Marie-Hélène Budworth

A MHRM student shared a story posted on smartplanet regarding innovation in corporations.  This brief piece implies that innovation at the organizational level is more a ‘state of mind’ than it is about dollar investments in research and development.  I would be interested in learning more about what this finding means.  What is it that makes organizations innovative? 

There is a broad research in innovation and creativity that exists at the organizational level and another literature that describes the creativity and  innovation of individuals and groups.  There is smaller discussion in research circles around how you manage to get an entire organization working in a way that leads to consistent innovation.  Moving across levels from the individual to the group to the organization requires complicated research disciplines and often crosses disciplines (e.g., psychology to strategy).  Nevertheless, the question of how individuals become coordinated to contribute to an organizations overall innovation – in a consistent and systematic way – is an interesting one. 

Take a look at the piece shared here and let me know what you think. 

The Globe and Mail recently polled readers about their views on performance appraisals.  In their survey of  1337 people, they found that only 27% of people found appraisals to be a useful tool.  Another 20% believed it to be a necessary evil and a majority, 53%, described it as a total waste of time.  This might not be a surprise to anyone who has had a performance appraisal, but, it does beg the question why do we keep doing it?  Is it because it works?

An extensive body of research has investigated the effects of managerial feedback interventions on subordinates’ performance.  The expectation is that feedback helps to increase the opportunities for employees to learn and to become aware of the results of performance. The premise is that the employee is then able to use the knowledge to take corrective action and improve their own outcomes.  However, research has demonstrated that feedback is not consistently effective .  In fact, seminal work by Avi Kluger and Angelo DeNisi found that feedback leads to performance improvement only a third of the time.  Another third of the time, it leads to performance decrements, and the final third of the time there is no change in performance at all. 

The traditional performance feedback interview has at least three key shortcomings.  First, there are potential damaging effects for the employee’s relationship with the manager if the feedback is not delivered effectively.  Second, as noted above, the effectiveness of feedback itself for performance development is inconsistent and has been shown to decrease performance in some cases.  Third, the feedback is often biased and inaccurate for a variety of reasons including human error and political motivation.  This often leads the employee to believe that the appraisal process is unfair or unjust.  The effectiveness of feedback can be altered by the accuracy of the message, the manner in which the feedback is delivered, the credibility of the person providing the feedback, and the perceived fairness of the message.  This is complicated stuff and most managers to not deliver timely and relevant feedback well. 

Many have called for the abolishment of appraisals.  Despite these concerns around effectiveness and the potential negative effects, feedback continues to be a popular method for developing employees within organizations.  Perhaps it is due to the lack of good alternatives to feedback.  There is most certainly a need to develop our employees.  Intuitively telling people where they went wrong and asking them to correct their errors makes sense; however, in practice it simply does not work consistently enough for us  to rely on appraisal and evaluation as the primary driver for employee development. 

This area is ripe for development.  I am really intrigued by strength based approached. These techniques ask us to move away from deficit based models of performance management and toward techniques that maximize strengths.  I am currently writing up some work I did on the feedforward technique.  I would not suggest that this is the only possible alternative, but I do find it intriguing. Take a look and tell me what you think.

This is an ‘eye catching’ topic that finds its way back into popular conversation every once in a while.  It would be outrageous, if it weren’t true. 

Daniel Hamermesh published a piece in the New York Times on the weekend arguing that “ugly” people should be protected by some form of affirmative action.  This is based on a large volume of research that has found that attractive people earn more on average than unattractive people.  In 2009, Tim Judge linked attractiveness to educational accomplishment and a decrease in financial strain.  The underlying finding is that in some systematic way, people who do not meet our collective standards of “attractiveness” are disadvantaged in ways that matter.  They are less likely to receive job offers, they are evaluated more harshly, and they are locked out of opportunities for advancement.  Despite the strength of these findings I am uncomfortable each time I read them – much as I am when I look at work that finds salary advantages for thin people or people of a given ethnic background. 

So the interesting thing about Hamermesh’s piece is not that attractive people have an advantage, but that we as a society, should do something about it.  We are starting to move outside of my area of research and into one of policy development and law, however, I am intrigued by the thought.  Psychological research often informs policy in meaningful ways.  For example, courts of law often use psychological standards of assessment to judge the defensibility of employment standards.  At the same time, there is something qualitatively different between attractiveness and other forms of discrimination.  But as Hamermesh argues, does this matter given that they lead to the same outcome – disadvantage? 

There has been some interesting work recently on what really motivates employees.  And a lot of this work has received a great deal of media attention thanks to Dan Pink’s book, Drive.  (For a summary of this work by the author himself, take a look at this YouTube video).  I think the most interesting work coming out right now is on prosocial motivation. 

Prosocial motivation is the drive to have a positive impact on others – to promote or protect the well-being of another.  Prosocial motivation implies that individuals want to help their fellow employees, their clients, and their customers.  Researchers have found that employees are motivated when they can see the impact that their efforts have on others.  Now this idea may sound similar to earlier motivational theories – ideas around job design and knowledge of results comes to mind for me, but the underpinning principles here are somewhat different.  This type of motivation is clearly relational.  People want to know that they are affecting other people.  Some of the most exciting work in this area is being done by Adam Grant at Wharton. 

Dr. Grant recently published some work where he compared motivators for fundraising call centre employees.  For one group, he provided employees with information on how the job might benefit them personally.  For a second group, be provided information on how the job benefits those who receive the funds raised.  The second group brought in significantly more money than the first.  In other words, employees were motivated to a greater extent when they understood how their efforts would affect other people as compared to understanding how their efforts might benefit them personally – interesting. 

This line of inquiry challenges the common belief that money is the most important motivator.  Behavioural economist Dan Ariely has been examining this notion for some time.  He recently Blogged about some work on what he calls ‘social bonuses.’  He found that people were motivated to work for rewards given to their team mates.  The effect was stronger when the person they were able to assist was proximal to them.

Taken together, I think these are interesting findings.  We have spent decades trying to motivate people using reward and punishment.  Some would argue that this has contributed to the current economic crisis in the form of unmanageable bonus structures and unsustainable reward systems.  Researchers are suggesting that these bonuses do not work – especially for complex, creative work.  The notion that it is possible to motivate people to perform well by helping them to see how they are doing good is extraordinary.  This is certainly an idea worth exploring. 

Argh!  The Globe and Mail recently published a short piece supporting the use of Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation model as the standard for training evaluation.

I find this frustrating.  Training evaluation in practice is a place where thinking has not changed in close to 30 years.  It is a bit of a mystery given that organizations rarely evaluate training and those that do rarely do anything with the data.  Could it be that the reason that we struggle with evaluations is because we are not doing them well?  I often hear learning specialists argue that they must evaluate their learning programs and then spend most of their time focused on what Kirkpatrick would call “level 1” – did you like the program?  Did you enjoy the experience?  Did you think the instructor was well prepared?  These questions might be useful for helping you decide whether or not to use the same trainer or caterer, but they tell you little about the effectiveness of the learning initiative itself. 

As we move up Kirkpatrick’s levels, bigger problems arise.  We often measure learning by asking people to indicate how much their knowledge has increased as a result of the training program.  This does not measure learning.  I actually don’t have a clue what it measures. People are notoriously poor at this type of self-assessment and reflection.  Learners are being asked questions that they cannot answer.  I could go on and rant about how measuring behaviour change at Level 3 requires a significant commitment of time and resources and how it is almost impossible to attach learning outcomes to organizational objectives as required by Level 4 – but I will focus on the positive instead. 

There is a lot that organizations can do to ensure that learning interventions (i.e., training programs, mentoring programs, coaching) are effective; however, before we can determine effectiveness, we have to know why we are running the program in the first place.  If you can answer that question, then we have made a productive start on evaluation.  The trainer needs to ask, “If this training program works, what will be different?”  Will people behave differently?  Will there be a change in efficiency?  Will there is a change in mindset?  Once we know what we are looking for, we can then put on our creative hats to find a way to measure ‘it’ or some indicator or ‘it.’  For example, we might measure behaviour by having peers or managers observe trainees on the job.  We might measure values or perceptions through a questionnaire at some point after training.  There might be some outcome that is tangible for which we can develop clear statistics (e.g., number of sales, number of widgets produced, customer service complaints).  The bottom line is that it is going to vary by organization and by program. 

If we begin to evaluate what we actually care about, the evaluations might actually have meaning and significance. 

I, like everyone else, have been watching the Vancouver riots and the ensuing aftermath with jaw dropping awe.  I am stunned by the images of young people setting police cars on fire, breaking windows, hitting each other – it is just incredible.  But when I look through the photos my primary thoughts are not around the injustice or the sadness of the acts (even though they probably should be), my thoughts sound a little more like this:  “Man, this would make a great study of the behaviour of groups” or “Whoa, I am going to be using this stuff as examples to teach group polarization.”  So yes, I am in the correct profession.  And here’s why this is such a fascinating case study. 

Of course no one could have predicted what would follow Vancouver’s loss in the Stanley Cup Final, but there are a number of groups researchers out there who are not surprised.  Unfortunately, quite often, groups of people do not behave as a collection of individuals; they behave as a collective.  Individuals weigh the consequences of their behaviour and tend to make informed choices about how to proceed when faced with a set of options.  Individuals within groups sometimes let the group make the decision on their behalf.  Sometimes this can lead to inaction.  The classic example of this effect is the story of Kitty Genovese.  Kitty Genovese was murdered while close to forty people stood and watched – the bystander effect.  No one took action because everyone thought the other would take action. 

The Vancouver riots, however, are not about inaction.  They are about action.  The presence of a ‘mob’ allowed each person to suspend the moral compass and relinquish decision making to the group – an evolutionary adaption that allows for collective intelligence and group survival in nature.  Individuals were no longer making choices for themselves.  This is clear from the sad stories being heard by many young people who are regretful of their actions.  To be clear, it does not absolve the individual from responsibility. It merely reminds us that the behaviour is not as unusual as we might expect.  “Herd” behaviour, “mob mentality” or “crowd hysteria” has been studied by psychologists and sociologists for decades.  Our knowledge of group behaviour has been used to understand far greater crimes including genocide in Rwanda – and other events that have had positive outcomes such as the overturning of governments in the middle east. 

The events that have followed the Vancouver riots are also a form of group behaviour – although most of this is taking place online through social media.  The vigilantly justice that is now causing witnesses to post photos and video of people and captioning these images with hateful and aggressive statements is an example of individuals gaining some strength from the larger community that is demanding justice.  The police have asked that these images be submitted by email or through secure channels.  However, a large volume of this material has been posted on public sites by people who otherwise respect other people and believe in “innocence until proven guilty.”  This public shaming is an act that is reinforced by the presence of a virtual group.   There has been research that has demonstrated that the power of the group decreases as the proximity of the group decreases.  In these cases, we are seeing an effect based on ‘virtual‘ groups – fascinating. 

The events of the last week are a reminder that groups are not individuals and we cannot expect them to behave as such.  It does not excuse any wrongdoing, but it does help us to understand that bad behaviour does not equal bad people. 

The real take home message – let’s all hope that the Canucks win the Stanley Cup next time.