Leading with Positive Reinforcement: 5 Self-Development Steps

Positive reinforcement works; it fulfills every employee’s basic need to feel valued—cared about by the organization, their supervisor and leadership. Positive reinforcement is precision recognition—it acknowledges the employees contribution in real time; it captures the moment when a valued added behavior—discretionary effort can be encouraged or discouraged.

Traditional rewards and recognition strategies do not facilitate employee behavior directly. They are most often presented for performance results and outcomes. Before the benefits of precise recognition—positively reinforcing specific behavior in real-time—were well known, management assumed that kudos received for results influenced the critical behaviors that led to those results.

There are several problems with this assumption. When an organization chooses to reward a job or department performance result, they cannot be certain that all the behavior that led to that result is in the best interest of the company. Subtle pressure associated with awards and recognition practices often encourages employees to do things—to engage in behavior that is detrimental to themselves, the team, the product and the customer.

Shortcuts, intra-team competition—even unethical behavior has been associated with employee competitive desire to “win”—to get the plaque, the jacket, or the picture in the company newsletter. Although the intentions of organizational rewards and recognition systems is appreciation and employee satisfaction, many employees are competitors and they want to be on top. Things can get ugly.

The top 10% of employees usually stay in the top 10%--given a fair opportunity. So they always “win.” Rewards and recognition systems seek to compensate for this by giving awards that are not related to performance, non-contingent awards—like, “the best attitude,” or “most positive team member, or “employee of the month.” These types of awards can trivialize a rewards and recognition process and derail their key objective of —to improve human performance.

In addition, assuming that employees are doing things in the best way to achieve the best possible performance outcome is often a mistake. High performers may engage in behavior that improves quality, productivity, or customer service but they do not share these “best practice behaviors,” with the team; to do so would disadvantage their opportunity for rewards and recognition.

Subsequently, institutionalizing the effective use of positive reinforcement in an organization is ultimately a risk management objective; a company’s performance and profitability is at risk when behavior is not effectively managed. Employee injury is an obvious liability to organizational effectiveness. The costs are well documented. Leaders and managers understand the critical importance of managing job safety behavior. Proper lifting, equipment placement, correct ergonomics—the behaviors necessary to prevent injury are precise and explicit.

Similarly, the effective application of positive reinforcement to specific, key job behaviors will increase productivity, quality, service and waste reduction. That is why overcoming supervisory and management resistance to the daily use of positive reinforcement is so essential to achieving the highest levels of human performance and engagement. The key to developing supervisory and management potential—to developing their skills, their ability to effect employee performance levels—is the precise, real time application of positive reinforcement to value-added job behavior.

Developing Positive Reinforcement Skill: Step 1

Think slow transition. Whatever you management style at the moment, any abrupt change in you behavior is over-interpreted by those you manage. Sinister agendas are proposed…word spreads rapidly; what’s up? The first change you need to make in you verbal behavior is to start eliminating words, phrases, comments and questions that convey negative expectations; blame, fault finding, parenting, dictating—you may have some destructive verbal habits that create a barrier between you and those you are supervising.

Self-observation is difficult. Our verbal habits are so ingrained that we sometimes even deny that we said something when a witness points it out to us. One bad habit that seems universal to anyone who parents, coaches or manages is the use of rhetorical questions to find out why someone has made a mistake—they either failed to do something we wanted them to do, or did it wrong. “What were you thinking?” or “why didn’t you think to ask? or “how do you expect us to get good service ratings if you behave like that?”

These kinds of questions only serve to emotionalize the situation—frustrating you and angering the employee. The accusatory tone creates a wedge between employee and supervisor. Other statements that purport to correct employee behavior but are equally destructive are things like—“You’re going to have to,” or “from now on, you need to,” or “start paying more attention.” Everyone is sensitive to the tone and intentions of language pointed toward them. If you have bad interaction habits, you need to identify them and eliminate them.

Many executive have personal coaches to help them develop positive interaction habits. In some organizations, supervisors work in pairs to help each other identify counterproductive verbal habits. They provide positive feedback to each other when positive verbal comments are made. Surveys that gather information from employees and peers can surface verbal habits that need to be changed.

Whether you identify destructive verbal habits through self-observation or some other means, you need to set the stage for the next part of Step 1—which will be to gradually increase the frequency of interactions with your employees. If you think your method of interacting is positive and relationship building, then move forward to the next phase described in the next entry.

Positive Reinforcement: The Solution to the Recognition Paradox

For the last three decades, employee surveys have repeatedly pointed to recognition as being one of the critical ingredients in employee satisfaction, morale, motivation, and retention.

Rewards and recognition practices-- have reached an iconic status as the preferred means of motivating human performance. In light of the time and resources dedicated to these methods, it seems appropriate to examine the effects of these practices processes with the same lens we apply to other organizational systems. If they have a positive effect on employee engagement and discretionary effort, then the ROI will be validated and the investment of organizational resources they receive will be substantiated.

To try and fulfill their employees' need for recognition, American companies spend in excess of $100 billion every year on merchandise, awards, and cash rewards. In addition, millions of dollars are spent on management development in an attempt to teach managers and supervisors how to use verbal positive reinforcement to "recognize" employee improvement and value added behavior. It is believed that positive words about job performance will make their employees feel wanted and respected.

But mysteriously, after these efforts, surveys continue to reflect employee dissatisfaction with the "recognition" they are receiving. Having trained several thousand supervisors in methods of positive reinforcement, I can say with some confidence that the traditional methods of training supervisors to positively reinforce their employees are flawed. They are over-simplified, without any regard for the relationship history that strengthens or dilutes the value of a supervisor’s attempts to reinforce an employee.

The Recognition Paradox

A recent study by Maritz, Inc reveals the chaos that prevails in the world of recognition:

In addition, even though 70 percent of employees receive verbal praise – the most prevalent form of employee recognition – only 49 percent of them want it; and 21percent of those who actually want verbal praise still aren’t getting it from their companies.

According to the 2005 Employee Recognition Survey conducted by WorldatWork and the National Association for Employee Recognition, nine out of 10 of the 614 organizations surveyed had an active employee recognition program; yet when the Gallup Organization surveyed some four million workers on the topics of recognition and praise, they found that two thirds of those surveyed felt they had received no recognition on the job in the last year.

Employers clearly seem convinced that the delivery of these tangible rewards achieves the key objective of fulfilling their employees’ need for recognition, yet another contradictory survey finding reports that up to seven out of 10 of employees are marginally or actively disengaged from their work.

So, are employee recognition programs ineffective, or is there disagreement between what employers define as recognition and how employees define it? Surveys do not actually define what is meant by the word recognition prior to asking survey questions about that topic. They use the word in the survey without clarifying its meaning. Apparently, those who create these surveys assume that it means the same thing to everyone.

According to one employee recognition survey, eight out of 10 (81 per cent) organizations with recognition programs "recognized" employees with certificates or plaques. Almost six out of 10 (57 per cent) gave away company merchandise and gift certificates, more than four out of 10 (44 per cent) handed out jewelry and more than a third (38 per cent) office accessories.

The word recognition carries a constellation of potential meanings, depending on the context of its use. If I was an employer and several thousand of my employees said in a survey that they were dissatisfied due to a lack of recognition, I would like to know exactly what that response meant before I threw money and solution strategies at the problem.

When survey data reports employee dissatisfaction because of insufficient recognition, American business leaders commit enormous amounts of time, energy, and money to recognition strategies. The ambiguity that surrounds the meaning of the word raises some questions about exactly what the surveyed employees are dissatisfied with. Management should pinpoint precisely what this word actually means - what is it that employee are asking for?

Recognition is More Complex Than We Thought

The practice of using praise (over-simplified, impersonal statements of approval) appears to be an easy solution to employee requests for recognition. Unfortunately, praising employees for work behavior or results quite often leads to employee embarrassment, distrust, and poor management/employee relations.

A poll by Maritz Research, found the following:

At the same time, only 43 percent of employees “agree” or “strongly agree” that they are consistently recognized for their performance in ways that are meaningful to them.

The same poll found that there was 6 distinct “predispositions” toward various forms of recognition. Categorizing people into stereotypical “types,” is questionable psychology, and certainly will not stand the test of scientific rigor, but it throws more fuel on the flames of instability surrounding recognition strategies.

Employees report sensing management intentions behind positive comments as attempts to control them, even if the supervisors say that they are only attempting to appropriately acknowledge the employee's effort. Employees also report feeling uncomfortable and devalued by the experience. Supervisors and managers report the same discomfort, but feel pressured by leadership to positively reinforce their employees for good work. The problem is that proper training and coaching has not prepared them to do this in a credible way.

In my view, a "recognition gap" exists because the survey data present contradictory findings that indicate a discrepancy between the amount of recognition organizations report delivering, and the level of recognition employees report receiving. Apparently, when employees ask for recognition, they are expressing the need for something they are not getting. It may be that from the employee’s perspective, recognition refers to positive information about their work activity — information about their performance that is not limited to management-driven reward and recognition events.

It is my suspicion, that employee’s perceive themselves to be appropriately recognized only when they experience performance feedback within the context of a meaningful, give-and-take dialog about their work. I believe employees are more comfortable with information about their performance that evolves during performance discussions unmediated by management intentions to recognize the employee’s efforts—by some thinly disguised agenda to “motivate” them to work harder.

The positive reinforcement of an employee should not be an isolated transaction or a scripted obligation; there is no credibility in this type of maneuver. The mechanistic positive reinforcement that accompanied the “command and control” management model is antiquated. Today’s workforce wants a relationship with their supervisor—a respectful, cooperative interactivity in the service of the organizations objective. The days of the paternalistic “good job,” are over.

Positive Reinforcement, Organizational Values, and Leadership

The term positive reinforcement has acquired some complex connotations over the past 30 years. In one sense the advocation and practice of positive reinforcement has ethical implications—it seems to embody humanism. The diligent delivery of duly earned recognition when an employee does something that adds value to an organization’s objectives feels like the right thing to do. The act seems to be an affirmation of the employee’s worth and value.

Organizational leaders are flooded with articles and advisors who proclaim the importance of creating a “Total Rewards,” company culture, and of having a “reward and recognition” strategy in place. Positive reinforcement, rewards, and recognition are given the status of “values,” and subsequently promote a patina of ethics—of goodness and good will to the business entity that supports these practices.

In truth, these “humanistic” practices are market driven business strategies compelled by both the human rights movement and competition for available talent. Employee dignity and respect are frequently embedded in discussions about reward and recognition strategies, but this rhetoric is part of a larger agenda—persuading society that the company is a corporate citizen.

Lest we forget, it was only a few years ago when the accepted management style (and parenting style as well) was to use negative reinforcement—that is, to use subtle threats of punishment to elicit the desired behavior. There was no positive reinforcement—no rewards; we behaved and performed to avoid negative consequences—to avoid punishment. It sounds harsh, but it was a social norm; everyone knew that if you did not perform at work or did not do what you parents told you to do—uh oh!

Irrespective of our personal opinions about the ethics of either positive or negative reinforcement, they both work. Society and human affairs have progressed to their current states primarily through the practice of negative reinforcement— by parents, teachers, coaches, and supervisors. It works, and it works well. A more important fact is that positive reinforcement works better to elicit discretionary effort; it facilitates the highest levels of employee performance.

In a world where technology and knowledge are key corporate assets, employees who are constantly thinking of how to do things better, cheaper, faster— employees, who innovate, create, and invent—provide a competitive edge. Positive reinforcement is a business asset. Like TQM, Six Sigma, and Lean Enterprise it is a tool that can provide tremendous returns when it is applied appropriately. Negative reinforcement is also a business tool; we will always be driven in part by what we are afraid will happen if we don’t perform. The strategic use of positive reinforcement has ethical importance as well; it nullifies the emotional stress of working in a negative environment.

I believe it is a mistake to try and sell leadership on the use of positive reinforcement as a value. Humanism is the corporate value of our era, and a competitive necessity. Positive reinforcement in the hands of a well-trained supervisor is a potent performance tool. He or she can elicit higher levels of performance from high-performers and help average performers improve. They can build positive relationships and thereby influence the retention of valuable talent. In my experience, a supervisor who knows how to use positive reinforcement well will improve their department’s performance by 30% or more.

Corporate leadership understands the concept of positive reinforcement. Unfortunately, because well-intentioned zealots emotionalize its practice it is perceived to be a “soft” skill—a human resource tactic, a Mary Poppins kind of approach. It is trivialized by too many examples presenting supervisors saying “good job,” and “thank you,” to employees for doing pedestrian things. The condescension with which many executives view positive reinforcement is due in part to the over-exuberant presentation of its value as a moral and ethical obligation instead of a business tool. Fun and balloons and joy and laughter and… One can see how analytical, practical, numbers-oriented, pragmatic, driven business leaders might mistake positive reinforcement for an elective process instead of a necessary competitive tool.

I think a different approach is called for. We need a renaissance of an old management strategy—talking to your employees. Showing corporate leaders differential data that demonstrates positive reinforcement’s efficacy often fails to engage their active support. Why? Because leaders are emotionally repelled by the over-glamorization of its practice. And, because its application contradicts the years of self-driven excellence they achieved without it.

But, many leaders will accept the proposition that you cannot effectively coach a team from an office; you cannot effectively supervise employees that way either. Most supervisors believe that their key function is to provide employees with directions and error correction. The model they have for positive reinforcement is one where they deliver some rehearsed statement about how well the employee did something—something that required the supervisor to think and puzzle-on before he or she could come up with it. “Let me see now…what should I reinforce George for…hmmmm?”

If supervisors use the 5 step shaping procedure I presented in a recent blog, they will be able to reframe their roles and relationships with their employees without feeling embarrassed or losing face. When presenting positive reinforcement to leadership—when attempting to sell them on it utility and ROI value, its best to position it as an integral part of the dialog that supervisors and managers need to have with their employees. It is part of an effective supervisory strategy. You have a discussion with an employee--in the process of discussing the technical aspects of the job you discuss their performance. You reference what was done properly, what did not work, and the routine content related to technical matters. A performance dialog.

True supervision is a dialogue, pure and simple. Employees will perform in accord with the nature of that dialog. Collaborative discussions about work—discussions conducted in a manner that promotes the value of each participant irrespective of their role or job title—are fulfilling and productive. Problems and opportunities are identified and addressed; mutual respect is expressed through thoughtful framing of statements and responses.

Leaders will see the advisability of providing all employees with a balanced discussion of their work. The feedback employees receive in a performance dialog is essential to employee improvement. It also fulfills their need to know that others know about their effort level. The rewards and recognition practices of your corporation will augment this solid supervisory practice.

Determining the Right Behavior to Positively Reinforce

The world of work has been much safer in the past 10 years thanks in part to a process called “Behavior-Based Safety.” We know that unsafe behavior is the root-cause of most accidents and injuries; behavior-based safety (BBS) specifically pinpoints the unsafe behaviors that lead to injuries and the safe behaviors that prevent injuries.

For instance, we know that lifting injuries are one of the most common injuries in the workplace. We are all guilty of unsafe lifting behavior at one time or another, and improper lifting technique will eventually lead to an injury. Unsafe lifting, like most unsafe behavior is caused by the natural reinforcement embedded in the behavior. Proper body positioning, putting on protective equipment, placing tools in the proper position—safe behavior usually takes more time, is more inconvenient, and more uncomfortable for the employee; it requires focus and attention.

Paradoxically, unsafe behavior provides the opposite consequences for the performer—it takes less time, less effort,less discomfort—and generally requires less focus and attention. In BBS, frontline employees perform intermittent behavioral observations of their peers in order to give them feedback on their work methods. The purpose of these observations is to positively reinforce employees for doing things the safe way. All employees become observers and are themselves observed.

BBS has achieved astounding decreases in accidents and injuries around the world. The major reason is that it provides positive consequences—positive reinforcement—for the right behavior, for safe behavior. If positive reinforcement were not provided by management and peers for safe behavior, natural consequences—the comfort and convenience of time and effort saving short cuts would continue to favor unsafe work methods.

A contributing factor to BBS’s success is that work behavior can be observed and therefore counted and measured; hence “safety” (safe behavior) can be measured. Pre-BBS safety management systems used “downstream” measures of accidents and injuries (results data), whereas BBS incorporates “upstream” process measures—safe behaviors.

This systematic approach to behavior—ensuring that the right behavior gets positively reinforced—can and should be extended to quality, waste management, productivity, and customer service related work performance. Specific job functions, work groups and departments can identify critical behaviors that encourage performance improvement and excellence.

TQM, Six Sigma, and Lean initiatives have institutionalized processes for identifying waste, redundancy and parallel processes. Problem solving methods like SIPOC diagrams, cause and effect (fishbone) diagrams, and flowcharts do not drill-down to the behavioral level. As in safety, the lowest common dominator of causation resides in the specific behaviors of the performer.

Behaviors are the best process measures, because they can be observed (or self-recorded as they happen by the performer) and counted in real-time. Understanding how to identify critical, value-added behaviors provides a form of “just-in-time” process management—it provides for a high level of controllability and influence prior to measures of results.

Ergonomics requires precise descriptions (operational definitions) of behaviors to engineer job design and prevent overuse injuries. If you apply that same level of descriptive precision to value added behaviors through out your organization—through problem solving and performance improvement group processes—you will experience substantial increases in performance. The systematic measurement of behavior is an untapped reservoir of performance improvement and profitability in organizations.

If you are skeptical, gather 5 or 10 of your employees from a specific department, maybe a group already working on an improvement team and ask them to make a list of 3 things that the employees in their department could do on a daily basis that would improve customer service or product quality or reduce waste. You will be asking them to identify value added behaviors, things that some or all of them can start doing today to impact the bottom line. They must be behaviors, not results or abstract concepts like—“show more initiative.” They have to be physical things that they can either say or do—that can be observed and counted or self-recorded on a checklist by the performer. Things like:

• Check body posture against ergonomic recommendations prior to starting each new document.
• Ask a coworker (safety buddy) to intermittently observe you lifting during the day and tell you when you are lifting correctly or incorrectly
• At the close of each transaction, tell the customer, “Thank you for your business Mr. Jones.”
• Recheck the contents of each package against the receipt before you hand the final the customer their purchased items.
• Replace all tools in their designated positions when the job is finished.
• Include comments about safety in every discussion with your employees

The behaviors that you identify and choose to systematically track are the behaviors that you should be positively reinforcing. If left to awareness and discretion—to chance, the best opportunities to use positive reinforcement are usually overlooked. As we review individual performers, we know they should be positively reinforced for voluntarism, creativity, innovation, and other forms of discretionary effort. In order to successfully encourage employees to apply their efforts to tactical and strategic organizational objectives, we need to create a behavior management system within the organization that focuses their behavior toward those objectives.

Each department, work group or job position can keep a list of critical behaviors—in a checklist format. When a specific behavior is performed, the employee can put a mark by that behavior which can then be tabulated to create a database for those behaviors. Individual behavioral checklists become self-management tools for employees and can be used for individual performance coaching. They can be used as interim, mid or long range performance augmentation tools. I have helped clients create these lists in every type of business and with every type of job function. Without a system for identifying and measuring critical value added behaviors, feedback and positive reinforcement are rarely delivered.

Most leaders believe that teaching their managers and supervisors about the importance of performance feedback and positive reinforcement are sufficient to prompt them to apply them. Books and workshops are poor investments without a system in place to drive the management behavior that will drive the employee behavior that will pay off in improved performance and profitability. Questions like, “What do we need to be positively reinforcing this week? What are the priority behaviors based on our current issues?”—should be a routine part of every management discussion.

Positively Reinforcing the Highly Motivated Employee

Most American companies are competing to attract and retain talent. Specific management, reward and compensation strategies are directed toward “high performers.” There has been some confusion expressed in management literature about the best way to manage highly motivated people. It is generally accepted that micromanagement constrains their performance potential and thwarts their discretionary initiative.

Surveys and interviews with high performers reveal that most of these employees are internally driven to achieve, and that the developmental conditions and experiences that create their profile can not be duplicated in the work environment. It is clear that contingent compensation, pay-for-performance, and other performance based rewards fit their performance capabilities and incent them to reach their performance potential.

Supervising high achievers—attempting to positively reinforce them in particular—can be challenging. Self-motivated people usually do not need much supervision; they seldom need coaching, mentoring, technical help, etc. They need resources and flexibility; the rules, policies, procedures, systems and processes in place may constrain their potential. Organizational structures and systems that provide the average performer with guidance and support, may serve to frustrate high performers.

Books and articles seldom distinguish the difference between positive reinforcement and rewards. Rewards are tangible and symbolic articles that are used to celebrate results--outcomes—goals reached, quantifiable accomplishments. We reward performance with a luncheon to celebrate tenure, a plaque to honor a sales goal, a company meeting to commemorate an improvement team’s achievement.

Positive reinforcement is usually something verbal that happens either in real-time or very shortly after a behavior. Behavioral science has a precise definition of positive reinforcement, but in the world of work, the term is usually not distinguished from the word “reward.” We use positive reinforcement to describe a manager or supervisor’s effort to verbally communicate something positive to an employee about what they have done—some behavior.

What one employee considers positive, another may consider negative. For instance, highly motivated people—people who are proud that their performance is self-driven—might respond negatively to a positive statement by their supervisor. Making a comment about the quality of someone’s work implies primacy in a hierarchy; it implies that the one making the evaluation is in control. In effect, a high-performing, self-driven employee might perceive the following statement negatively—“John, I really like the work you did on that report; top-notch. Keep up the good work.”

The statement sounds innocuous, but it communicates that one person has the authority to evaluate another--one is the boss. Many high performers do not need a “boss.” They need someone to provide them with the resources to excel. They need someone to run interference for them—someone to help them with the constraints of corporate bureaucracies and outdated processes—barriers to high performance, innovation, creativity, short cuts and efficiencies.

High performers are sensitive to anyone trying to take the credit for their achievement. Their performance is their identity—it is who they are. They do not want anyone to think that they were “managed,” that their accomplishments were “motivated,” by someone else. They know that their own internal motivation is the driving force behind their performance. Any comment that identifies their special contribution needs to be delivered without using the word “good.”

A comment like,”John, would you explain the way you did that to the task team?” or “John, Allison is having a problem with that; would you show her how you do it,” or “John, you’ve developed a unique procedure; would you tell me how you do it so I can share it with the team?” If you are in the first few steps of developing your reinforcement skills, you can us succinct understatement to effectively do the job. Words like—“That’s unique; never seen it done that way; looks like a shortcut; that could save us some time; very tidy; takes a good bit of waste out of the process; that will work,” leave the credit for the extra effort in the hands of the performer and do not preempt his or her prerogative.

Positive reinforcement uses language—words, phrases, meanings, connotation, and emotion—as its primary tool. The subtle discriminations in the preceding examples apply to other types of performers and other work contexts. The language you use to reinforce a white collar employee may be broadly different than the words you would use to reinforce a blue collar worker.

A union environment requires a different approach than a non-union, a steel mill requires that you use different wording than a corporate office. It is obvious that you would use different words to reinforce a librarian than you would to reinforce a car salesman, but relevant differences exist within workgroups, departments, business sites and corporations. The 5 step, self-development process I presented in my last blog is easy to use with widely variable employee reinforcement requirements.

In my next blog, I will talk about Generation Y. Employees between 18 and 30 have a unique set of presenting characteristics that reflect the era in which they were raised. They resemble the highly-motivated performers from previous eras. Many employers complain that the new era of entry level employees are lazy, self-indulgent, self-centered and irresponsible. My observation is that every era has employees that fit that category. Smarter companies have developed techniques for recruiting the best and that leaves the selection pool with—well, what’s left.

The key point of this blog is to advise leaders, managers, and supervisors to put positive reinforcement tactics on their meeting agenda. You need to capture positive reinforcement practices and build a knowledge and practice foundation for your company, culture, and employees. Skill-building around how to use positive reinforcement selectively with different employees will pay off in performance and retention.

Although most companies are building “reward and recognition” cultures with the purpose of hiring and retaining the best talent, surveys and exit interviews still point to supervision as the key factor in maintaining job satisfaction. Employees will not leave a company if they have a supervisor they like—all things being equal. They may leave for more challenge, more freedom, a promotion or more money—they may. But, many of us have had to work for a supervisor that made our lives miserable, so if we find one we like—one who knows our value and shows it—we are inclined to stay where we are.

People want to be appreciated, but not with heavy handed, scripted positive reinforcement. Customize the positive reinforcement to the employee—that’s the best way to communicate the organizations respect for the individual’s value.

Supervisory Self-Development: Making Positive Reinforcement a Natural Habit

Most supervisors want to be well-liked by their employees. Many of us don't have a likable personality; we are not well suited to be supervisors. We either don't have the social skills or we are too impatient or we are too perfectionistic. But, we have the job and we're doing our best.

We're told supervisors who get the highest levels of performance from their employees use positive reinforcement (R+). The problems is, positive reinforcement does not work--your efforts to R+ someone are not effective--if you have a poor relationship with the person you are trying to R+. Your relationship with an employee does not improve just because you try to positively reinforce them.

There is a way to build your relationship with employees and deliver positive reinforcement at the same time; you can follow a self-development strategy that I outline below and achieve both objectives simultaneously. For instance, suppose you see an employee doing something good, you see Allison walk over and remind Dave to stand in a different position while he is working. Currently, he is standing in the line of fire. If the valve he is closing were to experience a surge in hydraulic pressure, it might blow the seal and send the handle shooting at him like a bullet. So he needs to stand along side the valve, not in front of it.

This is great! The behavior-based safety system your company has been implementing over the last two months is working. An employee is looking out for a co-worker. That’s what it’s all about. So you do what your consultant has taught you to do, you walk over immediately and say to Allison—“I saw you help Dave by asking him to move out of the line of fire. I appreciate you taking the time and effort to help him. That will prevent a possible injury and our safety data will look good this month. Good job.”

You’re feeling pretty good about this--thinking your consultant would be proud if she had seen you deliver this positive reinforcer. That was a great example of verbal positive reinforcement—you have to admit it.

But, something is wrong; Allison doesn’t look all happy and flattered and satisfied. She has been positively reinforced; she’s supposed to look happy and appreciative. That’s what the book says; that’s what the consultant says. Why doesn’t she look like she liked it? She actually has a sarcastic expression on her face. You think, "I knew this positive reinforcement stuff was not going to work for me. Well, I not doing it anymore; it's not me--it's not my style."

The preceding scenario is played out every day where supervisors are trying to change their approach--where they are trying to have a more positive impact on the performance of their employees. The response Warren received is one of the reasons that it is so hard for supervisors to develop the R+ habit. When they first attempt to use positive reinforcement with an employee, they have a negative experience—it is punitive for them.

Books about how to use positive reinforcement can make it sound easy; you see an employee doing something outstanding—a behavior that adds-value, that keeps a coworker safe, that avoids a problem, that ensures quality--then you say something positive about what they did. The employee will be encouraged to behave in that way more often. R+ing people for extra effort means you will see more extra effort.

There are a few factors that explain why this simply model of positive reinforcement (R+) does not always work:

1. Your history with that employee has been negative. You have not said positive things in the past; you have been over-critical of the employee. You have no relationship with the employee; you have only talked to them when there was a problem.
2. You do not know how to say positive things about the work of others; you have never done it and think they should be doing their best without any reinforcement. When you attempt to make positively reinforcing statements, it always feels uncomfortable, like you are reading from a script. Both you and the employee are uncomfortable.
3. This employee, like many who work for you, does not appear to like attention. Words of praise seem to embarrass him or her. You think they are afraid that other employees will think they are trying to be the supervisor’s-pet. They may be afraid of being rejected by their peers if you say positive things to them.
4. Everybody thinks you are being fakey. You used to be quiet and only talk to employees when they needed instructions or they made a mistake. Since the behavior-based safety initiative started, you have started saying positive things to people about their safe behavior and they think you are only doing it because the program requires that you do it. They don’t trust your motives.

If we could overhear Allison talking with her friend and coworker, Barb, in the break area after your attempt to R+ her we might hear some thing that would help us understand why she looked unresponsive to Warren.

“Barb, did you see Warren come over and talk to me about an hour ago?”

Barb is preoccupied with “General Hospital,” but she tries to look enthusiastic for Allison’s sake.

“Oh yeah, I saw him headed in your direction and wondered how bad you’d screwed up.”

“Well, that’s what I thought when I saw him coming; I kept thinking—what’d I do this time?”

“Well, what’d you do?” Barb was getting interested now; she started really listening and ignored the soap opera on the TV—it was one of her favorites, but this had all the signs of juicy-gossip that could be repeated to her other friends.

“Turns out I didn’t do anything wrong. He wanted to compliment me because I told Dave to get his ass out from in front of that valve he was working on.”

Barb knew Dave had been here so long he was getting sloppy about the safety rules. He had never been hurt so he thought he was superman or something.

Barb said, “Well, I’m glad you’re looking out for him, he needs a safety momma.”

“Shut up. I saw you telling that new guy how to fill out the observation sheet yesterday.”

“Yeah, but he’s cute and he ain’t old as a dinosaur—and he don’t have unsafe habits yet.”

“Well anyway, Warren is going through this little speech that the new consultant gave him you see, and I’m thinking he must be squirming on the inside ‘cause he never had much to say before this. So I know he’s in new territory—doing all this talking.”

Barb knew what Allison meant. “Yeah, he never had anything to say to me before unless it was to tell me something I messed up or I was going to have to work overtime or something like that.”

“Well, I didn’t make it easy on him. I had an expression on my face like I smelled something bad and he noticed. I don’t care what kind of lessons he is getting from that new consultant—she should have been here a few years back when he got promoted; he needed some lessons back then.”

Barb said, “Yeah, I don’t trust him—getting nice and attentive all of a sudden. He’s ignored all the good things we’ve done over the years and now, all of a sudden he’s seen the light?”

Allison thought he might be going for the Employee of the Month Award, except they stopped that last year because all the employees had gotten it at least once and it was getting old.

If Warren had heard this conversation, he would have understood exactly what they were talking about. He knew that was not a great supervisor; he had some negative habits. The only time he talked to his employees was when there were instructions to hand out or a problem to discuss. Warren also knew that they would be suspicious of him saying anything positive about their work, but he was trying to get over his anxiety. He wanted to get on better terms with his employees. He wanted to try to use positive reinforcement, but they weren’t making it easy—looking at him all funny every time he tried to R+ them.

Supervisor and managers are told that they need to R+ their employees, but they are not told how to change their own behavior—how to use positive reinforcement in a manner that does not create credibility issues, raise questions about their agenda or make them feel ridiculous. Nobody teaches them how to get over the R+ blues--how to overcome the anxiety of saying new things to your employees.

Most of us do not have a history of positively reinforcing those around us; we do not consciously apply R+ to our peers, boss, employees, children, customers, or people on the street. We want people to do certain thing more often; we want others to do things we like, that benefit us, more frequently. We even know how to make that happen. Positively reinforce the behavior and the behavior will happen more often in the future.

Looking for errors, making critical comments, being "bossy" and telling people what to do, not listening--these are all negative verbal habits that take years to develop. Your subordinates tolerate this, because they have to; they don't like this kind of behavior and if they can transfer or find another job they will often choose to leave. Positive reinforcement--seeing the value-added, noticing improvement, commenting on employees' strengths--this style of supervision can become a habit that replaces other less desirable habits. But scripted positive reinforcement statements will not do the trick. It's not natural.

Nobody ever told us that even though we use verbal reinforcement—even though we say positive things and try to say them in the right way—they may not be well received. The new verbal behavior we are practicing conflicts with our behavioral history—we have old habits; we’re trying to develop some new habits.

So, how does a supervisor who has been extremely quiet or loudly negative change their style and behave like a positive supervisor--naturally. Well, if you have read my past blogs, you know that it goes something like this. When you learn about the value of positive reinforcement, and you know that it is the right way to get the highest levels of performance from you employees and you start trying to use it, follow the sequence presented below and you will develop R+ as a natural habit.

Developing Positive Reinforcement as a Natural Habit

1. You don't have to start saying positive things (attempting positive reinforcement) immediately. Start your self-development process by going out to talk with your employees every day or two. Your objective is to ask them a question and "listen." Make it specific—about something that is relevant to their jobs: “Did the tech guys get by to work on that computer problem you were having?” “Did purchasing let you know if they can get those parts in by next week?” “Can Maya cover for you next week so that you can take your daughter to the doctor?” “Is there anything I can do to help today?”—ask a credible question. Make it brief. Start getting comfortable with brief encounters.
2. After your employees are comfortable with your informal visits, start extending the discussions by asking more questions about their work. What do they need? What barrier to performance can you help they remove? Slowly work up to longer conversations. Pay attention to their non-verbal behavior. If they appear anxious or uncomfortable, cut it short. As they become more comfortable talking with you about the work and their job, draw them out. Do more listening than talking. Nod you head to show that you are breathing. Practice your active listening skills.
3. When your employees are comfortable with work discussions, occasionally make a positive remark about something they have done. Comments like, “That will work,” or “It’s a good start,” or “We got to try to do it that way every time,” or “OK,” or “That’s going to save us a bunch of time.” Make it brief. Mention what they did and the effect it had on their job or the department or the product. Keep it short.
4. Extend your work discussion; give them more positive feedback and some neutral comments (tomorrow, you will need to make that change about 2:00 PM.) By this time, you should be able to talk openly with them without creating suspicion. You have had many discussions about their work, their job, the department, etc.
5. Finally, when it is appropriate when you have developed a relationship with an employee, then you can interject comments about things they can or should change to improve their performance. Don’t throw a bunch of stuff that you have been sitting on at them at one time. Balance your work discussions. Positive comments (positive feedback), neutral comments (factual stuff about the job) and one or two corrective comments.

As you go through this self-development process, you need to pace it in accord with the employee’s readiness. They will give you non-verbal cues that tell you how comfortable they are. When the comfort is there, move to the next level. You are not on a schedule, so take your time; move at a pace that is comfortable for you and the employee.

During this series of steps, the employees will be changing their expectations for you—building comfort, building trust, reducing their suspicions about your intentions—your agenda. Your comfort level with your own behavior will change as well. When you are ready, when it feels right--when it feels natural--start experimenting with short, positive expressions of satisfaction and appreciation about the employees performance. At this point, you have developed a reinforcing relationship with them, and when you attempt to R+ them for a behavior it will have the desired effect.

Positive reinforcement works with employees who trust you, when the employee is not suspicious about your motives—when your comments about their work (the behavior that deserved reinforcement) are reasonable. Short, factual, accurate observations about job performance are acceptable to employees. They need to get both positive and negative feedback about their work; it is the only way they can continuously improve.

Learning how to use positive reinforcement--making R+ a natural habit takes time. A supervisor, manager or leader must have a self-development plan in place to make the change. The 5 step development plan I presented above, will work for anyone. We are all suspicious of "quick" changes in people's behavior. When change happens incrementally--over time, it seems natural, substantive, and real.

Positive Reinforcement--It's a Relationship

Companies that have institutionalized positive reinforcement (R+) as a value outperform their competitors. It is not easy; most companies have reward and recognition programs in place, but that does not ensure that leaders, supervisors and managers know how to deliver positive reinforcement--that they know how to actually reinforce employees for value added behavior.

If the company has incentives, contingent compensation, bonuses, rewards, recognition, plaques and awards then what’s the big deal about R+. Aren’t all these things positive reinforcement? No, not really. The value of R+--the reason you want your leaders, managers and supervisors to understand what it is and how to practice it—is because R+ is a "real-time," management. If done properly, it is delivered almost immediately--in real time. It captures employee behavior—best practices, critical new ways of doing things—that may be lost if not identified and mentioned.

Behavior-based safety has become the favored process for helping organizations achieve the seemingly impossible objective—“0” injuries. One strength of behavior-based safety is that trained observers intermittently watch employees working—in real time—and give them feedback and R+ for doing their jobs safely. The data is clear; real-time feedback and R+ changes behavior better, faster than awards and bonuses for results.

Safety awards, incentives and bonuses have been criticized for creating cultures that encouraged employees to hide injuries, and near misses and created peer pressure to hide unsafe behavior. In business and industry, the same phenomenon can be observed in other performance areas. Rewards, incentives and bonuses have an impact on results, but sometimes the behaviors that employees engage in to achieve those results are questionable. If you want to achieve world class performance, you have to R+ employees in real time—right now. They need to know when their behavior is on the mark--if possible, while they are behaving--doing the thing that adds value.

Injury data tells us which unsafe behaviors lead to most of the injuries we see in the workplace; we also use those data to identify the safe behaviors—what employees should be doing to ensure they go home injury free. Similarly, product quality, customer service and productivity are can be optimized by critical employee behaviors. The specific critical behaviors vary by job and department, but employees know what they are and sometimes, the supervisors know.

The point is that awards and plaques happen way on down the line. Too late to R+ value-added behaviors that help the individual, the department and the company achieve best in class performance. Effective positive reinforcement requires the supervisor to be on the ground, where the action is; he or she has to see what employees are doing in order to deliver R+. Can you imagine a soccer coach trying to manage the team from an office? An award without a relationship is just a bribe.

In previous blogs, I have presented a model for delivering R+ that provides a gradual learning curve. Briefly, you talk with people while they are working, about the work; you mention things they have done (job behavior) that adds value, saves time, money, helps peers, etc; and, if and when you are comfortable you express your delight at their contribution. You are building a “reinforcing relationship.”

This is simple—this is easy—this is not uncomfortable for either the supervisor or the employee. Bottom line: Employees need to know what they are doing that works, enhances, improves—the product, the service, or customer satisfaction; they also need to know what they are not doing and what they are doing incorrectly. To get the best out of people, they have to have well rounded consequences—positive, negative, neutral—in accord with what their behavior.

Observing people at work has helped make the workplace safer; observing people at work can help employees become more productive. In each case, the feedback and R+ drives real-time, real world change and improvement. If we know all this and we know it works, why don’t all supervisors, managers and leaders spend time with their employees, observe their work, and give them feedback and R+? Why don’t supervisors talk to their employees about the work?

It all begins with leadership. Leaders communicate their values through their verbal behavior, the decisions they make—what they allow and do not permit—the priorities they pass down through the management hierarchy. If a leader believes that positive reinforcement is essential to business success, you will see him or her using it with their subordinates, making it a company value. Of course, the CEO will use positive reinforcement differently than a front line supervisor. But both have people who work for them and those people do things that deserve being mentioned.

A leader’s values are transformed into supervisory practices which in turn determine whether all valued employee behavior is identified, acknowledged and leveraged into the organizations knowledge-value stream. Instant recognition, real-time positive reinforcement instantly captures value—the asset value of doing things better, smarter, more creatively, cooperatively, more customer friendly—knowledge and practice capital that can be leveraged into competitive advantage and bottom line profitability. Leaders must evaluate, raise, bonus, promote and recognize the supervisors and managers for using positive reinforcement with their employees.

If an organization cannot capture valued employee work behavior, if the supervisor is not there to observe, discuss, and reinforce excellence and extra effort, then all you have is awards and plaques being handed out for results. All the behavior that led to those results, the behavior that needs to be achieved and added to everyones work practices--it's lost. Lost behavioral excellence is lost value...lost assets...lost intellectual property...lost profitability.

The company must do more than look at the end result and rewards outcomes. Leaders must encourage their managers and supervisors to actively engage employees during the work and positively reinforce valued added job behavior—in real time. The mantra: talk to people about the work; mention the good—behavior, actions that add value. Diplomatically mention things that they should do differently. The best reinforcer you can get at work is a productive discussion with your boss.

Positive Reinforcement Strategies for Generation Y

There appears to be a lot of interest in positive reinforcement these days—more than ever. I think the world of work is finally ready—the stage is set and the cast is in place. The power of positive reinforcement—is ready to be experienced. The right generation of employees has arrived.

The book I wrote a couple of years ago, Praise for Profit: How Rewards and Recognition are Demotivating American’s Workforce, was intended as a wakeup call to corporations that were blindly, carelessly and sometimes irresponsibly overusing “things” to replace thoughtful management practices. One danger of using incentives and tangible rewards is that they can become addictive to management; overuse and abuse are likely because these systems takes the place of personal reinforcement—something that many supervisors find uncomfortable and try to avoid. When the landscape is carpeted with money and merchandise, management depends on these inducements—these incentives, to manage human performance—while they go off to do other things they are more comfortable doing.

In the past, many managers and supervisors abandoned active supervision to the companies reward systems because they were uncomfortable delivering positive reinforcement the way most training classes presented it. The discomfort was created because most of the employees they were attempting to supervise, were baby boomers—inheritors of the legacy of the 20^th century’s work ethic. Positive statements about one’s work were not comfortably received by this generation. Matter of fact, if your boss said something good about your work, you felt sinful if you caught yourself enjoying the attention.

I had to coach many supervisors using a specific formula for delivering positive reinforcement. Supervisors who were shy, introverted, nervous, task-oriented, insecure, lack social skills, perfectionistic, impatient—for them, I advanced an incremental model, a graduated method for becoming comfortable with the practice of acknowledging employee value-added behavior. Even if you had none of these traits, the last generation of workers was not an easy bunch to reinforce—even by gifted supervisors—those who had “the knack.”

Irrespective of your feelings about whether an employee “deserves” being appreciated, rewarded or celebrated, the unannealed truth is that whenever an employee does anything that is innovative, solves an old problem, identifies a new problem, saves the company money, helps a coworker, improves the product, the process, the service and makes a happier customer—well, someone needs to point that out to that employee. Someone needs to point that out to everyone, because it adds value—it represents knowledge capital that needs to be captured, communicated and repeated whenever the opportunity is right. Other employees need to be doing the same thing. If everyone adds value, then the value of the company increases as does the bottom line.

Here is what I call positive reinforcement. “Jim, when you told me about that equipment problem, I got maintenance on it right away. I bet we saved 3 hours of downtime.” How hard was that? Can any supervisor do it? If he or she can talk, they can make a factual observation about something that was done well. Not only will the employee do that same kind of thing in the future, everyone in the department will do the same thing.

I attempted to get introverted, uncomfortable supervisors involved in positive reinforcement not by telling them to “positively reinforce someone for doing a good job,” but by just taking the time to point out to an employee what went right--what they did that helped. It’s not flattery—it’s fact. You did something that saves the company money, helped a coworker, and I’m going to tell you about it; end of story.

Getting supervisors talking is a good step; after they have pointed out a few things that employees have done right, sometimes they lose control and start adding the personal touch; they get all emotional and add statements like, “when you found that code error yesterday, you saved us about 2 days of trouble shooting. That was great!” You would be surprised how many managers who are reluctant to use positive reinforcement in the beginning become enthusiastic if you get them started right. The Y generation is going to make it easier for supervisors to learn how to use R+, because the new generation actually wants the attention.

Most corporations have codified reward and recognition practices into the company HR manual. Leaders, managers, and supervisors are expected to make their employees aware that they are improving, achieving, innovating, identifying problems, solving problems, and going the extra mile for the product, the service, and the customer. The task of reinforcing your employees may even be in many supervisors’ job descriptions. As a manager, you know that your performance evaluations, bonus, raise—perhaps your career is going to be influenced by your ability to keep your employees happy through the use of recognition and reinforcement.

Baby boomers were fairly consistent in their response to attempts by supervisors to say positive things about value-added work behaviour (I know there are some UK readers of the blog, and I didn’t want you to think that I am not responsive to your sensibilities). Boomers were conditioned by parenting and the 20th century work culture to think that money was the only reinforcer they should expect. Generation Y is different, and I will go into more detail in Part II of this blog.

The Corporate Personality: Change My Behavior, Don't Change Me

If you Google “Organizational Culture,” you get over 4,000,000 search results. Wikipedia has one of the first results, and as you scan the description you immediately began to blanch with confusion. If you work in a corporation that will soon undertake a “culture change” initiative, you may begin to tear up. Here is the first paragraph of Wikipedia’s description:

“Organizational culture, or corporate culture, comprises the attitudes, experiences, beliefs and values of an organization. It has been defined as the specific collection of values and norms that are shared by people and groups in an organization and that control the way they interact with each other and with stakeholders outside the organization. Organizational values are beliefs and ideas about what kinds of goals members of an organization should pursue and ideas about the appropriate kinds or standards of behavior organizational members should use to achieve these goals. From organizational values develop organizational norms, guidelines or expectations that prescribe appropriate kinds of behavior by employees in particular situations and control the behavior of organizational members towards one another.” Wikipedia

For all I know, this definition is as good as any—and there are many. Only the most optimistic individual can look at this conundrum of sociology and anthropology and not become overwhelmed. Secretly, many organizational change consultants believe that corporate cultures cannot be changed. Anyone who has worked for a large company acknowledges that change of any kind is ponderously slow—if the company changes at all. The analogy most often heard describing a corporation’s resistance to change is that it is like “turning the Titanic.”

Many leaders have tried various types of culture change. Well funded and well planned culture change efforts have a history of failure. A lot of time and money spent with negligible results—except the noticeable number of frustrated employees whose productivity has suffered from the time spent away from their jobs. Many employees feel they are trying to do things differently when the old ways are comfortable and seem to work perfectly.

An organization’s culture is like a personality; personality and culture have similar characteristics. Both are complex—the relationship between various facets of their structure and function—cause and effect, are difficult to isolate. You change one thing here, and it changes something else over there. The corporate personality has deeply rooted tendencies…traits…identifiable and predictable ways of responding that are akin to the things humans do that many consider to be genetically driven—hardwired. And, most of us have an intuitive feeling that most of these core “traits” are not changeable.

Many people would say, “It comes with the business.” Some businesses, by the nature of the work and the types of people needed to do that work, have a unique identity much like a human personality. Trying to change the culture in a mining operation, an automobile plant, a chemical plant, a university, a dress manufacturer, or a software company to elicit “new ways of doing things…a new culture,” is like trying to change a professional football player into a dress designer. There are “traits” that accompany these businesses that are not easy to change, and perhaps the idea of trying to do so is “fooling around” with something we should be attempting to understand, but not change.

It appears to me that most culture change efforts fail because they do not discriminate between those facets of corporate personality that are hardwired (virtually unchangeable artifacts of specific businesses), and the more easily influenced behaviors associated with doing ones work. For instance, if you want employee in a steel mill to work more safely, it may be easier to prompt him to remind a coworker to “stand out of the line of fire,” than it is to try a safety culture change effort. In a typical culture change initiative, the objective for the employee may be to “develop a commitment to safety,”—and objective which is laudable but abstract.

The ultimate objective of most organizational change initiatives, culture change, or performance improvement initiatives is to change employee behavior—what employees do (in very specific, micro-defined ways or in general terms), how frequently they do it, when they do it, and the extra effort they exert (value-added behavior). Interestingly, a unique quality of each culture is that much of the behavior that is approved or disapproved is unwritten. Policies and procedures may demand one way of doing things, but practices—the “way we do things around here,” may require another

Leaders have the ultimate influence on employee behavior through the values they express in decisions, priorities, and promotions—through all the consequences they apply to their direct reports—which are then propagated through all the management hierarchies companywide.

Most books on leadership and management attribute leadership style as the factor that most significantly affects employee behavior. They imply that a leader’s style translates into the values and priorities that control employee behavior toward the customer and the product. Leadership style, values, visions, missions—all form the background for employee performance, but more immediate, situational factors comprise the ultimate influence—the real “behavior controls.” For a background on how this works, read my previous blogs and look for discussions about “supervisor-employee dialogs.”

Leaders influence culture, but how is a question answered in hieroglyphics. One would not fault any leader for throwing up his or her hands and allowing what-ever consulting company gets hired to use what-ever definition they want and lead the organization down what-ever special path they advise to evaluate, change or create the culture that is supposed to get the job done. Perhaps a leader’s behavior will change the organizations culture slowly, incrementally over time—perhaps, but more often a leaders values and priorities quickly and directly influence employee behavior—the behavior of managers and supervisors toward their employees and hence the behavior of the employees toward the work, the product or the customer.

When reduced to its lowest common dominator, leader values and priorities translate into what an employee gets punished and rewarded for—the behavior that his or her peers, their supervisor or their senior leaders sanction, applaud, allow, and approve of. It is apparent that a change in leadership creates changes in an organization’s climate—new priorities, performance expectations, and strategic direction—sometimes quickly. Parallel to these leadership-induced requirements, existing systems and processes—the “old way of doing things,” continues to exert their influence on employee behavior.

There is already too much literature and complex reasoning circulating about leadership, and their role in cultural transformation and managing change. I only have a few simple suggestions that might simplify understanding. I have heard them repeated by many subordinates of leaders—repeated to me, but not to the leader himself or herself.

• Leaderships’ effectiveness in general, and in particular leaderships’ ability to manage change would be enhanced if they were educated in the way employee behavior is influenced by the culture, systems, processes, the physical environment, and supervisory verbal behavior. Most leaders do not understand how immediate, real-time consequences influence what an employee does, how frequently they do it, or whether they stop doing it. They regard positive reinforcement, rewards, and recognition as necessary but not critical to business success. They often have a vague and incomplete understanding of what drives daily employee behavior; this is a liability to the overall mission of the business and at best, a risk to profitability.

• Changing a culture takes a long time, the straightest route to performance improvement and enhanced profitability is to change behavior. Specifically identify the employee behavior that will help the employee, work unit, or department excel and use the strategies discussed on this blog to increase the frequency—the strength of those behaviors. Use your knowledge of behavioral principles to control the factors that govern what an employee does on the job—today, moment by moment. The management technology to influence behavioral probability is available. A supervisor can change an employee’s job performance—today! Immediately!

• The key to employee performance and job satisfaction is the frequency and quality of his or her interactions with their supervisor. Work dialogs—what is said and how it is said to an employee—establishes the context for supervisors to say things that encourage or discourage the quality of an employee’s work, the quality of the product, and their relationship with the customer. In a work dialog, the supervisor reinforces and punishes employee behavior—whether they know it or not. Leaders and all levels of management need to know how they impact employee behavior and use that knowledge for positive influence.

• Reward, recognition and incentive systems are often barriers to effective leadership. All levels of management can become dependent on programmed rewards as replacements for hands-on coaching and supervision. Existing reward systems directly encourage the behavior that leads to the prize—the money, the payoff, or the award. A leader may be trying to create a customer focused culture, while the existing reward systems may encourage cost control or productivity; the customer may be secondary. Reward and recognition systems should be evaluated for the impact they have on teamwork, quality, ethics—and many other factors that can be usurped by compelling tangible rewards. Rewards and recognition practices represent an organizational system that influences other systems—particularly the social system, human behavior—in profound ways. They often lull the organization into a sense of well-being—a quiet before the storm of unpredicted issues gathering on the horizon.

A Positive Reinforcement Strategy That Works!

Stop trying to use positive reinforcement! Instead, have a brief conversation with each of your employees as often as possible—everyday is not too often. Face-to-face, have a casual discussion about their work—“how’s it going?”

Stop thinking about positive reinforcement and recognition as comments like—“You really did a good job on that report Jim,” or “Thanks for getting that report complete on time Alice.” The words “Good job,” and “Thank you,” are being overused and employees have heard it so much it no longer makes a point. More importantly, there are simpler and easier ways to positively reinforce someone for extra effort, vigilance, or showing they care about the company.

Set the stage for positive reinforcement by asking a broad question about the employee’s job—“Did the tech guys get by to work on that computer problem you were having?” “Did purchasing let you know if they can get those parts in by next week?” “Can Maya cover for you next week so that you can take your daughter to the doctor?” “Is there anything I can do to help today?”

Think about it this way, what makes you feel better—when someone comes straight out with a sentence that praises you for doing something job related, or when someone indirectly, but clearly acknowledges the value of something you have done--during a normal conversation.

Below are some examples of attempts to positively reinforce an employee. Some set the stage, others are more direct. The background--suppose an employee gave a co-worker a few pointers about how to get the job done better, and the result was that the department’s through-put increased by several percentage points. Which one of the following statements by your manager would make you more comfortable? Which would you be most comfortable in delivering?

• “John, I really appreciate the extra time you took to help Warren. It’s really paying off. The department’s throughput is up by 7% today. Thanks for taking the time to help.”
• “John, Warren was telling me that you gave him some pointers. Now we are ahead of schedule. Could you give Tracy a hand? She’s been falling behind recently.”
• “John, thanks for doing a good job helping your co-workers. I really appreciate your extra effort.”
• “John, I just stopped by to see if Roy from engineering contacted you. I asked him to talk with you about the problem you’ve been having. By the way, throughput has increased since you helped Warren; would you mind telling me about the pointers you gave him? I think there are some other people who could benefit as well.”
• “Hi John, just stopped by to see if there is anything you need. I know that Ward is out today and you have to take up the slack. I was just talking to Warren and he was telling me how much you helped him. By the way, the new Excel sheet you put together is really going to give us better data.”
• “Hi John, Paul’s a happy man today. You got on that pump so fast he didn’t lose production and he’s smiling ear to ear.”
• “John, I’ve been trying to come up with some ways to help us increase our throughput. Warren said you gave him some good ideas that have really helped. Would you mind sharing those ideas with me?”
• “Hey man! Warren is saying some good stuff about the pointers you gave him. I think you've made a friend for life. He says he’s going to nominate you for employee of the year. I told him not to say stuff like that it would go to your head. Anyway, would you give me those pointers? A few other people need some help.”
• “Hey John, is there anything you need today? We’re moving fast since you worked with Warren. The change you made in the procurement process is getting our material here faster as well. See you later.”

Which one would you have liked to hear? The examples demonstrate that there is more than one way to positively reinforce someone and the experience does not have to be uncomfortable for you or for the employee you are reinforcing. Any one of these examples may work for you. The exact wording depends on your relationship with that particular employee.

If you are on good terms with an employee, that is, you have a friendly rapport, you like each other, you are both relaxed when talking—then you can be more relaxed about what you say; the employee is unlikely to misinterpret positive statements as “having a covert agenda,” or think “you are up to something.”

If for some reason, you have a neutral or poor relationship with an employee, you have to be careful that your comments are not too directly complimentary. Expressions like, “you did great,” or “I appreciate the good job you always do,” or “Thanks for…,” are often received suspiciously. Make your positive reinforcement more indirect, casual—part of a normal conversation like most of the examples above.

Talking about the work in a general way provides you with an opportunity to reference something the employee has done—some behavior—without appearing to be artificial, contrived or insincere. Employees are very sensitive to the words that are used to discuss their job performance. They interpret words, phrases and sentences as positive, neutral or punitive. An employee’s energy, commitment, and desire to perform well are all influenced by the way their supervisor talks to them.

Give yourself a break; start practicing “work-talk” with positive reinforcement on the side. Have a practical discussion about the job, the equipment, the process, needed resources, or process barriers for the employee—then allude to a contribution, an extra effort, or a value added behavior. Positive reinforcement comments that can be easily worked into the context of a discussion with an employee might sound like, “That will work,” or “It’s a good start,” or “We got to try to do it that way every time,” or “OK,” or “That’s going to save us a bunch of time.”

If you start talking to your employees, you will find there are more opportunities to comfortably positively reinforce them. It becomes easier to positively reinforce them using words that are comfortable and accepted by them. Stop going out with the objective that you are going to “say something positive to someone about something they have done.” There is nothing wrong with establishing positive reinforcement as a purpose, but that objective can often be best achieved in the context of a relaxed work discussion with casual references to an employee’s worthy behavior.