Hi all,
My best professor in college introduced me to my favorite definition for understanding the effect of a given change to a system. An economics professor, he always walked his classes through the effects of an economic shock. A raise in tax rates, for example, might lead to a decrease in individual savings and consumption spending. At the end of the lecture, he often reminded his classes that true understanding came not when you could explain the effect of the same economic shock back to him but when you could explain the effect of the shock in the opposite direction (in the above, a lowering of tax rates).
Two weeks ago, I shared a story about a recent train ride and linked it to a problem I often encountered in my former position. I thought about how to encourage people in organizations who had good ideas but were unwilling or unready to initiate.
But what about the opposite? To use the original example- what if standing up before the train stopped was a highly dangerous activity that needed to be curtailed immediately? What if the problem is stopping the initiators so that the natural followers would keep their eyes on the road and avoid getting themselves into trouble?
One possibility is to worry only about the outcome and address the issue there. The MBTA could, for example, fine the first person who stood up before the train stopped. Ideally, stopping the initiator would keep the natural followers in their seats.
The problem with this approach is that you will only find out it is not working when it stops working. After all, a penalty is not a prohibition against the activity- it simply increases the cost of the activity. If someone riding the train wants to pay $50 to get off the train first, they will stand up and do it (1). And of course, once this person stands, everyone waiting will imitate.
Another approach is to get the initiators out of sight. Give them new assignments, transfer them to less process oriented departments, or just fire them. This seems the quickest and cleanest approach. But, be warned- it only addresses the outward manifestation of people's interests. Though one 'troublemaker' is gone, you will still be left with people who are ready to stand up as soon as the next initiator boards the train.
The only approach that I think truly works, long term, is to address the underlying feeling that drives the unwanted behavior. I think people stand up on the train because there is no guarantee made that the train will not start again before everyone is safely on the platform. A different transportation example highlights this point- no one ever stands up while an airplane is in flight because everyone knows the plane does not take off for the next airport with passengers still walking toward the exit.
In a work environment, digging into unwanted behavior to find the source of discontent, insecurity, or frustration is difficult work. But it is crucial for the health of an organization in the long term. Usually, what you find is some combination of a lack of definition for good work, a broken communication link, or a specific case of unfair treatment (perceived or otherwise) that is driving people away from a teamwork mentality. Fixing these core breakdowns will reduce or eliminate selfish behavior within any organization and will provide a lot more value than implementing complex systems which address symptoms while ignoring the underlying condition.
Until next Thursday, take care.
The Business Bro
Footnotes...
1. Incentive systems
Airlines already offer such an option through their premium or preferred seating plans.
Another way to talk about a fine is to describe it as a negative incentive system. Incentive systems are really popular ways try and align compensation with performance- so in this case, the 'negative incentive' of fining a first offender is like reducing compensation for something that results in reduced performance.
A thought that I might explore more in the future is a problem I run into from time to time about incentives. Basically, the issue is that it seems like the people who implement incentive systems expect the presence of such a system to automatically lead to greater effort. I think this assumption is naive.
Sure, the incentives will motivate someone who is interested in the incentive to work harder. But what about the employee who does not care? The incentive system might work in reverse here- now, those who do not respond to the incentives will appear lethargic, apathetic, or just disinterested in comparison to their 'incentivized' colleagues. I cannot come up with a reason for why this would be a good thing for any organization.
My best professor in college introduced me to my favorite definition for understanding the effect of a given change to a system. An economics professor, he always walked his classes through the effects of an economic shock. A raise in tax rates, for example, might lead to a decrease in individual savings and consumption spending. At the end of the lecture, he often reminded his classes that true understanding came not when you could explain the effect of the same economic shock back to him but when you could explain the effect of the shock in the opposite direction (in the above, a lowering of tax rates).
Two weeks ago, I shared a story about a recent train ride and linked it to a problem I often encountered in my former position. I thought about how to encourage people in organizations who had good ideas but were unwilling or unready to initiate.
But what about the opposite? To use the original example- what if standing up before the train stopped was a highly dangerous activity that needed to be curtailed immediately? What if the problem is stopping the initiators so that the natural followers would keep their eyes on the road and avoid getting themselves into trouble?
One possibility is to worry only about the outcome and address the issue there. The MBTA could, for example, fine the first person who stood up before the train stopped. Ideally, stopping the initiator would keep the natural followers in their seats.
The problem with this approach is that you will only find out it is not working when it stops working. After all, a penalty is not a prohibition against the activity- it simply increases the cost of the activity. If someone riding the train wants to pay $50 to get off the train first, they will stand up and do it (1). And of course, once this person stands, everyone waiting will imitate.
Another approach is to get the initiators out of sight. Give them new assignments, transfer them to less process oriented departments, or just fire them. This seems the quickest and cleanest approach. But, be warned- it only addresses the outward manifestation of people's interests. Though one 'troublemaker' is gone, you will still be left with people who are ready to stand up as soon as the next initiator boards the train.
The only approach that I think truly works, long term, is to address the underlying feeling that drives the unwanted behavior. I think people stand up on the train because there is no guarantee made that the train will not start again before everyone is safely on the platform. A different transportation example highlights this point- no one ever stands up while an airplane is in flight because everyone knows the plane does not take off for the next airport with passengers still walking toward the exit.
In a work environment, digging into unwanted behavior to find the source of discontent, insecurity, or frustration is difficult work. But it is crucial for the health of an organization in the long term. Usually, what you find is some combination of a lack of definition for good work, a broken communication link, or a specific case of unfair treatment (perceived or otherwise) that is driving people away from a teamwork mentality. Fixing these core breakdowns will reduce or eliminate selfish behavior within any organization and will provide a lot more value than implementing complex systems which address symptoms while ignoring the underlying condition.
Until next Thursday, take care.
The Business Bro
Footnotes...
1. Incentive systems
Airlines already offer such an option through their premium or preferred seating plans.
Another way to talk about a fine is to describe it as a negative incentive system. Incentive systems are really popular ways try and align compensation with performance- so in this case, the 'negative incentive' of fining a first offender is like reducing compensation for something that results in reduced performance.
A thought that I might explore more in the future is a problem I run into from time to time about incentives. Basically, the issue is that it seems like the people who implement incentive systems expect the presence of such a system to automatically lead to greater effort. I think this assumption is naive.
Sure, the incentives will motivate someone who is interested in the incentive to work harder. But what about the employee who does not care? The incentive system might work in reverse here- now, those who do not respond to the incentives will appear lethargic, apathetic, or just disinterested in comparison to their 'incentivized' colleagues. I cannot come up with a reason for why this would be a good thing for any organization.
No comments:
Post a Comment