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.”

46 million Americans make do without health insurance, and many millions more have inadequate insurance (rationing or sometimes denying essential care). Note that everytime a non-profit medical group stages an event to provide basic medical care, non-stop lines of THOUSANDS of our fellow citizens queue-up (http://www.newstin.com/rel/us/en-010-017172734). I cannot sing loudly enough the praises of these doctors, nurses, administrators, and other health care professionals who make these events happen. Please note that these events are about health care not health insurance, the former is about filling a human need in our society, the latter is about profit, power, and wealth for a miniscule few at the expense of many (health problems are the major cause of individual bankruptcies in the US; not to mention the untold physical suffering millions must endure).

Yet, so many in our Congress are hell bent to maintain the status quo. What is the status quo? Continuing to protect the malevolent institutions and practices that have created the most innefficient and inneffective health care system among developed nations. Free market? Hah! No such thing has ever existed under the nation state. Either the market is regulated more in favor of the few wealthy and powerful or more in favor of the majority of citizens. Either way, the market is always regulated. For far too long we have allowed our markets to be regulated in favor of the few who prey on the majority. In this case health insurance companies which are about profit margins and executive bonuses tallying billions of dollars, not health care. In this case drug companies whose business model mirrors that of the insurance companies. In this case for profit medical facilities and payment systems for doctors and others based on procedures, not outcomes. In this case hospitals, doctors’ groups, and other aspects of our healthcare system which refuse to address systemic health care dangers and inneficiencies (certainly there are exceptions to this, including many doctors who sincerely practice not for attaining wealth and power, but for the benefit of their patients). So, there’s plenty of metastic waste to be cleaved from this system. Maybe even enough to facilitate a single-payer system, with a true focus on the consumer of medical care and not all the middlemen siphoning off “profits” which neither provide or add value to medical care. So, being a sometime trusting soul, I ask myself, why our Congress is not acting in the best interest of the majority of Americans? I have two thoughts on this.

Those oppposing reform (Republicans and Democrat Blue “Dogs,” as well as many Democrats proposing the half measures now under consideration) are part of the wealthy, elite, and powerful, who under the skin are Social Darwinists. This term suggests that principles of evolution apply to the society of man. The fittest dominate and horde resources, while it is the natural lot of the less fit to grovel at the bottom of the chain for crumbs, live miserable lives and die young. That’s that and there’s nothing to be done about it. Of course this seems quite reasonable if you are one of the “fit.” In the late 19th and early 20th century impoverished, often immigrant, children of all ages were enslaved in New York city whorehouses to satisfy the sexual desires of patrons (e.g. buggery and worse). With a somewhat routine frequency, these tragic children turned up dead as a result of violent acts commited upon them in the course of their employment (no details needed here). These gruesome deaths were never reported in the papers of the day (similar to todays underreporting of minority/poor violent crimes as opposed to violent crime affecting the wealthy/powerful). Polite (upper class) society did not consider them “proper” discourse among “ladies and gentlemen.” Besides, this was simply the natural “lot” of the underclasses. Nothing to be done about it. I can only conclude that many of our politicians take this view relative to the health care debate.

My second thought on why Congress is doing such a piss-poor job on
legislating health care reform came in an article I came across today (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20090817/sc_livescience/mostusmoneylacedwithcocaine). They are high on cocaine! This article states that the majority (85-90%) of the paper money circulating in our society is soiled with cocaine. This confirms, what many have long believed, that is that our US war on drugs is an abysmal failure. But, the article also reports that the greatest concentration (95%) of cocaine-laden money is to be found in our national capitol, that’s right you guessed it, where our Congress meets, Washington DC. Whether you hold Social Darwinist world views or are simply high on cocaine, the results could be similar i.e., a disregard for the needs and best interests of the majority of Americans. Ah, but if our “people” in Congress would put down that rolled-up dollar (or is it a fifty?) for a moment and pay attention I may have discovered an additional way to finance health care reform.

Seeing that our war on drugs has failed lets take a new tack. Let’s focus our efforts not on criminalizing drug use and unneccessarily ruining the lives of our citizens by imprisonment (and incidentally creating a US/world market for criminal skullduggery to flourish in), but rather on a model of treatment for these addictions. Richard Nixon had this right with his treatment approach (e.g., the methadone program). So, legalize use of the currently illicit drugs, let the state administer them under clean, safe, controlled conditions, while incorporating addiction treatment into a national health care system. Just like the end of prohibition in the US, this would put an end to a great deal of organized criminal activity, while possibly eradicating most violent street crimes (as has been the case in e.g., Sweden). But how to finance this?

In 2003 the federal government spent 19 billion dollars on the drug war, while currently this year (not 3/4 of the year has passed yet) federal and state drug war costs combined have already exceeded 32 billion dollars (http://www.drugsense.org/wodclock.htm). Gee, stop the failed drug war efforts and finance health care! 40 billion dollars a year in projected savings enough? Don’t think so? Plenty of room for fudging in figures like these, so let’s consider other savings relevant to surrendering to the reality of the drug war efforts. Estimates conclude that state and federal taxpayer costs for imprisoning drug offenders totals about 9 billion dollars a year (http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/node/63). OK, so close to 50 billion dollars a year saved by stopping a war long lost and then use these funds to finance a health care system that works. The latest CBO estimates I’ve seen on currently proposed health care reform legislation indicate a shortfall/cost of something like 9-10 billion dollars per year. Gee whiz, with 50 billion a year to play with we ought to be able to expand a single-payer medicare system to everyone, without asking seniors to sacrifice a thing! And this doesn’t even take into account the cornucopia of savings to be gained by eliminating all off the waste (that which does not contribute to best patient outcomes) in our health care system. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

As to our federal elected officials in Congress, I can only hope that they are addicted to cocaine rather than holding worldviews of Social Darwinism. I would have much more respect for them.

Imagine the following workplace scenarios:

1) In a manufacturing assembly line productivity (number of parts assembled per worker) seems to have suffered a serious decline.
Analysis: Bonuses were previously based on individual worker piecework (measured daily) and were changed to reflect total line output along with other company objectives that workers feel are in the hands of upper management (i.e., a company wide strategy to gain ISO 9000 certification). Rewards are now less directly tied to individual behavior by performance. Worker BUY-IN or OWNERSHIP (important concept in the workplace) to company goals (ISO 9000) to which their input has not genuinely been sought, may be low resulting in low commitment to the success of these goals. Still bonus/reward realignment may ultimately help achieve company goals, but behaviors will be affected.

2) The CEO of a large company notices that although overall profit margins and productivity are good, cooperation between the people in various divisions seems to have declined, in fact there seems to be animosity (e.g., in sharing company resources) where once was camraderie and cooperation. Some long-term company-wide objectives (ISO 9000 and Lean implementation) that require inter-division coordination seem to be suffering.
Analysis: The monthly bonus rewarding performance/goal achievement strictly by and within each division has replaced an annual bonus that was based on overall company performance and was evenly distributed between divisions and all employees. This has led to sometimes aggressive competition for shared resources between employees in different divisions.

3) A sales division not only seems to be suffering declining sales, but a few salespeople (former highly esteemed employees) have been disciplined or terminated for falsifying records (e.g., claiming contacts they have not made).
Analysis: Pay for salespeople was largely based on individual sales’ commission (the holy grail of compensation for top salespeople as my co-blogger Dennis might say). Changing compensation to a fixed salary (no-longer paying a commission to salespeople based on a percentage of their individual sales) was when the problems began.

4) The engineering division for a large company has received real gains in individual salary increases along with a record annual bonus, yet morale seems low and the grapevine has it that a few of the top engineers are looking for different jobs.
Analysis: This company’s product is highly engineered, the former company head came from engineering, and those in engineering have historically been feted as more or less saviors (well earned at certain challenging times in the product history). The current company head came out of human resources (seems to have little empathy for the engineering aspect of the business) and much of the engineering workload is being farmed out to satellite locations in India. Compensation is still a reward for these employees, but for some it doesn’t compete as a reward with recognition and a sense of self importance (in psychology we might refer to “self focus”) in a larger mission (the success of the company).

Now, are the above scenarios a bit contrived? Certainly, but not entirely unlike some real-life workplace events that I and many readers may have experienced. What do they all have in common? Rewards (reward contingencies) have changed and thus affected behaviors. Examples one and two demonstrate extremes between rewarding narrowly directed behaviors (individual or small group performance) and rewarding more globally directed behaviors (organizational performance). While example three emphasizes compensation as reward, example four demonstrates that non-monetary rewards can be important also.

My message is simple, organizational leaders and policy setters are responsible for much of individual and group behavior (desirable or not). The circumstances you contrive that act as rewards (and punishments) will likely influence work behaviors far more than individual dispositions. So, it is simply prudent to define what behavioral outcomes are desirable (based on business model, long or short term needs, etc.) and only then carefully designing or revamping organizational/individual reward systems (compensation, rules, policies, etc.). In future posts more discussion of behavior shaping, rewards, and reward schedules. But in the next post I want to explain why I focus on workplace behavior.

The Rorschach has been leaked by Wikipedia.

I debated posting this news item, because it adds to the publicity for what would appear to be at least a borderline ethical act. However, as reported by the New York Times and other media outlets, the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has been engulfed in a furious debate involving psychologists who are angry that the 10 original Rorschach plates are reproduced online, along with common responses for each. For them, the Wikipedia page is the equivalent of posting an answer sheet to next year’s SAT. They are pitted against the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia’s users, who share the site’s “free culture” ethos, which opposes the suppression of information that it is legal to publish. (Because the Rorschach plates were created nearly 90 years ago, they have lost their copyright protection in the United States.)

I am not sure how to respond to the news item. The availability is nothing new. Back when I gave the Rorschach, I often wondered about the availability in the library of books that contained the Rorschach cards and responses. Sure those were not as easily available and cost money to purchase, but were in most University libraries. So, people having access to images of the cards is not new. If this only occurred with non-copyright protected documents it would be easier to deal with and accept.

So is there a lesson. If there is it is that for those human resource professionals involved in testing, the security of tests will remain a huge problem and will probably become a more significant issue in the future.  

As I read more everyday on the progress or setbacks for health care reform, I become more disillusioned. So, why not throw my two cents into the fray.

As a nation, in my lifetime, we have made so many critically bad decisions that continue to come home to roost. Just to mention a couple biggies. Choosing roads and cars over public transportation (increased pollution, damage to the environment from sprawl, destabilization/abandonment of cities, and an annual death toll to which 9/11, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined pale). Criminalizing non-violent drug use (fills our prisons to capacity, our streets with crime, and offers little in treatment for addictions as even Richard Nixon’s administration did). Just as I believe that these social/national choices were shaped and driven by powerful monied interests, so I believe is the health care debate. Our history is replete with repeated examples of unbridled capitalism failing our societies when human avarice trumps moral/ethical concerns for the well being of the majority of our fellow humans. Case in point, a little real estate investment instrument now referred to as a derivative.

What would I prescribe for health care reform?
1) REMOVE THE PROFIT MOTIVE FROM HEALTH CARE. IT IS MORALLY AND ETHICALLY WRONG TO PROFIT FROM HUMAN SUFFERING.
Ah, but the free market people will argue that motivation for innovation and thus better care will suffer if there is no opportunity to obtain great wealth for relieving human suffering. Jonas Salk didn’t think that way (he never patented the polio vaccine).
2) REWARD OUTCOMES AND PREVENTIVE CARE NOT PROCEDURES.
I believe that reasonable people of good faith can see the great potential in this approach for not only improving the overall health in our society, but dramatically reducing long term costs.

That’s it. I believe that from these two prescriptions follow longterm solutions to the current points of contention (availabilty and cost). Will these prescriptions ever be heeded? I can only think of a comment I remember (similar to one made by Samuel Clemens) describing our America as, “A nation of fools led by knaves.”

Determinism and the moral imperative to help our fellow humans (not to mention fulfilling a commitment to the success of an organization we are part of) suggests that, when possible or evident, we use our influence to “engineer” circumstances such that we contribute to the success of people within that organization. Now, we can’t change the past (all the events that have led to the current incarnation of the organization or individuals within it) and we certainly don’t have any real precision in predicting the future (exact knowledge of how events and people will interact toward specific outcomes), but still we do know in practical terms a lot about human behavior and what influences it.

Research on moral behavior (e.g., the Milgram experiment) suggests that environmental influences are far more likely to govern the morality of human behavior than individual predispositions (e.g., most people would submit to torturing fellow humans under circumstances which include no threat of physical or egregious harm to them). So, those that are charged with leading or managing fellow humans fail miserably when they do not recognize their responsibility to seek and employ what “laws” of human behavior are extant. One of the most generalized of these laws is that people are more likely to exhibit behaviors that are rewarded. But, let’s begin with punishment, an apt segue way to rewards.

PUNISHMENT
This works in influencing human behaviors. Problem is that punishment alone is generally effective only when the punisher is present. No one I know likes receiving a speeding/traffic ticket and therefore will not knowingly commit these sins within sight of John Law. Yet, no one I know has not rolled a stop sign or exceeded the speed limit when they perceive no police presence.

Further, to eliminate punished behavior, the punishment must be combined with reward for alternate acceptable behavior. I have always loved the sensation of speed whether in a plane rolling down the runway at take-off or in some vehicle charging down the highway at 100+ mph. Reward for this behavior is directly related to the behavior (e.g., in time), however safe driving behaviors are not so immediately/consistently rewarded (fewer mishaps, insurance rates, etc.). Highway statistics tell us that speed kills, yet consumers and automakers continue the trend toward more power and speed that began with the automobile (or horses? or humans?). Imagine if police were charged with catching drivers operating their vehicles lawfully/sensibly and providing some valued reward?

So, to those in management/leadership wishing to influence behavior in their organization the message is simple: Punishment is not an effective tool. It should be used sparingly and then combined with reinforcement/reward for alternate desirable behavior. Reinforcing/rewarding desired behaviors is a far more powerful/effective tool.

In fact, as you’ll see in subsequent posts, management behavior may be the factor influencing/rewarding the very behavior management would like to change.

It seems rather puzzling that people of science can also embrace philosophies (e.g. the religions of the “Big Book”) which endorse the concept of free will. Having the benefit of a thorough training in scientific method, my irrational superstitions (at least at an intellectual level) no longer include a benevolent, omnipotent, and omniscient god figure that has bestowed free will upon we humans.

In essence Determinism states that we live in a world governed by natural laws and through observation we can discover what these laws are. This is the philosophical underpinning of modern science. So, if you conduct scientific research or your practice relies upon its results, regardless of discipline, this concept is essential to your work. There may be variables at work beyond human comprehension (e.g. psychology of human behavior) making discovery of many of these natural laws difficult at best. Yet, if you accept research findings, whether in the physics lab or your doctor’s office (yes we humans are part of this world and therefore subject to these laws), you also (perhaps inadvertently) accept the concept of Determinism. So, here’s the punch line; if the human animal is governed by natural laws then behavior and cognition are predictable (if only for enough knowledge of these laws: the purpose of psychology or medical research) and free will does not exist. Seems a pretty cold assessment of the human condition eh? Maybe not.

If free will operates then we choose to be good or bad. This leads to blame, punishment, and vindictiveness directed at those making the wrong choices. On the other hand a philosophy of Determinism leads to an understanding that we creatures are only responding to the natural laws working within us and our environment. No need for blame, punishment, or vindictiveness. Certainly practical concerns are legitimate, such as separating violent offenders from society at large (prison), but the concept of punishment as “just” in and of itself becomes moot.

That the death penalty serves justice is really an argument used to rationalize vengeance. In light of extant research the deterrent argument seems to be a red herring, leaving only revenge. A Determinist belief system would say to revenge: Balderdash!, blaming the adult offender for behavior is tantamount to blaming the newborn for crying. (Exchanging life for death sentences would also save taxpayers millions of dollars.)

So it becomes evident that Determinism can be a far more humane belief system than those embracing the concept of free will. Still there is the practical matter of needing to “believe” that we choose our destinies. Here I would recommend the pragmatic approach of the father of American psychology William James. The truth of a belief can be measured by the benefits of believing ( in e.g. personal free will or perhaps the psychological benefits of religious belief). So, believing in the moment that I have free will may serve me well, whilst in my overarching world view I must embrace a Deterministic philosophy. As to those who would still argue for the death penalty: I willingly forgive you because you have no choice in the matter.

So how does all this relate to the workplace? Please consider this as a primer on Determinist worldview. In future installments I will relate some of its practical applications in the workplace.

I have long thought about moral, scrupulous, and ethical behavior as it relates to the human animal. I claim no profound thoughts or high-ground in this matter. Yet in the stream of human shared consciousness I witness I am often troubled by what we say as opposed to what we do. I think of the ISO 9000 (European Union business standards) admonition to say what you do and do what you say. So, I present the following stream of my thoughts in an attempt to solicit others’ views. Does anybody give a damn?

Like any well trained science major I begin with research (in the form of Merriam Webster):
Moral = Conforming to a standard/accepted notions of what is right and wrong, ethical, virtuous, or noble.
Scruple = An ethical consideration or principle that inhibits action.
Ethic = Discipline, theory, or system dealing with what is good or bad, or moral value.

Having found great circularity and therefore a certain ambiguity in the above I decided to employ Occam’s razor in creating a new word (early incarnations of this new word; ethaluple and scrumoric).

MORSCRUETH (n) (pron. more-screw-ith), That which exhibits behavior and/or speech that advocates that which is moral, srupulous, and ethical. To espouse in behavior and/or speech that which is not only nonmalificent in terms of human specific values regarding human to environment (includes human to human) interactions but is also good in this context. (pl. morscrueths, adj. morscruethal)

Man can you feel the universal reification already beginning to take place?

OK, now for some questions. And please constant readers, if you too think about these things, have some morscrueths and either add your responses or some new questions. I sometimes feel all alone in this universe and sure would appreciate seeing the thoughts others have on these matters. Have I, for example, missed some of our institutions that should also be scrutinized? Thank-You.

1. Are men/women innately morscruethal?
2. Technology seems to have made some small measure of progress in the last few thousand years. Is the nature of man/woman, in terms of morscruethal issues, any different than it was say 2, 4, or 6 thousand years ago? Have we made gains in this area?
3. Is our Government (USA) morscruethal?
4. Is American capitalism morscruethal?
5. Are modern corporate entities morscruethal?
6. Does conforming to APA ethical guidelines make you more morscruethal in your professional and/or private activities?
7. Are those trained /practicing in the field of psychology more morscruethal than the general population? Is there a difference between the disciplines in this field?
8. If our brand of capitalism, our corporations, or our government are immorscruethal (the opposite of morscruethal) or perhaps amorscruethal (bereft of morscruethals), then is it possible to serve the interests/objectives of these entities and still lay claim to personal standards of morscruethality?

Quote from unidentified blues’ song, “If the washin don’t get ya the rinsin sho will.”

Recently, I received a notice that the Oregon Province of the Society of Jesus had declared bankruptcy. As someone who attended Jesuit schools for 8 years, this news saddened me, especially when combined with the parish closings in Northeast Ohio.

In that context, I would recommend a 2000 book by Donald B. Cozzens entitled “The Changing Face of the Priesthood.” Fr. Cozzens has a background in counseling, psychology, and pastoral theology. He also has many years of experience with seminarians.

Fr. Cozzens provides an excellent and in-depth look at the challenges faced by the priesthood. This is a deeply personal and psychological reflection. It could also be viewed from the standpoint of how an institution attempts to handle the human resource challenges presented by a major crisis.

If there are any disappointments, it is that Cozzens offers no real solutions and the book is based on dated psychological theories. In addition, there is more attention paid to the failures in the trenches than to the role of leadership. Nevertheless, the book serves as a tremendously insightful look into the question of spiritual and ethical lapses in the priestly profession.

This is certainly a time when ethics occupy significant space on the front pages of the business sections. As I have previously comments, it is surprising to me, although not to others, that despite trying to put a major emphasis on ethics over the last 10 years, so little has been accomplished. So I started reading books on ethics.

In “Doing the Right Thing at Work,” James L. Nolan looks at ethics from a Catholic perspective. The subtitle is “A Catholic’s Guide to Faith, Business and Ethics.” The book is based on the Woodstock Business Conferences and includes case studies from that conference. There is not a lot of ethical guidance in the book. More than providing ethical guidance, the book shows Catholic business people how they can find the right answers on their own through faith and prayer. Depending upon your viewpoint, his approach could be seen as a positive or a negative.

Although the book reads as a series of spiritual exercises, I did find two comments made by Nolan to be intriguing. The first is that the real tough ethical issues involve where there is no good solution, only a series of bad solutions, but one must be chosen. The second is his 5 pillars, or 5 point program, which includes:

1. Self awareness
2. Expanding your horizon
3. Engagement in work and the world
4. Community
5. Prayer

The book makes for a quick read or can be used as the basis of setting up a spiritual program. It does not so much tell you what the right thing is, or even how to identify the right thing, as much as it attempts to provide guideposts for finding the right answer on your own.