Contents

INTRODUCTION TO PM

Chapter 1 What is Performance Management?

Chapter 2 The Science of Behavior
Chapter 3 Business IS Behavior
Chapter 4 Is it Behavior or Something Else?

PM STEP-BY-STEP

Chapter 5 Pinpointing: “Lazy” is Not a Behavior

Chapter 6 Identify the Mission Using Both Behaviors and Results
Measurement Tools: Necessary but not Sufficient for
Chapter 7
Behavior Change
Chapter 8 Graphing Behavioral Data
Chapter 9 The ABC Model of Behavior
Chapter 10 PIC/NIC Analysis©: A Performer’s Eye View
Chapter 11 Antecedents = Precision Prompts
Consequences That Increase Behavior: Positive and
Chapter 12
Negative Reinforcers
Chapter 13 Feedback: The Breakfast of Champions
Chapter 14 Finding Reinforcers, Creating Reinforcers (R+)
Chapter 15 Delivering Reinforcers Effectively
Chapter 16 Schedules of Reinforcement: The Secret to Teaching
 Patience and Persistence

COMPLEX & CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES IN THE

WORKPLACE

Using Schedules of Reinforcement to Increase and

Chapter 17
Maintain Productive Behavior
Shaping, Chaining and Goal-Setting: Three Methods of
Chapter 18
Producing Complex Behaviors
Chapter 19 Punishers and Penalties: Effects and Side Effects
Chapter 20 Three Ways to Decrease Unwanted Behavior

IMPLEMENTING PM ON A LARGE SCALE

Chapter 21 Planning Reinforcement

Research Designs for Evaluating Performance Change:
Chapter 22
Keeping it Real
Chapter 23 Behavioral Safety
 2
The Science of Behavior
“Science is a systematic approach to the understanding of natural
phenomena— as evidenced by description, prediction, and control—that relies on
determinism as its fundamental assumption, empiricism as its prime directive,
experimentation as its basic strategy, replication as its necessary requirement for
believability, parsimony as its conservative value, and philosophic doubt as its
guiding conscience”1.

Psychologists have been pursuing a science of behavior since the mid

1800’s when structuralism was first promoted by Wilhelm Wundt and Edward
Titchner. PM has its roots in the more modern approach called operant
conditioning. Operant conditioning was first advanced by Skinner in The
Behavior of Organisms: An Experimental Analysis (Skinner, 1938). This early
work was with rats and pigeons and sought to understand the basic principles by
which behavior was acquired and maintained. Through his research Skinner
established fundamental principles that we still employ today: conditioning,
extinctions, stimulus discrimination, motivation (which he called “drive”), and
basic schedules of reinforcement. In 1953 Skinner published his classic work,
Science and Human Behavior (Skinner, 1953) in which he outlined, “The
Possibility of a Science of Human Behavior.

In Science and Human Behavior, Skinner is famously quoted as saying,

“Science is first of all a set of attitudes. It is a disposition to deal with facts rather
than what someone said about them.” (Skinner, 1953, p. 4). In his lab, Skinner
was able to study individual organisms, develop finely tuned measurement
devices that could determine rate of response of individual behaviors, and study
the effect of consequences on behaviors.

“Science is first of all a set of attitudes. It is a disposition to deal

with facts rather than what someone said about them.”
— B.F. Skinner, Science and Human Behavior
 His pioneering research provides the foundation for the practice of PM.
Behavioral psychologists in the Skinnerian tradition assume behavior in the
workplace is determined by the conditions that surround it. That includes the
person’s history of familial, social and environmental experience as well as all
the behavioral consequences that exist in the workplace. They take data on
human performance, usually at the individual level, and then implement
interventions (“experiments”) and evaluate them. They are, in the very best sense
of the term, “applied scientists” seeking knowledge that can be replicated from
one industry to the next.

One of the fundamental principles that Skinner discovered was

reinforcement. Reinforcement is defined as any consequence that follows a
behavior that increases the probability it will occur again in the future. This
strengthening effect of certain consequences on specified behaviors is a
foundational concept for the practice of PM. Those trained in this technology can
learn to spot behaviors that do not occur often enough and then try to determine
what the most appropriate reinforcer should be—in many, many cases what is
intended to be a “reinforcer” is provided in such a way that it is not actually a
reinforcer at all.

“The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of

everyday thinking.”
—Einstein

Positive reinforcement increases behavior predictability (e.g., Iversen,

2002). In general, the more a behavior is reinforced, the more predictable it
becomes. The paradox arises because reinforcement is so personal and is usually
delivered in a calm manner that it seems to be a weak action of a manager
compared to the emotional outbursts or sternness of a command-and-control
manager (someone who has to constantly show he or she is in charge, perhaps
even including frequent tantrums). Only when you look beyond the obvious can
you decode the mechanisms that really produce the responses that make for good
management and for strong organizational performance.

Businesses are bombarded every day by people who are selling a new
program, system, or initiative that promises an answer to current business
problems. Self-directed teams, empowerment, re-engineering,downsizing, lean
manufacturing and Six Sigma—the list is endless—have all been touted to
improve organizational efficiency and effectiveness. Almost every month,
business publications feature articles about how well some new program worked
at Company A and how miserably the same kind of intervention failed in
Company B. How could two drastically different outcomes result from the same
program? The answer usually given is that there were differences in upper
management support, differences in business conditions, differences in
personnel, and so on. They almost never look at differences in behaviors and
their consequences in the two interventions. The net result is that most businesses
today enter into these activities with only the hope that they have control of all
the relevant conditions necessary for success. There must be a better way.

Common Sense is Not Science and Will Not

Consistently Improve Behavior
How do we know what works in the long term versus what is likely to
produce only a short-term change ? There are four common ways of knowing.

1. Authority. We believe something is true because an authority says it is.

We look to an encyclopedia, TV, newspapers, and to prominent people or experts.
Our appeal to authority for answers begins in childhood when we look to our
parents for the truth.

2. Agreement. We can ask several people and if they all come up with the
same answer, we usually feel comfortable that we know something. We can look
to different sources that all agree such as written and verbal reports.

3. Personal Experience. We do things that work for us. If they work for us
consistently, we think we know how they work for others.

Figure 2.1 Common Sense Knowledge vs. Scientific Knowledge

Common Sense Knowledge Scientific Knowledge
1. Acquired in ordinary business and 1. Must be pursued deliberately,
living systematically
2. Is Individual 2. Is universal
3. Accepts the obvious 3. Questions the obvious
4. Is vague 4. Is precise
5. Is not reliable for consistent 5. Yields same results every time
 results
6. Gained through uncontrolled 6. Gained through controlled
experience experience

4. Science. Einstein said, “The whole of science is nothing more than a

refinement of everyday thinking.” While that sounds pretty simple, the catch is in
the word refinement. The refinements involve precise specification of the
problem investigated, experimentation, analysis, and replication of the results.
Scientific knowing leads to more effective explanations and to the simplest
explanation that allows for effective action.

The first three ways of knowing—authority, agreement,a nd personal

experience—fall into what we would call common sense ways of knowing. They
are all subject to considerable error. Authorities have often proven to be wrong.
The authorities knew that Galileo was wrong when he proposed a heliocentric
theory of the universe. The authorities were sure for centuries that the universe
was geocentric. Rioting mobs are often wrong, although there is usually 100
percent agreement among the group members at the time. As much as we might
hate to admit it, our experience often teaches us things that are wrong. Although
scientific knowing is superior to common sense knowing, most of us use
common sense as the basis for most of our knowledge. A look at the above chart
(Figure 2.1) will tell you why.

As you can see from the chart, common sense solutions only require living.
Scientific understanding requires systematic effort. As Benjamin Franklin said,
“Experience is a dear school and fools will learn in no other.” Everyone has
experience. The problem is that few people can differentiate the good experience
from the bad.

A story is told of a golfer whose caddy had also caddied for the
professional golfer, Sam Snead. As they were approaching a lake in front of the
green, the golfer asked the caddie, “What club did Sam use on this hole?” The
caddie replied, “A seven iron.” The golfer looked at the distance to the hole and
asked, “Are you sure he used a seven?” “Yes, sir,” replied the caddy. The golfer
pulled a seven iron and hit it into the water 15 yards from the green. “You mean
to tell me that Snead hit a seven iron on that green from here the golfer asked
incredulously, “No sir,” replied the caddy, “He hit his where you did.”

Science is also about asking the right questions.

Misreading Cause and Effect
Let us say that we have a company with multiple plants. Plant Location A
(Figure 2.2) implements self-directed teams and, subsequent to that, a substantial
increase in product quality occurs. What can you say about the effect of the
implementation of self-directed teams on quality? Many organizations getting
this result would be delighted and would assume a cause-and-effect relationship
between the introduction of self-directed teams and the increase in product
quality. Would you say that a relationship exists ?

Figure 2.2 - Determining Cause and Effect (A)

Figure 2.3 - Determining Cause and Effect (B)

 Suppose Location B did not implement self-directed teams but a review of
quality data showed the results in Figure 2.3. What would you now conclude
about the effect of self-directed teams on product quality?

If we got similar results at Locations C and D (Figure 2.4) none of which

had implemented self-directed teams, you would be on thin ice ifyou concluded
that the team intervention caused the increased product quality.

One of the first things taught in courses on the scientific method is that
correlation is not causation. Just because two things are associated over time
does not mean that one caused the other. There is, for example, correlation
between the miles of paved roads in a country and the number of cases of
malaria. The more miles of paved road there are in a country, the fewer cases of
malaria. We cannot conclude that unpaved roads cause malaria or that paving all
roads will stop malaria. Similarly, because self-directed teams were introduced at
the company and a coincidental increase in quality followed, does not mean that
the teams caused the increase. Determining the causes of behavior is a primary
goal of the science of behavior analysis because determining such causes allows
development of reliably effective interventions for the workplace.

However obvious this may be to you, it is astounding how many

companies undertake improvement efforts because they have read about a
company that tried some off-the-wall training that solved the company’s
problems. This is enough proof for many managers and executives to spend large
amounts of money and occupy many people in efforts that offer no solid
evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship between activity and results. Business
periodicals are filled with stories of this nature. The problem is that one year
later, the results usually evaporate. This is why many companies that were
exemplars on Tom Peters’ lists of excellent companies (Peters & Waterman,
1982, In Search of Excellence) fell out of the excellent group within a year or
two. Some of them even went out of business! Obviously Peters didn’t identify
all the criteria for excellence. In his book, Fooled By Randomness: The Hidden
Role of Chance in the Markets and in Life, Taleb (2001) describes how many
people on Wall Street are lauded as brilliant one day and declared as fools the
next because they were unable to separate apparent causes from real ones. While
discovering real cause and effect may appear to be difficult when dealing with
behavior, it is easier than you might think.

Figure 2.4 - Determining Cause and Effect (C)

 In behavior analysis there are two primary ways of determining cause and
effect: They are reversal and multiple-baseline research designs. An example of
each is shown in Figures 2.5 and 2.6. Both designs will be discussed in more
detail in Chapter 22.

“Performance Management is not something we made up. It is

based on research that is every bit as scientific as biology,
 chemistry, and physics.”

In today’s economy, a scientific orientation is both a practical and

economic necessity for organizations. If we are truly able to develop the most
cost-effective way to produce and deliver our product or service to the customer,
we must be able to eliminate unnecessary work. This can only be done when we
can show reliable relationships between behavior and results. This book will
show you how to tease out cause-and-effect relationships in all that you do and in
a practical, non-intrusive way.

Performance Management is not something we made up. It is based on

research that is every bit as scientific as biology, chemistry, and physics. As such,
it offers businesses a systematic, data-based approach to create cost-effective
ways to grow organizations.
Figure 2.5 - Employee Attendance at New Job Assignments (ABA
Design)
The Use of Words in this Book and the Science of
Behavior Analysis
Consider as you read this book that we will occasionally break from
following the language clarity that the science of behavior analysis requires. We
work hard not to do so, but on occasion, we will use words and phraseology that
are more common to our shared experiences. An example is when we state that a
person is reinforced for something. We know, of course, that it is not the person
who is being reinforced but the person’s behavior. Once we feel that we have
made the technical point, we want to use language that is understandable from a
common-use perspective. For example, in the previous sentence, the word feel is
not a scientific word; however, few people would question its meaning in that
sentence. Above all, we want the reader to know that this book is based on
science. To use the concepts and tools described in it requires precise application.
To get to that point, we try to strike the proper balance between technical
accuracy and readability.
Figure 2.6 - The Cumulative Number of Graffiti Markings Recorded in
Each of Three Men’s Restrooms During Baseline (Multiple Baseline Design)
 1

Cooper J. 0., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied behavior

analysis. Columbus, OH; Merrill Publishing Co..