and efficiently. And this where the problem begins. The team leader's expectations are not met, the trainee’s expectations aren’t met, and the negative consequence overlaps onto the third team member.
Before a new person is assigned to a team, that person needs to receive her initial training from you or a dedicated trainer whose sole objective is to teach the employee the basics before being put on the firing line. This will help to alleviate the negative consequence for the team leader that is associated with training a brand new recruit, as well as for the new hire and the other team member. The new team member will be better prepared to contribute to the efficiency of the team, rather than detract from it.
Another way to create a positive consequence for the behavior of training is to compensate a “qualified” team leader specifically for training a new employee. Note the emphasis on “qualified”. This is a way of turning a negative consequence connected with training a new person into a positive consequence for the team leader (and, as a byproduct, the team leader is likely to put less pressure on the trainee . . . also a positive consequence for the new person).
Beware Of Extinguishing Desired Behavior.
One of the sins that management often commits is that of unwittingly “extinguishing” desired behavior. A behavior can be extinguished when a performer fails to receive positive reinforcement. Let me give you an example.
An employee does outstanding work. She cheerfully helps her other team members finish their rooms. She receives no positive reinforcement and soon becomes less willing to pitch in to help her coworkers; in fact, she starts to take her time and pays less attention to detail. Soon, she’s less efficient than her teammates. Her quality workmanship diminishes. Eventually, her desired behavior is no more.
If someone tells a joke and no one laughs, the chance that the teller will repeat it decreases. If he tells the joke a couple of more times and no one laughs, he likely won’t tell it again. The teller received no positive reinforcement for this behavior and the result is that the behavior becomes “extinguished”.
The same thing can happen if management does not provide continuous positive reinforcement in response to desired behavior. It’s easy to put all our attention on correcting undesired behaviors and ignore employees performing desired behaviors. But giving positive reinforcement to desired behaviors IS critically important to sustaining the behaviors we want.
