"Poor management can increase software costs more rapidly than any other factor." (Barry Boehm)

Robert Watkins comments about insincere appreciation in response to my post on the recognition gap:

A good example is the concept of the "Praise Sandwich": take one piece of praise, one piece of criticism, and another piece of praise.

...and how he experiences the "praise sandwich:"

When done consciously like this, I find the results are strikingly insincere. I can't help feeling that the praise was delivered purely to soften the criticism. These days, I almost entirely disregard praise that is delivered with criticism because I feel (rightly or wrongly) that it is there purely to make the "Praise Sandwich".

I suspect that people use the "praise sandwich" believing that subordinates are more likely to accept criticism when they are feeling good... like right after a compliment. The actual result is closer to Robert's description.

People who believe this seem to save up all their compliments to use as wrappers for criticism. Hmmm. Why condition people to expect a slap after every positive stroke?

My experience is that people are likely to accept negative feedback when:

1) the giver or source is believed to be reliable
2) the receiver trusts the intentions of the giver
3)the receiver has a chance provide clarifications
4) the process is fair -- both the way the feedback was developed and the way the feedback was communicated

I think praise is different from appreciation. Praise says that one person is in a position to evaluate the other; one is up, one is down. Appreciation -- at least for me -- isn't hierarchical.

Alfie Kohn has interesting things to say about praise, too.

Addendum 8/26/04: Andy, I appreciate you for pointing out typos in this post.

posted by Esther Derby at 8:54:00 AM  

|

My recent posts on appreciation prompted Dale Emery to write about his experiences with appreciation.

I offered people an opportunity to express appreciation to their colleagues for things they had done.


The people in the room—hardcore geeks all—had no trouble offering appreciations to each other. They offered dozens. And my impression was that about half of the appreciations were about code reviews. "John, I appreciate that you found that null pointer bug in my code."


Joe noticed, over the next few weeks, that people were more eager to review each other's code, and more eager to express appreciation to each other in the moment.

This matches my experience. Create the space and make an ivitiation (rather than a requirement) for people to offer appreciation. Surprising things will happen.

Paul Leclerc comments about his bosses (hamfisted) attempt at showing appreciation by handing out movie tickets and gift certificates.

I want to make a distinction between rewards and appreciations.

A reward can be a verbal statement --"good job" or "atta boy" -- or a physical or monetary token. Rewards focus on an event, action, or achievement, rather than person. Rewards are usually given to reinforce and increase the frequency of certain actions and behaviors. The word that comes to mind for me is manipulation.


Alfie Kohn has written extensively on how rewards actually reduce productivity and morale.

posted by Esther Derby at 8:33:00 AM  

|

This email from the Gallup organization landed in my mailbox this morning:

Sixty-five percent of Americans received NO praise or recognition in the workplace in the last year, reports a Gallup Poll.

And the number-one reason people leave organizations is that they don't feel appreciated, notes the U.S. Department of Labor.

A serious recognition gap exists in most organizations, and that gap seems acceptable to many. Yet Gallup's study of nearly 5 million employees reveals that increasing the recognition and praise in organizations can lead to lower turnover, higher customer loyalty and satisfaction scores, and increases in overall productivity.

An article by Chuck Martin on the Darwin site quotes an employee saying:

"Recognizing great work is one of the easiest responsibilities of leadership, and the most poorly executed."

If you believe the Gallup and Department of Labor data, it’s not just a touchy-feely issue (though appreciation does make people feel good). It’s an economic issue. Just total up the cost of finding, hiring, and training a new employee.

These are some of the "reasons" I've heard for not appreciating and praising people at work:

It's what she's paid to do.

She knows I value her work. (He knows because he can read minds).

If I tell him he's doing a good job, he'll stop striving, he'll become complacent.

It will go to his head.

It’s too touchy-feely. These are engineers; they don’t care about that mushy stuff.

I think there’s another reason, one that isn’t spoken: I’m uncomfortable complimenting, praising, and appreciating people.

So try an experiment.

Do this in a low risk situation, like maybe at the grocery store, with the carry out boy.

After he’s loaded your groceries in the car, look at him and say “I appreciate you for helping me.” Watch what happens.

Next week, say, “Thanks.” Watch what happens.

See a difference?

Don’t just try it once, try it 10 times.

Then try it when your partner or kid does something you like.



Telling people you appreciate them makes a difference.

Marcus Buckingham and Curt Coffman say so.

Jerry Weinberg says so.

Chuck Martin says so.

I say so.

posted by Esther Derby at 8:29:00 AM  

|

Perplexing Problem? Borrow Some Brains by Robert Cialdini on the HBS Working Knowledge site looks at the reasons behind the power of collaborative problem-solving:

First, the lone problem solver can't match the diversity of knowledge and perspectives of a multiperson unit that includes him. Other members will have had experiences with similar or related problems that will allow the team to recognize fruitful versus fruitless choices more clearly and quickly. Furthermore, this diversity of input can do more than merely add to the storehouse of information that the best problem solver can employ; it can also stimulate thinking processes that would not have developed in wholly internal monologues....

Second, the solution seeker who goes it alone loses a significant advantage--the power of parallel processing. Whereas a cooperating unit can distribute the many subtasks of a problem-solving campaign among its members, the lone operator must perform each sequentially.

In fact, smart people often hamper themselves because they are smart--so smart that they don't ask for input from others.

Sometimes the sole decision-maker justifies working a problem on his own because it saves time. A quick result doesn't save time when it's not a good result. Further, when others aren't involved in solving a problem or reaching a decision, they may not buy into it. So while it may take less time for the mental activity when one person does it (though the HBS article says this isn't necessarily true) implementing takes more time -- as other are convinced or brought up to speed on the thinking.

I've seen this happen over and over.

Unfortunately, we don't learn much about collaborative problem-solving or decision making at school or in traditional hierarchical work environments.
So here are some resources:

See my earlier posts on facilitative leadership and focused conversation (near the bottom of the post).

Visit www.ica-usa.org these folks have been using simple but powerful methods to engage groups in collaborative problem solving all over the world for 30 years. Much of their work is in community development; however the ICA methods translate to the work place. I learned Focused Conversation from ICA. I use ICA methods every day in every way :-)

ICA Canada has published a couple of books on their methods: The Art of Focused Conversation and The Workshop Book.

Check out Sam Kaner's book, Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision Making.

Come to my short workshop on Collaborative Decision Making at SD Best Practices 9/22 in Boston.

Come to my longer workshop on Collaborative Decision Making at the AYE Conference in November.

This is a topic near and dear to my heart.

posted by Esther Derby at 7:34:00 AM  

|

Johanna reports on our continuing adventure in pair writing here, Her lessons learned for the week (high overlap with my lessons learned) are:

• We don't have the same default ways to write -- and that's ok. The manuscript is richer for us talking through how the words should be.
• When we're laughing out loud, we're synching. Not quite in flow, but close.
• When one snaps at the other, it's time for a break.
• The product is much better than it would be if we did the standard one-person-write/other-person-edit pass back and forth. We tried that. The writing is crisper. The word choice is better. The manuscript flows.

Alan Francis writes about a completely different sort of pairing in pair-enting on his blog, and ends with this comment on the power of working with a partner:

It's hard to do the right thing (instead of the easy thing) without the moral support of a partner.
When you're on your own, struggling with a hard problem, take the easy way every time...if you'd rather do something else, get some help.

I'd add:

• When one person is stuck, the other may have an idea to get unstuck. Many times one of us would be able to come up with a different phrase, or clarify an idea when the other was struggling. At one point, we were having a really hard time with a paragraph and couldn't agree on what to do with it. Johanna suggested that we independently re-write the paragraph. We did and that broke the logjam. We used parts of each re-written paragraph and then added some more.
• When one of the pair feels down-trodden, the other may not, and can keep the momentum up.
• It's much easier for the person who isn't typing to see typos. I'm wondering if next time we can reach an agreement to fix typos in a separate activity. Sometimes it's a bit much to have every little nit pointed out as you're typing. (Yes, I snapped.)
• I suspect there are some people who don't take to pairing -- either they don't like it or they think they like it, but their idea of pairing is "we'll do it my way." Makes it even more important to consider interpersonal skills when hiring for a team pairs or collaborates closely.

I'm contemplating another writing collaboration, and I think I'll suggest pairing.

And finally: I know there's an endless supply of words in the universe, but most of mine seem to be flowing into the book right now.

posted by Esther Derby at 9:42:00 PM  

|