Just Because It’s Called a Duck Doesn’t Mean it is a Duck!

A Brief Note from Dr. Boyce:

To make-up for not being able to post an article in May, this month's post is an extended article with several lessons. Although I will continue to make every effort to make monthly posts, I thank you for understanding how my travel schedule sometimes prevents an article from being posted. Happy Reading!

This Month's Article:

The Background
I recently taught a University Based Course for Industry professionals. I’m pleased to say that my initial inspection of the student evaluations of the course indicated that they thoroughly enjoyed the course content and my style of instruction. For most of the students, it was new information, for a couple of others “a good refresher.” Ironically, it is those for whom the course was described as a “refresher” for whom I think the course will be of the greatest benefit. Let me explain.

The principles of behavioral science are often taught by non-behavioral scientists. These are people who throw around terms and teach them imprecisely. For students of these non-behavioral scientists, Behavior-Based Safety will not likely produce the results that it could, and those with less than successful experiences will abandon the techniques as unsuccessful. Unfortunately, it is these students who will hold onto techniques for which there is no scientific basis simply because they “sound good.”

Consider the behavior of the Supervisor of one of the students who described the course as a “refresher.” Specifically, the Supervisor was anxious to get students’ feedback on their experiences in the course. He obtained feedback from precisely one student. And, consistent with what my mentor, Scott Geller, calls a “premature cognitive commitment,” I suspect that the Supervisor asked the student leading questions that just confirmed a prior expectation.

That is, before the course started, he had expressed to me “We here at XYZ company (not their real name) have been using Behavior-Based Safety for several years. I want to be sure that we’re not talking down to our employees and that they get some good information.” I assured him that we would provide value-added information for all participants in the class and that I would not “talk down” to anyone. I believe, for the students with experience in the techniques I teach, that the value-added information would include the correct use of and more technical understanding of the techniques they had be using for “several years.” And, by extension, the ability to use the techniques more effectively and to address a broader range of issues would likely result upon returning to the site.

The Lesson
There were several problems with how this Supervisor handled the gathering and giving of the feedback in this situation. First, he sampled exactly one student (there were 10 enrolled in the class along with an outside reviewer). Secondly, he sought information that confirmed his pre-existing beliefs. In psychology, we call this a “confirmation bias.” Thirdly, he did not send the feedback directly to me (nor did he copy me on the e-mail he sent to a larger group of people without my knowledge--I was forwarded the e-mail by a thoughtful colleague). Thus, he “criticized” publicly and didn’t even involve the target of the criticism! Fourth he used the most inappropriate feedback technique known to the behavioral sciences…the “feedback sandwich.” Specifically, he started with a general compliment (the student rated the instruction a 9 on a scale of 10 being excellent—this is consistent with data from the objective course evaluations). Next, he criticized the course content as simplistic, and course instruction as “over the top.” (I do have an energetic and entertaining presentation style. However, in more than a decade of instruction, I’ve never been accused of being over the top. Moreover, I’ve received awards for my instruction.) Finally, he ended the e-mail by complimenting the “great start to the program.” For the record, the problem with the “feedback sandwich” is that it sets up the initial compliment as an antecedent to punishment which is then weakened by the final compliment! Under these circumstances people work to avoid compliments because the expectation is that there will always be a “but.” And, having employees who work to avoid compliments is one of the most hazardous things that a supervisor of people can do.

To get to the point, anyone with a good understanding of Performance Management, (the course I was teaching) would not ever use this technique for the reasons just stated. Additionally, with the emphasis that Performance Management (and behavior-based safety) places on measurement, he would have never jumped to conclusions without first seeing the data obtained from ALL students’ in the course. Moreover, he would have sent the feedback directly to me and also not have sent it to a public forum.

With this being said, I’m pleased that this Supervisor’s employees attended my class and learned the right way to use Performance Management. Given that the Supervisor’s behavior is an indication of the skill at which his organization is using these techniques, it’s no wonder they keep looking for something “more sophisticated.” Put simply, they’re not achieving the success that they could with the techniques they claim to be using, because they’re likely NOT using the techniques correctly. And, in my opinion, “more sophisticated techniques” will just dig them deeper into the same hole. Put simply, without a fundamental understanding of the principles I taught in this course, his organization won’t use “more sophisticated” techniques correctly either!

The morale of this story is: just because it’s called a “duck” doesn’t mean that it is a “duck.” It must, of course, “walk like a duck, talk like a duck,” etc. This Sponsor’s behavior indicated to me that he has implemented the techniques of behavior-based safety only in name and not in true practice. In fact, his handling of this feedback only confirmed what I suspected in class, that the students he sent were the ones in most need of the course I taught. The unfortunate thing is that it is sometimes more difficult to “undo” something taught incorrectly than to teach it correctly the first time. I’m grateful to this Supervisor for making my point for me. And, I wish him and his organization the best of luck in getting on “the right track.” Please be careful to do it right the first time. Otherwise, in the long-run you will spend more time undoing the damage you create.