Before going much further in this discussion, I need to explain my emphasis on “behavior.” OK Tim, you say, “what about attitude?” Frankly, as a manager in the workplace, I didn’t give a tinker’s damn about attitude (except possibly as it might be expressed in behavior). I can’t see it, I can’t measure it, and unless it is expressed in undesirable behaviors in the workplace it is not my business. “Yah but psychologists can assess peoples attitudes!” That’s right and there are appropriate psychological assessments (e.g., as part of selection) that qualified (e.g., licensed psychologists) people may administer. However, the typical workplace manager or executive is not qualified nor has any business assessing attitude or personality, except as they are expressed in workplace behaviors. This is what the typical manager is or at least should be qualified to assess; work performance or other behaviors germane to workplace functions. Behavior can be observed, measured, and documented as appropriate or necessary by those knowledgeable of the work and the organization.
The task of addressing workplace behavior can be daunting, in and of itself. I’ve seen too many in positions of workplace leadership who are either afraid to deal with behavioral and performance issues or haven’t been properly trained to do so. In the US most companies have a “top-down” modus operandi. That is to say that the chain of command and decision making begin within the higher echelons. We shoot our mouths off about democracy (if I had a nickel for every time I’ve heard, “employees are our most valued asset”), but in practice we don’t believe in it. It is the rare organization that empowers employees to be truly self-directed (a discussion for another day). So, in the status quo, the success of subalterns within the organization becomes the responsibility of those that manage/lead them. I believe this responsibility goes beyond an obligation to the organization , but to our fellow humans in general.
The astute manager will counsel employees as to specific behaviors that do not contribute to their success (e.g., performance), and what specific behaviors will in turn support their success. For example, telling an employee that they don’t deal well with or perhaps don’t respect their fellow workers is not sufficient. Beginning with this general critique, but then defining by specific incident/behavior what is meant (e.g. interrupting Mary before she finished expressing her thoughts) and specifically what desired behavior should take its place (listen to others opinions before interrupting with yours). Needless to say, in general, the manager should document a pattern of behavior before addressing it and provide some reward as the desired behavior is expressed (maybe as simple as recognizing the new behavior).
Effectively managing people toward success in the workplace, is hard work, but the greatest reward is helping people develop behaviors that will insure their continued success in the workplace. One caveat, especially in dealing with maladaptive workplace behaviors, is that there exists the latent possibility of personal problems/behaviors that occur outside the workplace but contribute to workplace issues : generally you as a manager should not and are not qualified to address outside issues/behaviors, but without suggesting specific problems (marital, financial, substance abuse, etc.) any available employee assistance program should be discussed and offered when addressing maladaptive workplace behavior.
Coming will be more discussion of reward types and related “laws” relative to the workplace, while beginning to frame this discussion with what psychologists call “operant conditioning.”
