Learning and Motivation

How do we learn? In a new series of blogs I am going to explore the science and methods of learning. I have long had a keen interest in learning methods and this has become of increasing interest to me due to in my involvement within Insight Arcade.

Early learning theorists surmised that learning was largely ‘cause and effect’; one of those key theories, ‘Operant’ learning, placed an emphasis on reward and punishment as a way to modify behaviour. I’ve direct experience of using this method as I was formerly a physical training instructor in the Territorial Army (now re branded the ‘Army Reserves’). I had at my disposal, the means, to dish out timely and instant punishment in the forms of additional physical exercise - not something most people relish! Was this an effective learning instrument? It kept recruits in line but it only ever really guaranteed that those people who were punished would do what was required not to be punished. It didn’t exactly engender top performance or a personal commitment to physical fitness. In fact I found too much punishment damaged performance by turning recruits off the idea of exercise. 

However the flip side of punishment was ‘reward’ and I found positive reinforcement toward recruits was more effective. For example if I praised a recruit for doing well after noticing an improvement, I found this reinforced good behaviour and was likely to help motivate the individual. It also made the recruits less fearful of me, which as their instructor, was important. Fundamentally though I found that only those who really wanted to take part in my classes and who wanted to be fit, got the most out of it – no matter how much I praised or criticised.

What do the principles of Operant learning mean for those of us concerned with learning within organisations? On a day to day basis it tells us that operant conditioning has at least some importance in terms of shaping the behaviours of our workforce. Behavioural reinforcement – particularly positive – is an important part of the suite of skills required for coaching individuals. However as a principle by which to embed a culture of ‘deep learning’ and to drive the sort of innovative change many organisations now seek, I’d suggest it is only a small part of the total equation. 

I'm interested in asking people's opinions; how much do people think Operant learning is still used as a principle of learning within organisations?

The Psychology behind Pay

What is money? We know it’s the stuff in our pockets, the numbers in our accounts and the stuff we wish we had more off! Money is something we all use and to some extent think about day in day out, yet we never really stop to ponder what it really is. I would suggest that in essence, money is ‘value’ and it’s worth knowing this because in a work place context, it represents the value we place on an individual’s skills and experiences.

The issues around money as a motivator is a complex one. One of the earliest writers on the subject, Frederick Herzberg concluded that money is a poor motivator but can certainly be a de motivator! Certainly many managers understand that money is not a good motivator on a day to day basis and I am sure many will agree with Herzberg. So what can we do to ensure money is not a de motivator? It goes without saying that we need to have suitable systems in place which allow us to pay people on time and regularly. That should be relatively easy these days and even the smallest company can outsource this to a payroll supplier. Far trickier is how we set the levels of pay within our company (and how by definition place a ‘value’ on our staff).

One of the biggest mistakes employers make is to keep pay as secretive as possible.  This presents a couple of difficulties; the first being that it doesn’t engineer trust (have something to hide?) and the second that it is increasingly becoming untenable because of equality and diversity legislation. So what to do instead? I realise this is somewhat counter intuitive but why not be open about pay. At the very least be informative as to how you set and award your pay. People might not always completely agree with their pay but if it’s transparent, perceived as fair (next to some sort of objective criteria) and they understand the rationale behind it (e.g. I get around 60% of the average market rate for my skills and job role), it’s far more likely to be accepted.

I’ve seen different ways of setting pay in organisations from internally focused systems to those that peg their rates to the market one. One which places more focus on the latter is better in my opinion. That doesn’t mean pay needs to be the best in the market but if it is at least competitive, it demonstrates the company places a suitable value on the individuals skills next to other employers. Lastly all of this should be done to make pay as minor an issue on a day to day basis and your attention should switch to creating the sort of work environment which really does motivate people on a day to day basis!

What is trending in the world of HR in 2014?

As we look forward into 2014 it’s interesting to look at pioneering companies for examples of HR practice. These companies not only provide alternative examples of how an organisation might structure and manage its staff, but also perhaps, an insight into what organisations of the future might look like.   

Towards the end of 2013, US companies Netflix and Zappos shared insights into their organisations. Netflix built their HR philosophy on minimising employee control and having a ‘context’ driven leadership model in order to encourage empowerment. Zappos meanwhile started a process to completely scrap their hierarchy, creating instead a ‘holacracy’, without managers and job titles. Going forward, employees will be allocated into semi -autonomous work circles. Zappos say all of this is in order to boost innovation, empowerment and reduce bureaucracy. Whilst all of this might sound extreme, Zappos arguably represent the logical conclusion of the employee engagement agenda. After all surely you engage staff by empowering them?

 

 

Within more traditional sectors, we saw GlaxoSmithKline scrap individual employee performance related pay. This was on the basis that their previous remuneration policies were driving damaging behaviour. Seemingly running contrary to many in the sector, Swedish bank Handelsbanken, got on with running their successful bank without short term bonuses and by devolving decision making to branches (progressive yet refreshingly old fashioned). Both examples were encouraging; I have long been a sceptic of individual performance related pay and the damage it has caused in the banking sector has been huge.

What does this tell us? The previous examples are a curious mix of companies looking for sustainability and innovation. Netflix, Zappos and even Handelsbanken have accepted that you simply cannot control every facet of your organisation and to try and do so is counter-productive. They are talking about terms such as empowerment but backing these words up with meaningful action. Crucially these companies make their decisions based on a desire to be a leader in the market place.  Is 2014 the time for more companies to get on board with this philosophy?

Understanding Individual Performance in an Organisation

Employee performance is a favourite topic of mine because it is one which is often very misunderstood and in this blog I want to give you a sense of why I think this to be the case!
 

Let us start with a simple scenario. Sam is a very competent saleswoman and she works for a company who we will call ‘Old School’. Sam is in charge of selling a product which has become less easy to sell in recent months. Customers seem to be buying a competitor’s product which better meets their requirements. The recently implemented Old School CMS is time consuming and clunky whilst the company have recently introduced additional reporting procedures to try and control cost. All of this has created more bureaucracy for Sam. Her figures show a decline in performance from the previous year and going into her quarterly review, Sam feels frustrated, vulnerable and unsure about what to do.

During the meeting, her manager Nick, suggests that Sam should try harder to sell Old School’s products. “Yes it is tough but you need to be more innovative in your approach and need to try even harder” he tells her as he awards a ‘Requires Performance Improvement’ grade. Sam had already being working very hard but at least she is now sure about what to do. She leaves her review meeting feeling completely demoralised and the first thing she does is to phone a recruitment agency. The question is was Sam to blame?

A traditionalist like Nick might say yes. Yet what this example hopefully shows, is that an individual’s performance is actually impacted by many different factors out with the control of the individual. In Old School we saw external changes to the market in the way of new competition as well as significant internal change imposed upon Sam. What we’ve seen is the greater system impact her total performance leaving Sam stuck as something of a bystander to events. The renowned late American industrialist Edward Deming talked about the 85/15 rule – that in certain circumstances the system was responsible for up to 85% of an individual’s actual performance. We could argue about the actual weighting of this ratio but he highlights a very important point. If Nick had understood this he could approach the problem differently and work with Sam to look at the decline of performance in a more constructive way.

 

The misunderstanding of the multifaceted nature of performance can be hugely detrimental to business success and individual wellbeing. I’m not saying for one minute we have an abdication of individual responsibility, but surely if we recruit the right people in the first place and they pass their probation period, they’re competent to work for the company? I’ll leave you with one last thought, imagine how nicer work would be without a blame culture…

What do you think, does this example resonate with you?

The problem with Performance Related Pay...

I read an article in today’s Guardian which referred to performance related pay in the civil service. It got me thinking - I understand George Osborne plans to introduce greater performance related pay to the Civil Service in 2016. I don’t have an issue with reform of the civil service (although I don’t pretend to know much about the civil service if I’m honest) but I do have an issue with performance related pay. On the face of it, performance related pay seems like a logical thing to do. No doubt politicians think it is a good way to ensure results and demonstrate to the public that they’re being tough yet fair. After all “reward” equals “pay” right?

The unfortunate thing is there is very little (in fact next to none) evidence to show that performance related pay actually works! There is however evidence to show it can be damaging and actually drive the wrong behaviours. For many decades respected industrialists and academics have told us that money is a poor motivator. For example Frederick Hertzberg told us in 1959 that money is important to an extent - but only to a limited extent. Karl Dunkers ‘candle problem’ published way back in 1945 showed the limitations financial incentives have in driving results to complex problems. The fact is the ‘carrot and stick’ approach which encompasses things like performance related pay and performance appraisal rarely works and when it does, does so in limited circumstances.

The most powerful human motivation comes from within and there is a lot of evidence to support this. If you’re sceptical, apply this to your own life and you will see it makes sense. For example do you bust a gut to finish that 10k because someone is going to pay you? Do you volunteer with your local sports club because you will get punished? No of course you don’t. A cursory glance at some of the most successful entrepreneurs in the world is revealing. People like Branson or Zuckerberg talk about solving problems, coming up with innovative solutions, creation, having mastery of their work. In fact money is a consequence of their success rather than the driving factor.

Yet in late 2013 we’re still in a situation where politicians and many companies think the best way to motivate people is through performance related pay.

What's wrong at Grangemouth?

For a while things seemed to be going from bad to worse at Grangemouth. Depending on who you believe or what you read, there were various parties to blame. However truth is rarely black and white. Perhaps there is also another way of analysing the situation which has lessons for companies across the globe.

I look at Grangemouth and I see a classic ‘them and us’ culture. The question is where does this culture come from? Often this sort of culture is entrenched in the organisation but it comes from a set of unhealthy assumptions that will have existed for a long time.

If we look at the social science research about human motivation and productivity at work - how much is really achievable in a command and control structure? Whether you like it or not, if you insist on putting in layers of ‘management’, you are putting in place controls which stifle empowerment and extend your communication lines – they ultimately make people remote from the company.

Why do we empower? So we can raise human productivity but to do so properly we have to believe that people are inherently trustworthy individuals who can manage themselves. We have to start treating people like adults and sometimes the adults need to accept they’re adults too. We need to get away from this ‘carrot and stick’ (reward and punishment) approach to work because as Dan Pink tells us, there is no greater amount of research built up over the course of decades to show it just doesn’t work.

Does HR Work? Pt Two 'The Negative Influence of Employment Law on HR'

First of all, apologies for not producing an article in August! I’m going to blame some holiday time and the Edinburgh festival (which was exceedingly good this year).  So here I am in an increasingly dark September and ready to continue with my series of blogs entitled ‘what’s wrong with HR’. In this article I’m going to talk about employment law and the negative effect, I believe, legislation has had on the role of HR departments.

Ask people about HR and the chances are that they will talk about a function that is there to hire and fire. I often found myself resisting this charge because to me HR was always about enabling people to work effectively, to boost performance and reduce cost. It was heavily based on psychology and evidence gathered over the course of a century. Indeed this was why I got it into it in the first place. But it has become clear this was my perception rather than the one held by people at large and indeed it wasn’t one which stood up next to my own experiences as an HR employee. In my defence a cursory glance at the Human Resource Management books in the library of Edinburgh Napier University is far more likely to support my original view of things. So why the disconnect between the boffins in the library and the public and practices of many HR departments who have adopted the role of hirer and firer?

Some of this has been undoubtedly brought about by various Westminster governments, particularly the Labour one. I recently chatted with a colleague from the CIPD, a person who is a little longer in the tooth than myself (but with age comes lots of experience)! He told me that when he started his career in the late 70s, employment law was pretty much “on one pamphlet of paper”. Oh how things have changed! We now live in an age where employment law is on many, many pamphlets of paper!

The ogre of employment law has grown and this hasn’t been helped by a growing blame/get rich quick litigation culture and the growing cottage industry around it which includes law firms through to HR/Employment law companies who promise to ‘keep your business safe’.

To be fair I understand within this climate why a company must address and comply with employment law and it is natural this should fall under the remit of HR. Unfortunately and with a few exceptions, HR at large has become concerned with what I will unapologetically call “ar8e covering”...I know you wouldn’t encounter such a term in the Harvard Business Review but this is my blog and I’m only bit part academic.

What is the result of this ar8e covering? Many HR departments have become convinced that their very purpose in life is to prevent litigation. The trouble is I’d argue that this has had damaging consequences for their businesses. Unless you’re a law firm your company doesn’t exist to prevent litigation - it surely exists to supply a product or service? Unfortunately the need to prevent litigation doesn’t sit well with enterprise. In practice this mind set of ar8se covering manifests itself in anti innovation tools such as draconian staff handbooks aka patronising rule books. Then there is my most hated bogey man of all, the appraisal system.

 It seems many HR departments do employment appraisals, not just because they mistakenly think it will improve performance, but because they think it important to have a paper trail “in case something goes wrong”. Indeed if you go along to any performance management presentation from a lawyer this is what you will be told to do – make sure you have a paper trail and an appraisal system. This is regardless of the fact that most appraisals are completely useless at fulfilling the paper trail role, a point a good employment lawyer recently made to me in private.

“Ahh but litigation damages company reputation and costs money” I hear many HR people and lawyers say. True it undoubtedly can but this doesn’t let HR off the hook. Rather I think it’s about keeping it in perspective. I’ll bet you the cost of defending and losing an unfair dismissal is far less damaging than nurturing an a8se covering culture. True the former will cost you some money but the second will eventually put you out of business.  Ask any entrepreneur if innovation and bureaucracy go hand in hand and listen to what they say. In fact if the best thing your HR department does is to keep the company compliant, I’d suggest you outsource this responsibility to one of the employment law companies because I’d wager you’ll find it cheaper than the cost of employing a HR manager.

Furthermore if we look at the employment law burden it’s not actually as onerous as many believe. The media like to report the horror stories such as the discrimination claims against city banks where huge pay outs are awarded. These are proportional to the company wealth, particularly ugly cases and are the exception to what really goes on. In fact the median pay award in 2012 according to law firm Morton Fraser for unfair dismissal was £4,560. The reality is tribunals don’t want to put companies out of business. Changes to employment law in July of this year should further reduce the risk to businesses.

So what should a company do? By all means have some sensible measures in place to prevent litigation; have good employment contracts and yes, have a sensible handbook with corresponding policies and procedures (but please, please resist the temptation to have a handbook written in patronising legal language). You might even want to have a good relationship with a reputable employment lawyer as a prudent measure. However don’t let them rule the roost and above all else, try to accept that you can’t mitigate against every eventuality and accept that to attempt to do so is damaging.

In fact the best way to protect your business is to adopt an altogether different mind set – that people are Innocent until proven guilty and that most people are trustworthy who want to do well. Build your company and HR practices on this basis. Be very questioning of your existing employment policies in terms of what they really do for your business and why they are in place. Treat people like adults, support them and engender a culture of responsibility and true empowerment as your principles. Can your HR department support with this? If not, question why they are there.

Am I an idealist? Unashamedly so. But I recently read that the famous proponents of the sort of trusting culture I mentioned, WL Gore & Associates, have never made a loss in their 50 year plus history. So there must be something in it.

In the meantime, I’m going to be happy to continue to tell people why my version of HR is much more than hiring and firing.

As ever happy to hear your thoughts!