Diagnostic Tools for Poor Performance

In our May Newsletter we described a Contextual Model designed to help us understand how people make decisions that impact their performance. You will recall that we focused on four general contextual factors (Self, Others, Surroundings and Systems) as primary contributors to determining performance success or failure. The salience or "relative weightiness" of specific factors within these general factors create what we called “local rationality”. Local rationality is a term to describe the fact that individuals perceive and interpret the contextual factors weighing on them in a way that is uniquely their own and makes total sense to them, irrespective of how "irrational" the interpretation appears to an onlooker. This locally perceived and vetted interpretation of the contextual factors weighing on a person, in turn, determines how the person decides, behaves, or performs.

Therefore, to accurately (and thus effectively) hold someone accountable for performance requires that we examine their context before we attempt to “fix” their performance.

Four Skills

We suggest four skills that when applied during an “accountability discussion”, or what we also refer to as a “re-direction” discussion, will help you get an accurate picture of the person’s context.

We have a natural tendency to want to understand and explain what we see as quickly as possible, so we have a tendency to make a guess about the causes of poor performance.

Thus the first skill:

“Don’t Guess”

Whether you are right or wrong in your guess, you are likely to create defensiveness and we have already talked about the negative impact that defensiveness can have on communication (Read the Blog: Dealing with Defensiveness in Relationships).

Additionally, when you guess you can unintentionally influence the person to agree with your assessment even if it is incorrect. So, instead of guessing, become curious and think to yourself...”I wonder why it makes sense to him to do that?”.

This question also weakens the influence of the Fundamental Attribution Error and allows you to entertain factors other than motivation as a cause for failure.

This leads to the second skill:

“Ask Opening Questions”

Start by making sure that your tone of voice is respectful and not accusatory which would most likely be interpreted as a guess and lead to defensiveness.

Don’t ask “Yes” or “No” type questions which would also be seen as guessing, rather simply ask the person to help you understand why they did what they did (a reflection of your curiosity question above).

For example “Can you help me understand why you are doing it this way?”

If you show genuine curiosity and not judgement you will be much more likely to get at the real reason behind the decision and behavior.

Sometimes you will only be able to identify a general contextual factor with your Opening Question, so this brings the third skill into play:

“Ask Drill Down Questions”

Remember, the objective of this discussion is to determine the real reason or reasons behind the poor performance so that you can fix it. If you didn’t get enough information from your first question, then just ask a second, more specific question (i.e., Drill Down Question).

For example Let’s say the person used the wrong tool for the job and when you ask them why they say they didn’t have the right tool. You might drill down by asking something like...”Why didn’t you have the right tool?”.

Just telling them to use the right tool might not fix the problem if the reason they don’t have the right tool is because there is only one available and someone else is using it!” Remember, drill down far enough to find the real reason(s) before you attempt to fix it.

And finally, during the whole conversation apply the fourth skill:

“Listen Completely”

Listening to “what” the person is saying (their words) is only half of the process. To listen completely, you must also pay attention to “how” they are speaking, e.g. their tone of voice, their willingness to maintain eye contact, their body posture, etc. These help you understand the “real” meaning behind what they are saying and will also help you get to the real context that led them to perform as they did.

What's the Point?

Only after you have ascertained the real reason(s) do you have a sufficiently complete and accurate “accounting” of the failure. With this "accounting", you can now help find a fully informed fix that will lead to sustained improvement going forward.

The Human Factor - Missing from Behavior Based Safety

Since the early 1970’s, there has been an interest in the application of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) techniques to the improvement of safety performance in the workplace. The pioneering work of B.F. Skinner on Operant Conditioning in the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s led to a focus on changing unsafe behavior using observation and feedback techniques. Thousands of organizations have attempted to use various aspects of ABA to improve safety with various levels of success. This approach (referred to as Behavior Based Safety, or BBS) typically attempts to increase the chances that desired “safe” behavior will occur in the future by first identifying the desired behavior, observing the performance of individuals in the workplace and then applying positive reinforcement (consequences) following the desired behavior. The idea is that as safe behavior is strengthened, unsafe behavior will disappear (“extinguish”).

The Linear View

Traditionally, incidents/accidents have been viewed as a series of cause and effect events that can be understood and ultimately prevented by interrupting the chain of events in some way. With this “Linear” view of accident causation, there is an attempt to identify the root cause of the incident, which is often determined to be some form of “Human Error” due to an unsafe action. The Linear view can be depicted as follows:

Event “A” (Antecedent) → Behavior “B” → Undesired Event → Consequence “C”

Driven by the views of Skinner and others, Behavioral Psychology and BBS have been concerned exclusively with what can be observed. The issue is that, while people do behave overtly, they also have “cognitive” capacity to observe their environment, think about it and make calculated decisions about how to behave in the first place. While Behavioral Psychologists acknowledge that this occurs, they argue that the “causes” of performance can be explained through an analysis of the Antecedents within the environment. However, since they also take a linear view, they tend to limit the “causal” antecedent to a single source known as the “root cause”.

Human Factors

The field of Human Factors Psychology has provided a body of research that has demonstrated that many, if not most, accidents evolve out of complex systems that are not necessarily linear. Some researchers call this a “Systemic” view of incidents. The argument is that incidents occur in complex environments, characterized as involving multiple interacting systems rather than just simple linear events. That is, multiple interacting events (Antecedents) combine to create the “right” context to elicit the behavior that follows.

In such complex environments, individuals are constantly evaluating multiple contextual factors to allow them to make decisions about how to act, rather than simply responding to single Antecedents that happen to be present. In this view, the decision to act in a specific (safe or unsafe) manner is directed by sources of information, some of which are only available to the individual and not obvious to on-lookers or investigators who attempt to determine causation following an incident.

Local Rationality

This is referred to as “Local Rationality” because the decision to act in a certain way makes perfect sense to the individual in the local context given the information that he has in the moment. The local rationality principle says that people do what makes sense given the situation, operational pressures and organizational norms in which they find themselves.

People don’t want to get hurt, so when they do something unsafe, it is usually because they are either not aware that what they are doing is unsafe, they don’t recognize the hazard, or they don’t fully realize the risk associated with what they are doing. In some cases they may be aware of the risk, but because of other contextual factors, they decide to act unsafely anyway. (Have you ever driven over the speed limit because you were late for an appointment?) The key here is developing an understanding of why the individual made or is making the decision to behave in a particular way.

A More Complete Understanding

We believe that the most fruitful way to understand this is to bring together the rich knowledge provided by behavioral research and human factors (including cognitive & social psychological) research to create a more complete understanding of what goes on when people make decisions to take risks and act in unsafe ways. We believe it is time to put the Human Factor into Behavior Based Safety.

A Causation Model for Poor Performance

We have all failed at some point to meet expectations, either our own expectations or the expectations of someone else. I would guess that most of us did not try to fail, but we did anyway. Most of us thought that we were performing well until we were either told by someone else that we weren’t or we saw the results and determined it for ourselves. The question then becomes...”Why did we fail? What caused the failure?”

Failure Failure occurs for a variety of reasons and understanding the real cause(s) of a person's failure is absolutely critical to the accountability process and to assuring future success for the individual.

Local Rationality We make decisions to perform in specific ways because it makes sense to us to do so. This is called “local rationality”. What may look ridiculous or stupid to someone else, looks perfectly correct to us because of the context that we have at that moment.

The factors that are most obvious, pressing or significant from your point of view aren’t necessarily all that obvious, pressing or significant from another person’s point of view. However, it is that very set of factors that determines what makes sense and what doesn’t.

It is these factors that determine your decision to perform in a given manner. Sometimes these factors lead to failure while other times to success.

Context is Everything Context is everything and understanding that context is absolutely required before we can apply the “Ask” skills in an accountability conversation.

So let’s take a look at look at a contextual causation model for assessing performance.

The Contextual Model We find it helpful to think of context as involving four general factors, each made up of other specific factors which can have an impact on performance.

Gaining an understanding of which specific factors are affecting a person's performance will help us both understand the performance and determine how to help the person improve the performance going forward.

Self One of the general factors involves the individual and we call these the “Self” factors.

• Motivation: Does the person actually care about success? Is the person willing to put out the energy to perform successfully? It should be noted that we have a tendency to attribute most, if not all failure to lack of motivation when in fact it is only one of serval self factors that may be at play. Remember the Fundamental Attribution Error that we discussed last month. So be careful not to guess that failure can be fixed simply by motivating the person.
• Ability: Can the person actually engage in the performance needed for success? Do they have the skill set necessary for success or are they lacking those skills?
• Knowledge: Does the person know how to perform correctly? Have they been given the training necessary for success?
• Habits: Has the person done it the wrong way so many times that it has become engrained to the point that the person is on “auto pilot”?
• Attention: Is the person failing to focus on performing correctly? Is the person distracted for some reason? Has the person done the task so many times that he/she does it without thinking?

Others A person’s performance can also be impacted by what the people around him/her do and say, and we refer to these as the “Others” factors.

• Help: Do people in the workplace (supervisor and coworkers) provide assistance or not? Do they do things that make it difficult or easy to be successful? Do they remove or create barriers to success?
• Pressure: Is there peer pressure to perform in an unacceptable manner? Does the boss knowingly, or unknowingly push the person to perform in a manner that leads to failure? Does the boss create an environment where one aspect of success (e.g. productivity) is seen as more important than another (e.g. safety)?
• Modeling: Do others in the workplace perform in a manner that makes it seem normal to perform in a manner that leads to failure? Or do they perform in a manner that assures success?

Surroundings The workplace itself can also impact performance and we call these the “Surroundings” factors.

• Equipment: Does the person have the right tools/resources to perform successfully? Or is the person forced to adapt tools that are not really fit for the job?
• Climate: Are temperature, light, wind, or other environmental factors impacting success?
• Layout: Are things located in such a way that they make it easier or more difficult to achieve success?

Systems And finally there may be institutional factors that impact performance and we call those the “Systems” factors.

• Rules: Are there requirements from the company, customer, industry or government that make success difficult? Are there rules that are in conflict and force the person to make a choice of which one to follow?
• Rewards/Punishments: Are incentives impacting performance either positively or negatively? Does the incentive program create the need to take short cuts in order to be successful? Does the incentive program reward speed over accuracy
• Procedures: Are accepted procedures actually making success more difficult? Are there actually procedures in place that will help the person achieve success?

Think about a time when you failed to meet expectations. What factor or factors were at play to contribute to that failure? Were you held accountable and, if so, did the person holding you accountable understand why you failed? Did he/she explore your context before creating a fix for your failure?

What's the point?

Next month we will examine the four “Ask” skills that will help you use the Contextual Model to determine what exactly is contributing to an individual’s failure. This is so that you can then help them “Fix” the right things to create a context that will lead to success going forward.

Stepping up to an Accountability Discussion

As we discussed in our March Newsletter, we often fail to “Step Up” to accountability discussions even though we know that speaking up can mean the difference between good and bad results, even life and death in some cases. Why is that? Flawed Approaches

It’s usually because we have spoken up in the past and the other person either became defensive or angry or they didn’t change their performance. This was probably because we used one of three flawed approaches.

Female boss pointing a pen at her male employee

Charm We may have attempted to be really nice or charming so that the person would want to change. In other words, we tried to motivate the person to “want” to change to please us.

Push We may have attempted to push or force the person to change by using whatever power or authority that we had. Again we are attempting to motivate the person to change, but this time out of fear.

Neither of these approaches work reliably to change poor performance for the long-term, especially if the reason behind the failure is not a motivation issue. (We will have much more to say about how to determine the “real” reason for the person’s failure in our May & June Newsletter discussions).

Retreat And this leads to the third flawed approach which is to retreat or say nothing because it wouldn’t make any difference anyway. We have tried the “charm” and “push” methods and since neither worked it must be because the person is flawed…..so what is the use. It is now on them to change and if they don’t, then it is their fault, not mine.

Play it S.A.F.E.

Effective redirection of performance - which produces longterm behavior change - is possible and we have broken the process down into four practical steps.

Step Up

Ask

Find a Fix

Ensure the Fix

So let’s look in more detail at how to Step Up and effectively enter that accountability discussion so that you don’t get defensiveness and/or fail to get improvement.

Step up

Our Step Up objective is to engage the person at the right time, about the right issue, in the right way, to change the poor performance.

Let’s first address the basics: Who & When and then we will examine How.

Who? The answer: You!

You can redirect anyone if you do it with the right intent (to help the person improve) and in the right way.

When? Our first reaction is to do so immediately, but there may be situations in which you should wait. If the person is doing something that presents an imminent risk (e.g. could cause them to get hurt), then intervene immediately.

Immediate redirection is usually best unless it will distract the person and put them in danger, or unnecessarily put the person on the defensive (when others are watching, for example).

So if there is no imminent danger and the person can’t pay attention or intervention could lead to “loss of face” then you should probably wait until the person can give attention to the discussion without being embarrassed by the conversation.

How? We suggest the use of three skills that will create the right environment and minimize or eliminate defensiveness.

1. State the Problem The problem statement includes two components:

“What the person is doing” & “Why it is wrong”.

When stating what the person is doing it is important to focus on the actions or results, and NOT the person. Your goal is not to blame the person for the failure, thus creating defensiveness, but rather to have a discussion around the behavior/actions that are creating the failure.

Stating why the action is wrong helps the person understand more about the context of their failure.

For Example “You haven’t turned in your report (What) and the company president needs that information for the board meeting in 10-minutes (Why)”.

Notice in this example that there is nothing about “Why” the person is failing. We don’t know that yet, so any reference to it would simply be a “Guess”. Guessing almost always leads to defensiveness and should therefore be avoided. We suggest that you always employ the next skill instead.

2. Stick to the Facts Facts are what you see and hear, and what can be seen and heard by others as well. They are not up for debate.

In the example above, it is a fact that the person either has or has not turned in the report.

It is a verifiable fact that the president needs the information contained in the report.

It is a verifiable fact that the board meeting will begin in 10-minutes.

It is a “Guess” that the person is too lazy to finish the report and suggesting that he is unmotivated would most likely lead to defensiveness.

Stick to the facts and you will have a much better chance of creating an environment that will allow for a calm evaluation of the real cause(s) of the failure when you get to the “Ask” step. However, if you still get defensiveness you can use the next skill to help diffuse it.

3. Use a Do/Don’t Statement We talked about this skill in our March Newsletter discussion of why we tend to avoid intervention discussions in the first place.

Remember, defensiveness is a perceived attack on the person's reputation, dignity, or both.

So when you sense that the person has misunderstood your intent or when you have failed to stick to the facts and made a guess, you can simply state what you 'do' mean and/or what you 'don’t' mean.

For Example “I don’t mean to imply that you are lazy at all, but we do need to get the report to the boss in time for his meeting.”

Remember, our objective is to create a setting where you and the individual can calmly explore why the failure occurred and what can be done to correct it going forward. Eliminating defensiveness is a key to making that happen.

What's the Point?

Once you have "Stepped Up" to the accountability discussion and entered it without creating defensiveness, you are now ready to explore why the failure occurred in the first place.

This requires an understanding of a contextual model of causation which we will explore in our May Newsletter.

Avoid Cognitive Bias to Create Workplace Accountability

As we discussed in our January Newsletter, the first step to Accountability involves an examination of the facts/reasons underlying a specific event/result (accounting). In order for this process to bear fruit, it is important that we accurately and fairly evaluate the causes of the poor performance. To effectively examine the facts/reasons for a specific event/result requires that we understand how our biases could affect that evaluation. This is where Cognitive Biases can come into play. You may be saying to yourself…”I don’t have any biases. What are they talking about?”

Well, the truth is that we are all impacted by biases and much of the time for that matter.

What is a Cognitive Bias?

A Cognitive Bias is anything in our thought process that can distort the way we view things including the actions of another person.

There are a multitude of cognitive biases that have been identified and studied by psychologists, but there are two that directly impact accounting for the actions/results of another person.

Confirmation Bias

One of these is what is called Confirmation Bias or the tendency to search for, interpret, focus on and remember information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions. In other words, we are predisposed to look for causes that confirm what we expect.

This means, for example, that if we are predisposed to view another person as competent, a hard worker and motivated, then we will tend to look for these types of behaviors in that person and also overlook behaviors that are in conflict with our preconception. Additionally, we would be more likely to account for poor performance on the basis of external factors such as lack of resources, lack of support, etc. rather than internal factors such as knowledge, ability or motivation. In other words, we would be likely to conclude that the failure was out of the person’s control.

On the other hand, if we are predisposed to view another person as incompetent, lazy and unmotivated, then we will tend to look for support of this preconception as the cause for failure and perhaps blame the person for the failure.

The Confirmation Bias is the underlying driver for a phenomenon commonly referred to as the Self Fulfilling Prophecy. This phenomenon has been demonstrated through research and personal experience in various environments and is notably reflected in the positive correlation between a supervisor’s expectations of a subordinate and that subordinate's performance.

Low, negative expectations tend to result in poor performance, whereas high, positive expectations tend to result in good performance.

Therefore, how we view an individual not only can color how we evaluate performance, but it can also determine how the individual actually performs. To fairly hold others accountable for failure we must be aware of our predispositions/biases regarding the individual and how we may have contributed to the failure in the first place.

Fundamental Attribution Error

The second Cognitive Bias related to Accountability is called the Fundamental Attribution Error.

Have you ever been driving on a three lane highway, going the speed limit in the right hand lane (left hand lane if you are from the UK) approaching an exit that you are not taking, only to have someone cut dangerously close in front of you to take the exit? What were your thoughts about the person doing the cutting? If you are like most of us you called the person a “jerk” or something worse and honked your horn or gestured “politely”.

You just attributed the other person’s actions to an internal attribute related to carelessness or some other bad motive. In other words, we view the other person as “bad” in some way.

Now, have you ever cut someone off in a similar circumstance when you were needing to get to an exit? If you are like us, and everyone else we have asked this question, then the answer is “yes”!

So why did you do it?

Probably because that “jerk” in the right hand lane wouldn't get out of the way and let you exit. In other words, your poor performance was due to external causes and not your carelessness or bad motive.

This is the Fundamental Attribution Error which says that we tend to attribute internal/motivational causes to the poor performance of others but not to our own poor performance. This cognitive bias can cause us to “jump to the conclusion” that the cause of the poor performance was due to motivation and thus interfere with our complete evaluation of other causes. Failure to accurately evaluate the “real” causes will most likely lead to consequences or corrections that will not lead to success in the future.

What's the Point?

Simply being aware that these two Cognitive Biases exist will help reduce or hopefully eliminate their impact on the accountability process.

As we will discuss in a future newsletter, starting your accounting of poor performance without “guesses” as to the cause(s) will almost always lead to a more accurate evaluation.

Why Rule Breaking Makes Sense

Complexity & Rationality Why do employees decide to break the rules?  Do it their way?  Resist change?  It doesn’t make any sense!

It can be frustrating, and often perplexing, when employees fail to adhere to company policies and procedures, especially when those policies and procedures are in their best interest. There is a useful way to think about this issue: What employees do makes sense...to them; but the complexity of work environments makes it hard to understand why it makes sense to them.

We live and work in complex environments. It helps to think of our environments as systems with overlapping and interacting components - including people, things, rules, values, etc. - which are, in turn, complex sub-systems. One of the principles of complex systems is that the “people” component tends to respond only to the limited information that they are presented with locally. We make decisions based on our knowledge of what makes sense at the local level, which is called “local rationality”.

The policies and procedures contained in the corporate manual are only influential if they are brought to bear on the daily lives of people in the workplace. If those policies and procedures only exist in the manual and are not made a part of the local workplace, then they don’t exist in reality and will not have an impact on performance. They will lack influence.

Companies have policies and procedures for a reason - to create good, reliable results; so it is the responsibility of supervisors to bring those policies and procedures to life in the workplace. By intentionally incorporating formal policies and procedures into the “local” work environments of employees - through conversation, feedback, modeling, etc. - supervisors make it “rational” to follow the rules.

Effective Organizations Tolerate Acceptable Risk and Learn from Success & Failure in an Attempt to Be Innovative

Risk is a natural part of life. Just about every decision that we make has some level of risk associated with it. Some risk is inconsequential, such as the decision regarding the color of the shirt that you decided to wear this morning. On the other hand, some risk can have significant impact on you and those with whom you associate, e.g., whether you ask a specific person to marry you or not. We start taking risks from a very early age and if we didn’t, we would probably never learn how to walk! Without some level of risk, things would never change or improve and effective leaders understand this.

Do You Value Initiative?

We often ask our Performance Management course participants whether they would rather have employees who show initiative or those who just do what they were told to do. They always respond with “I want employees who show initiative”.

But initiative is a form of risk-taking because the decision that the employee makes could be wrong and negatively impact desired results.

Clarify "Appropriate Risk"

Effective leaders are careful to clarify what they mean by “appropriate” risk taking and consistently encourage both initiative and innovative thinking while helping employees understand what is appropriate by helping them understand the potential results of both failure and success.

Understanding Context

We work with many organizations to help them improve performance and especially safety related performance. We know that the decisions that people make, both safety and non-safety related are driven by their understanding of contextual factors including themselves, others, the environment and the organizational systems.

Local Rationality

We have discussed before in other newsletters and articles the concept of “local rationality” in that our decisions make sense to us given our interpretation of the context and the associated risk. For example, we may make a decision to forego wearing safety glasses because we are being rushed by our supervisor to get the job done quickly and safety glasses are not readily available. We accept the risk of possible injury because the risk of displeasing the boss is seen as greater in the moment (local rationality).

Creating a New Context

Effective leaders attempt to create contexts that control factors (pressure to rush) that can lead to poor decision making (not wearing safety glasses) while increasing the chances of effective and even innovative decision making (coming up with a plan to both wear safety glasses and get the job done quickly).

They do this by encouraging active dialogue about the workplace (context) and ways to improve that context to encourage employees to take initiative (appropriate risk taking).

Contextual Analysis

Effective Leaders evaluate why both success and failure occur within the organizational context and do so without assuming poor motivation as a starting point. (See May newsletter for further discussion of contextual analysis and accountability).

What's the point?

Effective Organizations are filled with individuals who make good decisions about acceptable risk (initiative) because their leaders have created an organizational environment (context) that assists in that decision making.

A "Best Boss" Holds Himself and Others Accountable for Results

To start this series we asked you to evaluate yourself against the list of Top 20 “Best Boss” Characteristics. Let’s look in more detail at #2 -- A “Best Boss” Holds Himself and Others Accountable for Results.

People often associate accountability with negative consequences, but in our definition there can be either positive or negative consequences that follow action. It is important to notice that a Best Boss doesn’t just hold employees accountable for results, but also himself.

This is what we mean by accountability:

An examination of the facts/reasons underlying a specific event/result (accounting) Then application of appropriate consequences for the actions and results.

Accounting for Results

Many bosses (not Best Bosses) assume that failure (and success) is determined by the person’s motivation and they then “hold them accountable” by trying to motivate them to perform better in the future. Remember, motivation is only one aspect of the individual and may have nothing to do with the results observed.

Best Bosses understand that people don’t try to fail and that performance and the results that follow don’t happen in a vacuum. This means that results need to be evaluated and understood in light of a complex environment that includes Others, Surroundings, Sytems, and Self.

We have used the term local rationality in some of our other articles to describe why it makes sense for a person to do something that may not seem logical to someone (including the boss) who is either observing performance or evaluating the result after the fact.

Best Bosses begin with the “account” component of accountability and gather all of the facts/reasons why the person's actions made sense in the moment. They ask questions to evaluate each of the contextual components (self, others, surroundings, systems) that might have impacted the person's actions and led to the results observed.

Once they determine why the person performed this way, then they can develop a plan (we call it the “Fix”) to help the person succeed in the future.

Applying Consequences

Here is where the consequence part of accountability comes into play.

The purpose of a consequence is to either:

Weaken an unwanted behavior through negative consequences or Strengthen a desired behavior through positive consequences. Best Bosses understand this and apply consequences accordingly.

Success

When success occurs Best Bosses apply appropriate positive consequences. This may involve a simple “thank you” for the result, or it may involve some form of public commendation or reward. This should be determined for each result as appropriate.

Failure

When failure occurs, the form of negative consequence should also fit. Many times the process of accounting and determining a fix will be consequence enough to change performance in the future. If failure continues, then some form of formal discipline may be required. This should be determined in concert with your organizations policies and with guidance from internal Human Resource professionals. As we will discuss later on in the Top 20, Best Bosses are also fair and consistent, so make sure that the consequences you apply are both fair and consistent.

Best Boss Bottom Line

Finally, Best Bosses also hold themselves accountable for results. They are constantly evaluating the impact of what they do on those around them and on the organization. They question themselves to determine the impact that various contextual factors are having on their own performance and adjusting decisions as appropriate. If they fail, they are quick to admit that failure, determine why and step up to the consequences. When success occurs they are usually also quick to pass the positive consequences on to their team.st time we listed the Top 20 “Best Boss” characteristics and asked you to evaluate yourself against the list.

Complexity and Local Rationality

Why do people - like employees and children - decide to break the rules?  Do it their way?  Resist change?  It doesn’t make any sense!  Or does it? It can be frustrating and often perplexing when employees fail to adhere to company policies and procedures, especially when those policies and procedures are in the employees’ best interest. Filing a required document can legally protect managers, but they don’t file it.  Locking out a machine that is being serviced can keep a technician safe from pain, injury and even death, but he regularly services the machine without locking it out.  Your children “know” the rules, but sometimes break them anyway. There is a useful way to think about this issue:  What employees and children do makes sense...to them.

We live, work, play and make decisions in complex environments. It helps to think of our environments as systems with overlapping and interacting components - including people, things, rules, values, knowledge, etc. - which are, in turn, complex sub-systems. One of the principles of complex systems is that the “people” component tends to be driven by the limited information that is available to and impressed upon those people within their local contexts. We make decisions based on our knowledge of what makes sense at the local level, at any given moment.  We call this the principle of “local rationality.”  In other words, our decisions are rational to us because they are based on the information available within the local context (which includes knowledge residing in our brains) at a particular point in time.

As supervisors and parents, we observe behavior that is driven by the principle of local rationality, but we only have limited information about what factors the individual is using to make their decision.  Why did it make sense to the employee to do such a dangerous thing?  Why did it make sense to the child to break the curfew rule?  After all, they know the rules and we have rules to make it clear how they should behave, don’t we?

Rules are only one component of the complex environments that we live and work in.  There are also pressures from other people - including superiors, peers and even you - to make a decision to act in a certain way.  Knowledge of past successes and failures, availability of resources needed to be successful, time pressures, workplace layout and numerous other kinds of factors make it ‘make sense’ for the person. Consider for a moment the last thing you saw a person do that “irked” you.  What kinds of factors could have led the person to do what he or she did?  Why would it have made sense...or did you assume it was because the person was lazy, rude, selfish, or in some other way had poor personal motivation?

As humans, we have a tendency to assume that people do what they do because of personal motivation , and then we treat their “failures” as an opportunity to motivate them to change and make better decisions in the future.  Research shows, however, that actions are often the result of the person’s evaluation of complex input from the environment and may have nothing to do with personal motivation.  For example, we tell employees to work safely, but at the same time push them for productivity, sometimes beyond their ability. The trade-off for the employee is to “cut corners” to be productive because he thinks in the moment that safety is really not at risk and showing you how productive he can be is what is really important.  Your teenager decides to come home late because her date had a couple of drinks and she didn’t trust him to drive safely...and her cell phone was dead, so she didn’t call. It makes sense in the moment, given the information that she had at her disposal.  It doesn’t make sense to you while you sit at home worried sick and imagining all kinds of terrible things.  It doesn’t make sense because you aren’t making decisions in her context!

As parents and supervisors, we need to ask a simple question before we punish undesired behavior: “Why did making that decision make sense to the person making it?”  Why was the decision “locally rational”? If we find out it was motivation, then we can deal with that; but if it is some other factor or combination of factors, then simply motivating won’t work. Look for which contextual factors actually are at play in the decision before you try to change the person’s behavior, and you will be much more successful at creating sustained change.