The original marbles

giantknave Brain Farts ,

blue_marble_closeup_sjpg1676For those of you who have attended a particular course that I run, I hope you remember the marbles!

For those of you who haven’t (yet) attended, then this post should cover the point nicely.

I try to be mindful of the source of everything that I use (no, really, I’m not making it all up…I am trying to stand on the shoulders of giants) and, with this in mind, I wanted to share with you the link from which the marbles presentation comes from…it is well worth a quick read!

Now, before you go there, it’s worth bearing in mind that the blogger (ThinkPurpose) has a particular ‘mess with your head’ style of writing (which I really like…you’ll see what I mean the more posts you read!).

…so, here it is: https://thinkpurpose.wordpress.com/that-marbles-post/ post.

If you look at each marble that is being listened to, you can see that they can easily be converted to the same/ similar types of demand we receive in our organisation.

Now, ThinkPurpose is him/herself (?) standing on the shoulders of John Seddon and his original definition of:

“Failure demand is demand caused by a failure to do something or do something right for the customer…which is created by the organisation not working properly…which is under the organisation’s control.”

“…in service organisations, failure demand is often the greatest source of waste.”

Going forward I’d love to hear about people seeing, studying, and talking about their marbles!!!

Finally, it was recently put to me that ‘isn’t failure demand just another way of explaining the waste of re-work?’. My response is ‘no, but there may very well be a relationship between the two’. My explanation to show they are different is as follows:

On the one hand: You might spot an error, perform some re-work to correct it and do this without the customer’s knowledge/ attention…and thus avoid failure demand (the customer contacting you).

On the other: You might receive failure demand (FD) without this requiring re-work of what’s already been done:

FD Archetype 1. ‘where is my claim?’: doesn’t mean that there is necessarily anything wrong with the work that has been done so far…it just might be ‘stuck’. To handle this failure demand requires new yet avoidable work to:

  • handle the customer’s request (e.g. the phone call), look up the claim details, make enquiries, work out what is happening;
  • expedite the claim so as to be seen to be ‘doing something’ for the customer
    • get back to the customer with well thought through and carefully crafted explanations and ‘platitudes’

FD Archetype 2. ‘why haven’t you done this to my claim?’: doesn’t necessarily mean that previous work has to be re-worked. It requires new yet avoidable work to:

  • handle the customer’s request as per the above; and
  • perform further actions that:
    • should have been done, but weren’t; or worse
    • are now required but wouldn’t have been if it had been done right in the first place.

Either of these examples of failure demand might prompt an element of re-work, but they will always require new work.

Shonky experiments

giantknave Brain Farts ,

chemikWhat’s the definition of an experiment? The Oxford English dictionary provides the following:

  • A scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery, test a hypothesis, or demonstrate a known fact
  • A course of action tentatively adopted without being sure of the outcome

So an experiment can be about testing a hypothesis (i.e. you are predicting the outcome), and it can be about studying a ‘what if’ scenario where you don’t have a specific expectation of what the result will be. Further, some philosophers of science hold that an experiment can never prove a hypothesis, it can only add support.

To be valid, the experimenter must:

  • have a meaningful and robust method of ‘before’ and ‘after’ measurement: you need to be able to objectively study the outcome;
  • have a valid method of isolating the variable(s) being considered: there’s not a lot of point testing something whilst there are lots of other changes going on as well;
  • neutralise any potential biases: you need a truly open mind…bear in mind that the human being irrationally looks for evidence that supports its current view and, conversely, ignores evidence that does not.

Okay, so how is this relevant to an organisation trying to improve?

You are not performing a valid ‘experiment’ if you are simply ‘testing’ how to implement something you have already decided, and then ‘learning’ how to adjust its implementation so as to roll it out more efficiently.

The ‘Act’ within Plan-Do-Study-Act does not mean Implement…it means take the relevant actions that arise from your scientific study of the outcome of your well planned and executed experiment.

‘Act’ might mean:

  • adopt the change; or
  • abandon the change (e.g. reverse it to arrive back at the original condition), or
  • adapt the test (because you learned something important that needs adjusting); or
  • expand the size of the test (because you need more evidence to conclude)

A reminder of a quote by some dude called R Buckminster Fuller (nice name!):

“There’s no such thing as a failed experiment, only experiments with unexpected outcomes.”

Remember that the PDSA ball should be continually rolling. It isn’t about one grand experiment that purportedly ‘solves all our problems’ by transforming us to a new state. It is about constant experimentation by the joint efforts of those charged with managing a process and those who perform it.

As a closing comment: Why might people be keen to jump to conclusions rather than have an open mind? It might be worth considering the management instruments which are being used upon them (M.B.O, targets, contingent rewards, the rating and ranking of people’s performance).

Don’t feed the animals

giantknave Brain Farts ,

dont feedWe’ve all seen the signs in zoos, domains, at car parks in our national parks…and we understand the point, even if we haven’t considered it deeply.

So…let’s consider: why shouldn’t we feed the animals?

  • We stop them thinking for themselves: they become fat and idle, expecting the food and gorging on it as and when it is delivered. They come to expect it, even knowing when the feeding times begin;
  • We alter, and harm, their natural abilities:
    • they lose their motivation of solving their feeding needs for themselves and of real satisfaction with their successes
    • even worse, they now take on new behaviours
  • They become dependent on us: once reliant on us, if we take the food away there will be a period of confusion and likely pain;
  • We create un-natural competition in what used to be a structured independent community: we witness the fighting at the artificial food source;
  • Often, the food we give them isn’t healthy for them and certainly not as healthy as what they get in the wild…we try our best to imitate it but it’s never the same thing;

…we become their keeper, they lose their instinctive capabilities. We no longer witness all the wonderful things that they are capable of. They submit to our control.

I am really using an analogy for contingent rewards: the offering of something on a contingent basis in order to (attempt to) control how someone acts…which makes these rewards extrinsic by definition.

What do we try to do instead?

  • We attempt to safeguard, or provide (if it has already been destroyed) a natural environment in which the animals can thrive!

So how do we treat people in our organisations? Now, to be very clear, I am not putting you or I ‘above’ anyone by writing this post. I am but one of the animals in an organisational system, just like you or anyone else.

If contingent rewards are being used then the Board determine how to feed the Executives at the top, whilst managers handle the feeding of the process performers at the customer interface.

The point is that contingent rewards will have highly undesirable effects!

It’s worth noting that animals can be successfully introduced back into the wild, to become amazing again! Whether this is successful will depend upon how severe the dependence has become and the effort (both time and expertise) put into undoing this.

The analogy is not perfect but I hope you see the point. Clearly, animals in the wild are dependent on their natural habitat for survival and nature isn’t always kind. Consider that our natural food of choice is to be intrinsically motivated in what we do…and, given the right habitat we can thrive!

Change – just suck it up!

giantknave Brain Farts , ,

dui-law-changesBeing a pom, I hadn’t heard the ‘suck it up’ phrase until I came to New Zealand. I find it quite amusing…I particularly like some of its derivatives like ‘harden up’ and ‘take a concrete pill’.

Obviously it isn’t always appropriately used but it reflects an attitude of ‘stop whinging, it is what it is – just get on with it’.

So, when I hear the oft quoted remark that ‘change is the only constant’ (or such like), I note that this is used (in various guises) by ‘leaders’ to basically say ‘just suck it up’. A re-organisation is a classic example when it is brought out of the ‘communication’ drawer.

Consider the opposite though, that human beings are creatures of habit and resist change. Professor Rosabeth Moss Kanter sets out reasons for why this is so, and I pull out/shape some of these below:

  • Loss of control: interfering with our desire for autonomy
  • Excessive uncertainty: major change feels like walking off a cliff blindfolded
  • Sudden surprise: no time to consider (where a short ‘consultation’ period does not count as time)
  • Loss of face: we are likely to have a lot emotionally invested in the current state…we might even have designed parts of it!
  • More work: having to deal with the change (and it’s inevitable glitches because the new ‘grand plan’ can never be 100% thought through) on top of the real work
  • Upsetting the system: the change is likely to have knock on effects, disrupting other parts of the whole which could not have been foreseen.

So there is clearly a paradox, a herculean rub here: We are being told to constantly change, yet we don’t like change!

Now, the command-and-control response is typically to introduce a ‘Change Manager’ to the mix to grease the change through the lumps and bumps in the way.

But what if the combined ‘manager – process performer team’s constant state was of one in which their job was to continually change the system they work in, for the good of the customer…rather than having this done to them.

Mike Rother, in his excellent book Toyota Kata contrasts two types of management thinking in respect to making improvements:

  1. normal daily management + improvement (where process improvement is a separate add-on activity, often wrapped up into projects to be carried out by other teams and then ‘rolled out’ to the process…often requiring significant ‘change management’)
  2. normal daily management = process improvement (where improving and managing are one and the same, where the changes are identified, tested and then ‘rolled in’ within the system…which virtually strangles the need for ‘change management’)

For us to crush the ‘change’ paradox, we need to move from a command-and-control environment in which the change is dictated to the system to a systems-thinking environment in which the changes come from within the system.

If we re-examine the reasons for fearing change, we can see that most dissolve away when:

  • the ‘manager- process performer team’ are in control of improving the process;
  • …which means we have replaced excessive uncertainty with controlled sequential experiments;
  • …with no surprise as to what is coming (they, after all, are masters of this);
  • …meaning that they own how they build upon what they have already done, for the good of the customer;
  • …such that these improvements are part of the work, not extras imposed upon them;
  • …with all experimental results studied to learn their effect on the system BEFORE action is taken.

How do we successfully do this? To start, we need to critically examine our management thinking.

IT and Improvement

giantknave Brain Farts , ,

Bruce_the_Shark_by_hayn“Asking a consultant if you should….put in a new computer system is like asking a hungry Great White Shark if the water is warm and you should go for a swim.” (Seddon quoting Craig, D and Brooks, R)

We all know about the wonders that can be achieved through technology…we also know the massive pain that we can suffer from trying to jump on/ implement the next ‘big thing’.

Another quote that fits well in this space:

“IT marketing is more hyped than next season’s fashion colours and the MTV awards combined.” (Unsourced)

John Seddon contends that the problem with IT is with the way we approach it, this being something like:

  • We see some potential ‘holy grail’ dangled in front of us that seems to play to our symptoms;
  • We write some specification of what we think we need/ how we might use the ‘shiny new thing’;
  • The IT provider then takes this, re-writes it in their own version (a straight jacket if you will) and then delivers against this;
  • …which then fails to deliver against our actual reality (which only now we begin to properly understand…but this is now too late);
  • …so the supplier blames our original specification;
  • …and succeeds in selling more ‘implementation consultancy’ to ostensibly ‘put matters right’ or, at the risk of being cynical, ties us further into the abyss of their technology.

Seddon proposes that our approach should be to “understand and improve – then ask if IT can further improve.”

  • Understand: Ignore IT. Do not even assume the problem, or solution, has anything to do with IT. Instead, work first to understand the ‘what’ and ‘why’ of current performance as a system…which means learning about demand, capability, flow, waste…and the underlying causes of waste;
  • Improve: Improve performance without using IT to do so. If you currently use IT, either leave it in place or work without it. Now, improve doesn’t just mean the process…it very often means the management system surrounding it;
  • Ask ‘can IT further improve this system?’: It is only now that you can address the benefits that potential IT counter-measures can bring because you are asking from a true position of knowledge about the work. This is IT being ‘pulled’ into the work rather than dictating the method (“the way the work works”).

And, throughout all of the above, we should be measuring the capability of the system against its purpose (from the customers’ point of view) and can then consider whether each change in method (including the use of IT) has in fact been an improvement.

Now, an obvious chicken-and-egg question arises here: ‘…but don’t I first need IT to measure capability?’. A couple of thoughts in reply:

  • You don’t need IT to capture the demand trigger point and its satisfaction point….though it is likely to make it much easier – the same ‘understand, improve and then ask if IT can further improve’ applies to IT reporting. Before touching IT for reporting, you need to understand what you should be measuring. I have seen most IT implementations deliver a suite of out-of-the box reports that do not measure capability;
  • Even if your IT ‘solution’ delivers you such measures, you need to understand whether they are being distorted by the process performers due to the effects of the management system on their behaviours? …perhaps this needs focus first?

Money as pay

giantknave Brain Farts ,

CashThere is nothing wrong with the idea of money itself: it is simply a logical medium to enable the exchange of goods and services – it stops me trying to work out how many of my carrots to exchange for your goose.

But money as pay needs some careful thought.

We might break money for payment into three aspects to consider: as ‘hygiene’, ‘equity’, and ‘reinforcement’…and after that we’ll consider ‘joy in work’:

Hygiene: Frederick Herzberg studied the effects of financial incentives some time ago and observed that too little money can be a serious problem – we all need to cover the costs of our basic hygiene factors such as a roof over our heads, food in our bellies, clothes on our back and a feeling of security and acceptance in our society. It is highly demotivating not to have these covered. However, once these are in place, the provision of more money does not necessarily equate with more satisfaction.

Equity: The human being does not cope with injustice well! We all have a very strong inbuilt sense of fairness. So, once we’ve taken care of the hygiene aspect of pay, we must also cover equity. If you and I have a similar role but we are paid differently, then this WILL be a source of discord.

The more opaque the methodology surrounding compensation then the stronger the suspicions of inequality there will be. Note that a forward thinking American company, Menlo Innovations, takes transparency to such extremes that it posts employee salaries on its office wall! Whilst I am not saying we should go this far, if you find this idea objectionable it is worth asking yourselves why! If it is a fear of others realising how much you are paid as compared to them….then perhaps you fear you are on the positive end of an inequitable pay scheme.

Reinforcement: So, after covering hygiene and equity, we are left with the practise of contingent rewards: the offering of money (or some other perk) on a contingent basis in order to control how someone acts. Incentive/ bonus schemes sit squarely in this camp.

Alfie Kohn’s eye-opening book ‘Punished by Rewards’ explains the damaging effects of contingent rewards. He clearly sets out five major reasons as to why this is so, along with a depth of supporting research over many decades. In summary, contingent rewards:

  • Punish: those that don’t meet the criteria will not get the reward and will be demoralised – what might be seen as damage caused by the fall out , or ‘friendly fire’;
  • Rupture relationships: they interfere with the desire for collaboration and a sense of community. Competition makes others a potential obstacle to your ‘success’;
  • Ignore reasons: they are lazy – they do not require any attention to the reason for the problem in the first place, meaning that the ultimate cause will not get resolved;
  • Discourage risk taking: we do exactly what is necessary to get the reward, and no more. Research has shown that contingent rewards thwart innovation;
  • Focus people’s energies on getting the incentive, not on doing the work…which leads to lots of highly undesirable side effects!

The ‘money’ paradox:

A number of major surveys have been carried out to compare what a worker looks for in a job with what their manager (and even their peers) thinks they are looking for. What is really interesting is that:

  • the manager and peers rank ‘pay’ as being of number one importance to the worker; but
  • the worker himself ranks ‘pay’ way down the list*, putting ‘interesting work’ first.

(* 5th out of 10 ‘job factors’ in one study and 6th out of 10 in another)

So the paradox is that ‘I’ think that interesting work is most important but, conversely, ‘you’ think pay is most important to ‘me’…which would explain many a management decision based on this erroneous belief about pay.

Joy in work:

It is also interesting to consider the results of surveys about why people are unhappy with their jobs. The main reasons that arise include lack of variety or challenge, conflicts with manager or peers, and too much pressure. Salary doesn’t register as a major issue.

It would be interesting to consider why people leave an organisation and consider how many cite the primary factor as being that they weren’t being paid enough.

It is worth thinking about the following from Alfie Kohn:

“Notice how many people, regardless of how they feel about their jobs, or even how they are paid, are apt to pour their souls into tasks that they pursue in their free time: making music, fixing cars, decorating rooms, puttering in a garden, and of course, tending to their children. This work is often hard and time-consuming, and it is done with no thought of remuneration. Overall, the point is that money isn’t the point.”

He proposes that, if we want people to want to come to work on a Monday then the first thing we must do is pay people well and fairly “and then do everything in your power to help them put money out of their minds.”...then, and only then, we can work on creating the conditions for authentic motivation.

In conclusion

As Deming wrote “Pay is not a motivator”.

Now, you might respond to this with “well, I get results from offering contingent rewards“…and I would reply “sure you do…you get people chasing the rewards on offer…whatever (and in spite of) the consequences for the system”. I would add that you can’t blame them for behaving so – this is merely a product of the environment that you have provided for them.

Just imagine what your organisation, and its people, together could achieve if they were 100% focused on the actual purpose of the organisation and its primary value streams.

Two parallel tracks

giantknave Brain Farts , , ,

railway-track-leading-into-distanceI get a number of different reactions from people when I discuss organisational ‘systems thinking’ ideas with them. These range:

  • from “wow, that’s so right…but we are completely stuck in our current ‘command-and-control’ reality and surely can’t do anything about it!” ;
  • to “we need change and I can’t wait around for your theory to come to fruition – I’m going to accept things as they are and tinker at the edges as best I can…otherwise I will go mad with frustration!”.

To quote Russell Ackoff: the later response above is basically trying to make a “wrong thing righter” or, in effect, limit the damage.

However, I am very mindful that people can’t feast on ideas alone and that the point is to improve. All the theory in the world won’t help if we can’t apply it.

I have pondered this dilemma a lot and often…and came across (what is to me) a profound answer to this dilemma, as written by Alfie Kohn:

“When something is wrong with the present system, you move on two tracks at once.

  • You do what you can within the confines of the current structure, trying to minimise its harm.
  •  You also work with others to try to change that structure, conscious that nothing dramatic may happen for a very long time.

If we move exclusively on the latter track, such as by mobilising people to dismantle [the destructive instruments of the] system, we may not be doing enough to protect [our colleagues] from the destructive effects [of these instruments] with which they are going to be controlled in the meantime.

But – and this point can be more difficult to recognise – if we simply reconcile ourselves to the status quo and spend all our time getting our [colleagues] to accommodate themselves to it and play the game, then nothing will change and they will have to do the same with their [colleagues and on and on].

As someone once said, realism corrupts; absolute realism corrupts absolutely.”

So, we need to simultaneously travel along two tracks.

We need to accept that our progress along the (truly) transformational track of changing our management system will take time….but we MUST start and sustain this journey (i.e. not see it as an impossibility) whilst also doing what we can within our current daily realities. We can only do this if you and I continue to think, collaborate and learn….which, I suggest, may be intrinsically motivating for us and give us a clearer sense of purpose.

Meet the process

giantknave Brain Farts , , ,

IvoryTowerAll rational ‘leaders’ appreciate that, rather than sitting in metaphorical ‘ivory towers’, they need to understand what actually happens in their business.

But how do many leaders go about this? I suggest that the following two techniques are the norm:

1. Hold a regular ‘road show’ in which the leaders present to ‘their people’ and, at the end, hold a Q&A session.

What usually follows are questions from the floor that are:

    • generalist in nature and which can be answered safely, politically with ‘happy talk’…and everyone appears content; or
    • highly specific and which need to be answered ‘off line’ because how could you expect your leader to be able to answer that on his/her feet…and no one is the wiser

Whilst such leaders may be great orators and the people may like what they hear….it becomes somewhat of a show divorced from reality.

2. Perform ‘tours’ of their facilities, usually starting with a (very carefully prepared) workshop presentation by that function’s management team, and then being introduced around the floor by the duty manager…along the lines of “Leader, this is your worker…worker, this is your leader…now have a polite chat as if he/she were the Queen”.

What usually follows is a discussion with a random set of workers who are conveniently at their posts that:

    • is full of pleasantries: “so how are things”…”very good thanks”….”that’s great to hear, keep up the good work”…and everyone is happy; or
    • is used by a ‘plucky worker’ as a golden opportunity to air a particular soap-box issue (which may have little relevance in terms of size and occurrence)…and management MUST now act immediately on that issue because the leader now ‘knows about it’ and has to be seen to be ‘listening to the workers’

How much of reality do the leaders actually get exposed to? How much ‘polishing’ is likely to be performed before a management presentation? How distorted (subdued, careful or biased) is the process performer’s voice likely to be?

…how is this really helping the customer receive a forever improving service?

I suggest that ‘leaders’ (whatever level in an organisation) switch their mentality from ‘meeting the people’ to ‘meeting the process’. This means:

  • listening to, and observing actual customer demand at the point it comes in; and
  • following actual units of demand through the value stream (not just a silo within!) until its successful conclusion.

Now, it should be obvious that to do this the leader has to meet the process performers along the way…but the purpose is totally different. Instead of focusing on a person, there is a joint focus (leader and process performers) on the unit of customer demand and how it is processed through the value stream – with its warts and all. This is likely to garner a level of trust with the process performers as and when they believe the leader is really interested in the process, not in judging them.

Meeting the process is often referred to as ‘Gemba walking’, where Gemba is the Japanese word for ‘the real place’ or place of action/ where the work gets done. A Gemba walk involves walking with a unit of customer demand, from its trigger all the way through to its resolution (to the customer’s satisfaction). In performing this, the leader will see the environment that their management system requires the people to work within and probably a great deal of waste along the way.

To be clear: A Gemba walk isn’t a one off thing…it is a management practice that is regularly performed. This regularity is hugely important:

  • one walk won’t uncover the variety that exists within customer demand, or the subsequent process;
  • establishing the trust of the process performers will come over time (as and when they believe in you); and
  • we want to see the process actually changing for the better as leader, management and process performers continue to make changes to improve their capability of meeting the customer’s true purpose.

The act of actually ‘meeting the process’ will ensure that the leader really gets what’s going on and what’s possible…and can ensure that the appropriate management system is put in place that ensures continual process improvement.

Footnote:

Here’s a link to a post that I subsequently wrote on how to ‘Gemba walk’: Gemba Walking: A ‘How to’ Guide

L.A.M.E

giantknave Brain Farts ,

inv6153_2_forearm_crutchesHave you heard people state that they are “implementing Lean” or, perhaps if they are further on their journey, that they are “doing Lean”? If so, I contend that they don’t really understand ‘Lean’. It is not something that you can tick the box when you ‘get there’.

And, because of this, it is no surprise to me when I come across people with a jaundiced view of ‘Lean’ – their understanding of it is probably not what those who coined the ‘Lean’ label would have hoped. This is no fault of the beholder – they are not cynics, just people who are likely to have experienced (or been passed on war stories about) L.A.M.E.

And before you ask a ‘Lean consultant’ if they agree with the above, bear in mind that there are two types of (usually clever) consultants: a) those that are selling a methodology and a bunch of related tools and b) those that really ‘get it’…and even they are (understandably) trying to make a living.

As a reminder: the word ‘Lean’ was simply attached as a label to describe the system (i.e. the complete management philosophy, principles, and operational practices) that a team at MIT uncovered within the Japanese car industry (but particularly Toyota) through their research, which began as far back as 1977.

The ‘Lean’ label has been on a journey since it was first coined in 1987 – it has spawned an industry of its own. Of note, one of the foundational researchers, Jim Womack, has spent time reflecting on this journey and accepts that ‘the early years’ were somewhat unfortunately tools focused. He is trying to reset people’s thinking.

Reflect that Taiichi Ohno, often referred to as the father of the Toyota Production System (TPS), didn’t want to write it down because he insisted we shouldn’t codify method, fearing that it would become stale – being seen as ‘the answer’ rather than merely the current state of thinking, to be continually challenged and improved.

So, I hope you understand when I try to be very specific when I talk about ‘Lean Thinking‘…and perhaps even get a bit edgy/ pedantic when people switch to talking just about ‘Lean’. This is because the real value in what the MIT researchers uncovered (which, incidentally, was being clearly articulated by Deming, Ackoff and others) is that Toyota’s success is based on their management system: the way they think….which has enabled, and continues to enable them to consistently deliver increasing value to their customers, whilst providing secure yet engaging work for their employees…which then delivers excellent results.

You can’t pick up a ‘Toyota organisation’ kit off the shelf and implement it into your organisation. You have to understand why they are achieving and how this differs to you…and it’s all in the thinking!

Oh yes, so what’s L.A.M.E? This is (yet another) label as dreamt up by Mark Grabban, a Lean blogger in the health space. It stands for ‘Lean As Misguidedly Executed’. If you remain within a command-and-control management system, having ‘Lean’ ostensibly done to you then this is clearly L.A.M.E.

To end with a quote from a favourite blog of mine (Thinkpurpose):

“Don’t call it anything: if it has a name, people (including you) will waste time arguing about what ‘it’ is and isn’t….

Call it something: otherwise nobody can ever talk about it!”

As Womack no doubt reflects on choosing to label what they learned from their research – you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

Well done team, keep up the good work!

giantknave Brain Farts ,

His+name+is+quot+condescending+wonka+quot+_f82cc1640b48cb9aa9b6dfb08f676dd5If you are a ‘leader’, how many times have you said “well done team, keep up the good work!” How do you think this is taken by those receiving it? Do you think they need to be ‘told’ to do this (the keeping up of the good work)…will they stop if you don’t?

Conversely (putting yourself in the other person’s shoes), how many times have you had some senior person who you don’t really know use the “well done…” phrase (or similar) either in an email/intranet communication or whilst doing a ‘press the flesh’ floor walk….and how does this make you feel?

How about when something major is implemented after months, if not years of hard work – is there an ever increasing level to this “well done…” message as the senior manager, then GM, then Exec. say ostensibly the same thing?…and, underneath this, do you think ‘if only they knew the half of it!’

The people who you really appreciate comment from are those who you know really understand what you (personally) have been doing/ going through, what successes you have achieved and the obstacles you have battled through to get them.

…and the comments that are most useful are the highly specific ones.

Some thoughts on praise from a chapter within Alfie Kohn’s eye-opening book ‘Punished by Reward’:

Kohn explains that the available research (of which there is plenty) has identified a number of reasons as to why ‘praise’ may fail to boost achievement and, in fact may drag it down:

  1. Low ability: praising people’s efforts may create a feeling that you are being somewhat condescending as to their abilities…along the lines of ‘didn’t you do well !’
  2. Pressure: telling someone how good they are can increase the pressure they then feel to live up to the compliment
  3. Avoidance of risk: praise may set up unrealistic expectations of continued success, which leads people to avoid difficult tasks in order not to risk the possibility of failure (and then criticism)
  4. Reduces interest in the task itself: praise can be heard as an attempt to manipulate our behaviour (as in ‘keep up the good work’ basically saying ‘I want more of the same’). A good deal of research has shown that intrinsic motivation declines as a result of praise.

So, what does Kohn say we should do? He puts forward two general principles as the standards by which all praise should be measured:

  • Self determination: Are we helping the individual feel a sense of control over their life OR are we attempting to manipulate their behaviour by getting them to think about whether they have met our criteria?
  • Intrinsic Motivation: Are our comments creating the conditions for the person being praised to become more deeply involved in what they are doing OR are they turning the task into something they have to do to win our approval?

Taking these into more specifics, Kohn offers the following practical suggestions:

  1. Don’t praise people, only what people do (“that’s a really nice story” is better than “you’re such a good writer”)
  2. Make praise as specific as possible (“the twist at the end was completely unexpected” is better than “that’s a really nice story”)
  3. Avoid phony praise (praise is objectionable when it is clearly not a spontaneous expression but a deliberate strategy)
  4. Avoid praise that sets up a competition (don’t praise by comparing to someone else.)

Now, I’m not suggesting that senior management should stop showing their appreciation. Far from it! Instead, I am noting that people believe this to be genuine when they know that the comments: comes from someone who ‘really does understand’; are specific to the receiver and what they did; and are not rationed according to some rating and ranking mechanism.

…which ties in nicely with the need for management to meaningfully ‘Gemba walk’ often.