The Psychology Archives at the University of Akron will continue its fall colloquium series by welcoming psychologist Dr. Florence L. Denmark, on Tuesday, Nov. 17, from 2 to 4 p.m., in Student Union 312. Denmark’s lecture, “The History of Women In Psychology and the Development of the Psychology of Women,” is free and open to the public.

Denmark is an internationally recognized scholar, researcher and policy maker. She received her Ph.D. from the University of Pennsylvania in social psychology and has five honorary degrees. Denmark’s most significant research and extensive publications have emphasized women’s leadership and leadership styles, the interaction of status and gender, aging women in cross-cultural perspective and the history of women in psychology.

GOLF’S SACRED JOURNEY, SEVEN DAYS AT THE LINKS OF UTOPIA
by David L. Cook, Ph.D.

While at a seminar not too long ago a fellow, whose company I had enjoyed for the couple days, commented that this was the best book on golf and sport psychology he had ever read. My immediate thought was of my friend and fellow blogger Dennis and his love for golf. So, I ordered a copy and had it sent to him. I am not a golfer, but was told it would still be a good read, and long having an itinerant interest in sport psychology, asked Dennis to loan it to me if he thought it a good read.

It is a good read and an engaging story, even though much of the technical aspects and jargon of golf flew over my head. Still, my exposure to sport psychology did help me with some of the concepts (eg., pre-shot routines). It is about a young man struggling to make a living playing golf. His skills are not bad, he just keeps choking with the pressure to perform and earn a living. After throwing a fit on one of his worst days on the course he inadvertently finds a small Texas town, a primitive golf course, and a one-time golf pro turned rancher who offers to help the young golfer find his game.

From here on the story mostly focuses on the young golfers journey to regain the intrinsic motivation for playing golf that he experienced as a child. Of course physical golfing technique must by necessity be part of the psychological process and is therefore important to the text too. The author, a sport psychologist renowned in professional golf, employs some wonderfully creative examples of sport psychology techniques including assessment, visualization, positive self-talk, and creation of the all-important pre-shot routine. So, I was having a pretty good time reading a good story written very engagingly until the last few chapters where I found the narrative direction a little distracting.

I had previously known nothing about this author and had no expectations, so I was a little surpised when the emphasis abruptly changed from sport psychology and golf to proselytizing for christianity in the last three chapters. I can understand the psychological value of faith in a higher power (I’ve been there and done that) which is documented in some research. I can understand how this faith, applied from a sport psychology perspective, could be very useful in aiding performance. Still, the author emphasizes “truth seeking” which I think is a valid pursuit, and I have great difficulty endorsing or embracing such a spurious world view, regardless of psychological benefits. Certainly it would appear to be in the nature of the human animal to create and embrace irrational superstitious beliefs, this just doesn’t happen to be one of mine. So I was a little dissapointed in an otherwise fine book which seemed to mask this latent goal until the end.

If you have interests in golf or sport psychology you will likely find some good in this book, as I did. If you additionally enjoy receiving a dose of christian proselytizing you will likely love this book.

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.”

I rode my bicycle across Iowa twice in RAGBRAI (the Register’s Annual Great Bicycle Ride Across Iowa). I once rode the same bicycle from New Orleans to Chicago while camping in state/national parks over three weeks. I have bursitis in my left shoulder, frequent lower back pain with a touch of sciatica thrown in for good measure, and I quit running a few years ago when my knees began inflaming, swelling and feeling painful after a run. They say the last resort for the aging athlete is golf. Not my game…..yet! I believe the only way to keep doing is to keep doing (at least as much as I can).

So, in this spirit, after a few year hiatis from cycling I began cycling again this summer. No century (100 miles) rides (yet), just a sensible 25 mile ride three or four times a week. Problem is there’s a hill in my area that I could not conquer and I truly hate having to dismount and walk my bicycle up any hill (just like the cowboy heros of my youth who bridled at walking when a steed was nearby). Well having finally reached the point where I knew that my failure to stay in the saddle on this hill was no longer physical, but psychological, I decided to try some basic sport psychology tactics, as follow:
1) Visualization/imagery. Before and during the ascent I mentally picture myself out of breath, but exuberant at having crested the hill. I imagine the air I breath as being full of energy which allows my body to keep recovering and maintaining during the ascent.
2) Positive Self talk. I keep telling myself as I approach the hill that I can and will RIDE to the top (I talk aloud to myself).

Guess what? Using these techniques I road to the top of this hill twice during my ride yesterday. Not a great athletic achievement. Just a lovely little milestone for this 54 year old baby-boomer during the summer of 2009.

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.  

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.

Searching for unpublished tests or measures can be very frustrating. So the following represents a very exciting future development. The American Psychological Association (APA) is planning a PsycTESTS database.  This exciting new product is being designed to provide access to the full text of many unpublished tests and measures and to provide information to help the researcher determine whether a given test or measure is potentially right for their research. This product should be a valuable addition in terms of an APA membership.

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.

In one of my career talks, I discuss how both psychologists and human resource professionals, my two fields, tend to be viewed in a negative manner by the public. Unfortunately, it is no the same sort of sexy bad of lawyers, but often a boring bad image. The release of information on interrogation techniques used by the military with detainees has further tarnished the image of psychologists – an example is this article from Democracy Now.

The image of both psychologists and the psychologists profession that emerges in this article is a highly negative one. Perhaps I find the role of psychologists to be more salient than the general public will, but certainly this represents a black eye for psychology, regardless of the accuracy of the reporting or statements made regarding the profession.