Bringing Out the Best in People: How to Apply the Astonishing Power of Positive Reinforcement

5 The ABCs of Performance Management

A Way of Seeing Things as Others See Them

In Chapter 4, I explained how apparently senseless behavior made sense to the performer because it was in some way positively reinforcing to that performer. However, as in the example of the department supervisor in the federal government, it’s often difficult to understand how some things that others do could make sense to anybody.

So the first step when attempting to change the way people perform is to understand why they are currently behaving the way they are. We now know that people do what they do because of the consequences they experience following their actions. Therefore, it is helpful to discover what antecedents are setting the stage for the behavior to begin, and it is necessary to know what consequences are causing the behavior to continue.

The PIC/NIC Analysis is a simple method for systematically analyzing the antecedents and consequences influencing a behavior. This analytical technique will allow you to understand behavior from the other person’s perspective, even when it appears to you to be unproductive, irrational, or self-defeating (Figure 5-1).

First, some definitions:

Antecedent: Something that comes before a behavior that sets the stage for the behavior or signals it to occur.

Behavior: What a person does.

Consequence: What happens to the performer as a result of the behavior.

Examples:

Antecedent	Behavior	Consequence
Your nose itches	You rub it	Stops itching
Gas gauge registers empty	Fill your empty tank	Continue your trip without worry about running out of gas
Telephone rings	You answer	Customer places large order

Once you view performance in terms of antecedent-behavior-consequence (ABC), you will be able to develop solutions to performance problems that you may never have attempted in the past.

Before you begin to analyze any performance problem, you should determine whether the problem is a motivational problem (won’t do) or a skill problem (can’t do). Robert Mager popularized this important problem-solving step in his book Analyzing Performance Problems. Mager suggested imagining whether the person would do what you ask if threatened with bodily harm if it is not done. If he or she doesn’t do it under these conditions, the previous lack of performance is most likely a training problem. If the performer does it then (and wasn’t doing it before), it is a motivational problem.

Of course, we can’t practice this technique, but we can realize that most of the problems we face in day-to-day management are motivational problems. Nevertheless, we should always make the “won’t do/can’t do” determination before proceeding. One hint: if the person has done the behavior correctly in the recent past but is no longer doing it or is doing it poorly, it’s probably a motivational problem.

Motivational problems in the context of this book include all situations where the performer knows the correct behavior, can perform the correct behavior, but doesn’t do it. Sometimes people may be able to do what is required but don’t know that it is time to do it. Or they may be doing the correct behavior but not at the correct rate. And, of course, sometimes they may know that it’s the right time and can perform at the correct rate but choose to do nothing. People always have the choice to vary their performance.

Keep in mind that the applicability of this analysis doesn’t stop on the shop floor. Managers and executives also perform according to the consequences they receive.

In the PIC/NIC consequences are classified on three dimensions:

Positive or negative. This dimension answers the question, “Is the performer likely to experience the consequence as positive or negative?”
Immediate or future. Here we want to know, “Does the consequence occur as the behavior is happening, immediately thereafter, or after some time has passed in the future?”
Certain or uncertain. This dimension expresses the probability that the performer will actually experience the consequence.

Let’s look at an example. Some people don’t wear seat belts. An objective analysis of this behavior shows that seat belts save lives and reduce injuries. Why, then, would a person not buckle up? Look at Figure 5-2. (In Figures 5-2 through 5-5, the designations P/N, I/F, and C/U refer to positive or negative, immediate or future, and certain or uncertain, respectively.)

What the analysis in Figure 5-2 tells us is that

There are many antecedents that set the stage for not buckling up seat belts.
Although there are many serious negative consequences associated with not buckling up seat belts, those consequences tend to be in the future, they are uncertain to occur, or both.
The positive consequences of not buckling up seat belts, such as “saves time,” “freedom to move,” and “doesn’t wrinkle clothes,” are small but immediate and certain.

Let’s look at what might happen if this same person who doesn’t wear a seat belt actually puts one on, as shown in Figure 5-3.

Desired behavior: Buckling up seat belt.

If our non-seat-belt wearer was to put on the belt, he or she would find that

The positive consequences tend to be future and uncertain.
The negative consequences are immediate and certain.

This analysis points out the difficulty in changing any behavior. The present behavior or habit (usually what you don’t want) is receiving positive, immediate, and certain consequences (PICs), and the desired behavior gets negative, immediate, and certain consequences (NICs). So what we want this performer to do (wear a seat belt when riding in a car) is associated with immediate punishment and the possibility of future benefits. What we don’t want this performer to do (ride in a car without wearing a seat belt) is associated with immediate positive reinforcement and the uncertain possibility of some future, possibly serious injury.

If you put any problem behavior through this analysis, it will essentially come out the same, whether the problem is at home, at work, or at play. What you will most certainly find is PICs for the problem behavior and NICs for the desired behavior. Let’s take a look at a common work-related behavior problem, as shown in Figure 5-4.

As you can see, the undesired behavior (processing claims fast, without concern for quality) is met with a number of naturally occurring PICs. There are even several provided by management that actually conflict with the consequences that management professes to support.

The desired behavior, processing claims accurately (shown in Figure 5-5), results in a number of NICs, and the only positive consequences are future and uncertain. In this case, it will be difficult to encourage this employee to change behavior.

When doing a PICNIC Analysis, it is important to understand that the classification of a single consequence may be unimportant. What is important is the pattern of PICs and NICs you can identify. You will quickly find out that some consequences can be accurately classified only after much study. Because we are trying to look at the problem from the other person’s perspective, we can be 100 percent accurate only if we can read minds, which I confess I can’t.

However, we can identify patterns that will enable us to rearrange consequences so that they are more favorable for the desired behavior. It has often been stated that “The ability to do a good ABC analysis is an indirect measure of empathy.”

Building Trust

By now, you should begin to see that understanding and managing consequences are the most effective ways to improve performance. In the chapters that follow, I will explain how to create, arrange, and provide effective consequences in the workplace. However, before we go on, let me write a few words about trust.

Understanding why people behave the way they do and then arranging consequences to influence that behavior are only the beginning. The major factor in determining whether you can change behavior in the long term depends on the extent to which you can consistently pair antecedents with consequences. We call this dependable pairing of antecedents with consequences trust. In other words, to be trusted, all you have to do (consequence) is do what you say you are going to do (antecedent).

An old saying goes: “After all is said and done, more is said than done.” This is not only the way some managers and supervisors behave but also a characteristic of many companies as well. If we tell employees that doing something a particular way will be easier for them and it’s not, we’ve slightly eroded their trust. If we tell someone that if she works hard she will be better off, and she is not, we lose more credibility. If we tell people that they will be promoted, get a raise, get a transfer, head up a project, or be on a team and these things do not come to pass, we destroy trust.

Organizations often think that poor communication is the biggest barrier to organizational effectiveness. In reality, some organizations communicate too much rather than too little. If the organization is communicating things that don’t happen, for whatever reasons, employee trust of upper management will be eroded and eventually become nonexistent. More communication is not better if we communicate things that don’t happen. Whatever we communicate, we have to make sure that it happens.

When people say we don’t communicate, they aren’t saying that we don’t talk. They are saying that after we talk, nothing changes. I’ve chosen to make this point now because you are about to learn how to use performance management skills to manage your business and to bring out the best in people. If you view these principles and techniques as tools to manipulate behavior in your favor without requiring you to use them in absolute good faith, you will fail.

Once trust is established, people will give you the benefit of the doubt if you make a mistake. If you are not trusted, they will not believe you even when you tell the truth.