Greetings!   

 

   Well we've all been hearing about social media and it seems like one of those things that is probably being oversold but is apparently perceived to have some value to a lot of people. It all reminds me of the joke about the kid digging through a big pile of manure because of his unshakeable conviction that there was a pony in there somewhere.

  We've used Twitter in a few situations but may just not have the hang of it. In informal surveys of fellow professionals there seem to be two camps. One group consists of full-out supporters and the other is disinterested -- the second group sees it as something that only kids have time for. (Of course, "real IT" people used to pooh-pooh Apple products as toys back in the day so you clearly can't just dismiss something just because it doesn't seem serious either.)

  So I decided to task my employee to do some empirical research. I asked him to log onto Twitter for an hour and categorize the tweets in terms of usefulness and relevance. My thinking was that the resulting categories would range from "pointless" to "incomprehensible" to "not relevant" to "relevant but incomplete or wrong" to "useful." My hope was that the scale would be clearly tipped one way or the other and I would have the answer...or at least a good enough answer.

  Well, my employee, Ian, is also my oldest son and likes to think for himself (often a good trait...) He convinced me to attack the question a little differently. What was the conclusion? You have to read the article to find out.

  Our other key article this month is about a really useful tool for which we have not been able to find the originator. This kind of tool a form of technology as well -- it is a way to process information. My recollection is that I learned it during a workshop led by the late Dr. Geary Rummler. But I don't really know if he invented it or just shared it. It is a great tool and works whether you are managing the performance of employees or teenagers. It is called the "balance of consequences model."  If you know where it came from, please let me know. (I already do know it won't work on dogs...they don't care about long term consequences.)

   The ISPI conference was really worthwhile. San Francisco is a fun city to visit and the conference was a real high-energy event. Lot's of interactive activities and some really interesting ideas. In particular, appreciative inquiry, which initially didn't sound that impressive, can really change how you look at a situation.

   On Mother's Day, our team had a great time in Chicago walking for the Network of Strength. It was a cool day but sunny and the weather ended up perfect for walking. There were about 50,000 people there and they raised about a lot of money for breast cancer survivors. They are still open for donations so we don't know the total yet.

Enjoy!
     
 

Peter R. Hybert, CPT
 

   Some years ago Pete learned about a tool that could be used to predict what people (performers) would do in a given situation as well as engineer the performance environment to change/guide what they would do. It is called the balance of consequences model.

   The balance of consequences model is based on a simple premise -- people do what they want as influenced by the consequences as they understand them. Sometimes there are positive consequences or benefits. But the positive consequences might be opposed by negative consequences, which complicates the issue. And, some consequences might be immediate while others might only happen over the long term.

  Basically, you can look at the environment, look at the performance that people can do (they can perform as desired or not), and then evaluate the potential consequences for performing as you want or not. Based on the consequences, you might see why people perform other than desired and, instead of being annoyed, you may see ways of changing the consequences to shift the balance in favor of the performers doing what you want.
 

The Model

   The model is essentially a graphical model. Below is an example of how it works.
 

For Example

   Say you want an employee to check with the boss before making a certain decision. The response you want from that employee is to "check with the boss," therefore, if they check with the boss, the consequences that flow from it are shown in the "desired response" row. If not, they follow from the "undesired response" row.



   This model shows that, in the short term, you can probably get the employee to check with you by explaining your decision-making rationale when they do (in other words, engaging them in figuring out what the right decision should be) and by reprimanding them when they don't check. However, over the long term, this may have some unintended consequences, such as an overdependent/risk-averse employee who comes to you with every little problem.

   Psychologists will usually say that the immediately consequences usually win against the long-term consequences.

 The Bottom Line

   Once you learn the concepts behind the model, it becomes increasingly easier to work through it in your mind. So, you don't need to stop and draw a picture the next time you want to manage some performance...unless it is complicated. This thing really works, whether you are working with third graders, third grade teachers, or white collar professionals. We wish we could verify the inventor but, for now, let's say "thank you Dr. Rummler" and leave it at that. If it wasn't him, it just helps make up for his being way ahead of the curve on identifying the importance of managing business processes for which he hasn't really received anywhere near enough credit...