The relationship between the consequences of employee behavior and the likelihood of that behavior's recurrence is becoming widely known. When you discover that your response to an employee is reinforcing an undesirable behavior, the solution seems quite simple: Stop reinforcing the undesirable behavior and start reinforcing a desirable one. The problem is that it is not always easy to simply stop and start reinforcing; it requires changing your responses, or more specifically, changing your behavior. The existing literature on the application of behavior modification in the organization often fails to emphasize that much of the manager's behavior is evoked or maintained by the behavior of employees.
Consider this example. Craig has an open-door policy-he encourages his staff to drop in his office to talk about their work. The problem is that Bruce drops in once or twice a day to talk about matters unrelated to work. The manager before Craig had alienated the staff with his contradictory actions: One of the many complaints was that he encouraged them to go to him with problems, yet when they did he was either critical of them or "too busy" to listen. Craig was new in the position and knew that the staff was sizing him up. In his eagerness to be seen as different from his predecessor, he was reluctant to speak with Bruce about his socializing.
The functional analysis revealed that it was Craig's active listening (nodding and saying "uh, huh") that appeared to be reinforcing Bruce's socializing. The solution seemed obvious: Ignore Bruce's social talk and respond positively to any work-related talk-that is, change Craig's behavior so that he responded differently to Bruce. The problem was that Craig found this very difficult. "I don't understand it. In spite of my good intentions and efforts, I catch myself once again listening to Bruce's chatting." Sometimes Craig ignored the social talk; at other times he listened. His intermittent attempts to change his own behavior had a bad effect on Bruce because Craig intermittently reinforced Bruce and thus made the social talk more resistant to extinction. Craig solved this problem by making his response to Bruce the focus of a formal self-management program. The functional analysis of his own listening behavior was as follows:
Upon studying the analysis, Craig expressed frustration. "It's an impossible situation. The social talk is irresistible, so I always listen. In fact, I feel very uncomfortable ignoring Bruce-it's rude. The only solution is to get Bruce to talk about work. And that's why I'm trying to stop listening to his chatting!" I suggested that he look more closely at all the antecedents of his listening. Craig did this and discovered his thoughts were another antecedent.
From this more complete analysis; Craig developed an effective self-management program in which he altered the anxiety-producing thoughts that prompted listening. When he noticed an anxiety-producing thought while Bruce was socializing, Craig used self-instructions to block out the unproductive thought and to direct his responses to Bruce. Once Craig modified his own behavior Bruce's talk quickly switched from social to work-related topics.
Let's look at another example. Ruth had a lot of trouble getting her secretary, whom she shared with two others, to do her work promptly. In fact, Ruth found it was often easier to type short things herself. Each time she asked that something be typed, Betty made excuses. Conducting a functional analysis, she discovered that almost every time Betty made excuses, Ruth either did the work herself or in some way altered her directive. This suggested that she was unknowingly reinforcing the very behavior that she wanted reduced. The solution to the problem seemed quite clear-rearrange the contingencies so that making excuses was ignored and deferential acceptance was reinforced. Ruth immediately set out to do this. She asked Betty to type a letter and predictably Betty made an excuse. Ruth ignored the excuse and did not alter her directive.
At that point, it appeared to be working, since she was getting fewer excuses, but another problem developed: Betty's work was often late, so that Ruth had to ask for it. She did not like her work late and did not like asking for it. She was getting frustrated and angry. About two weeks after beginning the intervention phase, she asked that a report be pulled from the files by 11:00 a.m. for an important luncheon conference. At 11:15 the folder was still in the locked file and Betty was out of the office with the key. When Ruth finally found Betty, she exploded. Betty made an excuse, and Ruth threatened to fire her. Ruth looked and felt incompetent as a manager.
What happened? What went wrong? Ruth did not complete the functional analysis. She had identified the consequences of Betty's giving excuses but not the antecedent. The antecedent turned out to be "asking." Asking Betty to perform required tasks caused her to give excuses and then, by altering her request, Ruth reinforced this behavior.
Sometimes it is more efficient to alter or remove the antecedent that evokes the behavior. Thus, Ruth could have been more effective in reducing Betty's excuse-giving behavior by intervening at the antecedent point-the way in which Ruth herself gave directives. By making her own behavior the target of the change program, she modified Betty's excuse-giving behavior. Ruth focused her attention on the way in which she gave directives, which served as the antecedent of Betty's giving excuses. When she conducted a functional analysis, she had difficulty identifying the antecedents of her own behavior until she began observing her own thought processes and discovered that each incident of making a tentative directive was preceded by considerable physical tension and many negative thoughts.
On the basis of this information, Ruth developed a multidimensional self-management program. She taught herself the desired behavior of giving authoritative directives. Using the shaping procedure, she developed a series of small steps in which she gradually increased the difficulty of the directive. Simultaneously, she employed thought-stopping to replace the negative thoughts with positive self-statements, and physical relaxation to eliminate the tension. Finally, Ruth continued ignoring all Betty's excuses.
When she conducted the functional analysis, Ruth was able to collect baseline data on the actual frequency of Betty's excuse-giving and on her own behavior of making requests. She used a wrist counter to monitor the actual number of requests made. After each encounter with Betty, Ruth tallied the number of Betty's excuses on a file card that she kept in her desk. During the baseline phase, Ruth felt that collecting data was irrelevant. She was busy and impatient to deal with the problem with Betty. Later, however, she acknowledged the importance of establishing the baseline, and observing the concrete evidence of the change in Betty's behavior built up her confidence. In her annual performance review, Ruth used the data she had collected to demonstrate the development of her supervisory skills.
When first introduced to operant conditioning and reinforcement principles, managers often balk at the idea of ignoring an undesirable behavior: "How can I ignore errors in the monthly report? It must be perfect." "She's paid to do that work. I can't just listen to her excuses and say nothing." This is an understandable concern-it is difficult to ignore errors and transgressions, especially when we find them personally irritating. One solution is to alter the antecedent that evokes the undesirable behavior in the first place because this way you can head off that behavior before it happens. It is often your own actions that trigger the undesirable behavior, and then your response rein forces the employee's response to you. Granted, antecedents can be difficult to identify, but you should always make a concerted effort to do so. And whenever your own behavior is the focus of a functional analysis, look for antecedents and consequences in your internal as well as external environment.
The important point to remember is that whenever you discover that your own behavior is evoking or maintaining the employee's undesirable behavior, the most effective intervention will involve altering your behavior in some way. For this reason, it is just as difficult for you to change your own behavior on command as it is for the employee to change on command. Recognize that your behavior is controlled and that it will be difficult to change, but by using the principles and techniques discussed in this book, you can begin to manage your own behavior. All the analysis and data collection may seem unnecessary or even academic, but it will add to your success in managing yourself and others.
Defeating the Peter Principle by Managing Yourself
Harry had an outstanding record in hospital supply sales. When the regional sales manager position opened, he was selected to fill it. Harry worked hard and put in long hours, but despite his efforts sales dropped. Managing a sales team spread across four states was a very different task from selling equipment. Eventually sales picked up slightly, but Harry did not fulfill the company's expectations as a star performer. He did fulfill his worst fears, however: He had reached his level of incompetence.
Situations like Harry's-being promoted into a position that re quires skills you don’t have-provide a fertile area for the behavior modification approach to self-management. What should you do if this happens to you? First of all, preserve your self-esteem by recognizing that you are in a tough spot: You are being expected to do a good job at the same time that you are learning how to do it. It will take more than talent to do this; you will need determination and resiliency. Prepare yourself for this difficult task by learning how to manage stress, how to control defeatist thinking, and how to purpose fully teach yourself the skills you need.
To teach yourself, you must identify what behaviors you need to learn. This can be done in a variety of ways. Watching colleagues who have the skills you desire is important. Training workshops and how-to books can be helpful. But to be effective, the behaviors you identify as necessary must be incorporated into your management repertoire. When you attend a training workshop or read a how-to book, tailor the general guidelines to your specific situation. This will involve trial and error: Repeat what works and drop what doesn't. In other words, rather than becoming attached to a particular managing action, consider it a trial and then look to the consequences to determine whether you should repeat it, refine it, or drop it. This is where you can use self-management tools, such as shaping and self-contracting, to practice and learn the new behaviors. And don't forget to liberally reinforce small successes to build your confidence.
However, there are some behaviors that result in a reinforcing consequence that you do not necessarily want to repeat. Any consequence that involves the cessation of a negative event is reinforcing and encourages repetition of the behavior involved. This is not always productive. If someone is chronically tardy and your actions result in a reduction of that tardiness, we could consider this to be a productive negative reinforcement. On the other hand, there are times when negative reinforcement can box you into incompetence.
To understand this potent danger, consider Harry's case again. As the new regional sales manager, Harry was understandably anxious about his performance. Michael (a bright, aggressive, and ambitious salesman) proposed a new marketing strategy. The problem was that the stress of adapting to his new job outweighed Harry’s objectivity. Consequently, he responded by half-listening, and offhandedly dismissed Michael's proposal as unfeasible. Harry's response was counterproductive-he failed to encourage Michael's enthusiasm and creativity; in fact, he stifled it. But the immediate hidden consequence for Harry was the elimination of a demand upon his already over extended time and energy and a brief reduction in his growing anxiety or tension level.
Michael Maccoby interviewed hundreds of successful corporate leaders. One of his startling findings was that about half reported high levels of chronic anxiety. They cited three sources of tension: (1) worry that important projects would not succeed; (2) worry that they lacked essential knowledge about their jobs; and (3) worry that they would lose control and look bad or do something wrong. Anxiety of this sort is dangerous, especially when a manager takes punitive or counterproductive measures to gain a brief reduction in tension. Such an individual is in danger of becoming incompetent because the punitive behavior can easily become an entrenched habit.
What is the solution when unrelenting anxiety stresses the body and undermines performance, and when attempts to reduce stress can lead you right into the Peter Principle trap? A solution is to first become aware of your stress and then to learn to manage that stress.
