The Responsive Management Systems® Paradigm
Responsive Management Systems® is a model or paradigm whose evolution goes back
some 38 years. It all "started", you might say, "at the end,"
with "outcomes."
If you want to know how to do something well (achieve certain outcomes), find "that
someone" who is doing it well and then go observe (not ask) what they do.
Your right, not a new investigative method but for some unknown reason still a seriously
underutilized strategy particularly in the area of preventing and intervening in personnel
problems. I will refer to this method as FORRM
(Find-Observe-Record-Replicate-Measure):
-
Find "that someone" who is achieving the desired outcomes;
-
Observe what they do;
-
Record their actions in temporal sequence;
-
Replicate their actions by developing instructional strategies;
- Measure for achievement of the desired outcomes.
It has been my personal good fortune to have been exposed to
the FORRM method of investigation in the early '70s when I began work in early childhood
education. One focus of investigation was preschool storytime, and according to Dr.
Paul Ackerman of Wichita State University, the professor who peaked my interest, it
appeared that there were some storytime readers who were "better" than others.
Preschool children, who varied in age, race, gender, ability, color, family
composition, and income, consistently paid greater attention, spoke more often, answered
story content questions more often correctly and developed expressive vocabulary more
quickly when read to by certain storytime readers! The focus quickly narrowed to
those few storytime readers who could create these "outcomes".
Effective storytime-reading interaction patterns were identified that could be taught to
others (replicated) and thereby expand effective storytime reading to other
children. During this same time period we were also able to demonstrate the efficacy
of these same interaction strategies with preschool special needs (Downs Syndrome)
children.In 1973, FORRM again demonstrates its viability. Just hiring on as a
state psychologist in a unit for 16- & 17-year-old adjudicated juveniles I found it to
be a rather unpleasant place to work. It was the general run-of-the-mill aggressive,
manipulative, tantruming, unhealthy, expelled kids who had been practicing how not
to "win friends and influence people" for the last 10 to 11 years.
Theories and labels were ever-present in their files. There had been no shortage of
"evaluations" and "tests". If you looked around the unit you
could see that none of us, professional or paraprofessional, were very effective with
these youth.
It didn't appear to be a "mission" issue because people were very motivated
to want these kids to succeed. The issue seemed to be "operational".
Professional and paraprofessional staff did not appear to know how to
"operate" when implementing helping strategies with these youth. About 200
miles down the road a group of University of Kansas psychologists (Drs. Wolf,
Fixsen,
Phillips & Phillips, et. al.) had been focusing on the same issue. But, they
had found some adults working with similar youth; that could create the desired
outcomes (improved school attendance, improved grades, decreases in police contacts
and incarceration, even improvements in the "not so serious stuff" like
spelling, not cursing, pleasant greetings, etc.). They had also begun to observe and
record what these adults "did" that appeared to result in the very desirable
outcomes. As with the storytime readers, effective youth program staff operate in
observable ways that can be identified, recorded and replicated through instruction.
This replication resulted in the juvenile program beginning to see kids succeeding
(i.e., school absenteeism decreasing, grades improving, holding jobs, decreased
recidivism, not only close to zero drug use but also decreased smoking, etc.).
It's now 1974, as people will do, they "move on", and so did some of our
supervisors. What became apparent in a very short time were slight
deteriorations in the operation of the program. Again, it appeared that some
supervisors were more capable than others. Some supervisors could create a unit
culture where employees excelled while other supervisors would create units where employee
performance ranged from marginal to deficient. Do effective managers and supervisors
operate in observable ways that can be identified, recorded and replicated through
instruction? Using the FORRM strategy of investigation we began:
-
Finding supervisors effective in three areas: a) creating work environments
where the desired outcomes were achieved; b) creating work environments where employees
performed the desired work to continuously improving standards; and c) creating work
environments where employees, most of the time, liked working with the supervisor.
-
Observing the effective supervisors at what they spent most of their time doing:
namely, communicating with individual employees and work teams prior to, during, or
following employee performance and analyzing variations from performance standards.
-
Recording the observations, without interpretation, and organizing them into
skill sets.
-
Replicating the recorded observations (skill sets) with other supervisors through
applied instruction (not didactic instruction);
- Measuring the outcomes of newly instructed supervisors to see if they could
create work environments where: a) desired outcomes were achieved; b) employees
performed the desired work to continuously improving standards; and c) employees liked
working with their supervisor most of the time.
The result of this research was the identification of interaction (individual and
group) and strategic (analysis and planning) skills used by these supervisors on a high
frequency basis. Use of these skills appeared to result in the supervisor/manager
being effective in all three areas mentioned previously: a) outcomes achieved, b)
continuously improving employee performance, and c) satisfied employees. Responsive
Management Systems® is based on the thinking skills and interaction skills identified in that
investigative process begun in 1974 and continues to this day since 40% of the services
provided by Responsive Management Systems® are Line-Level
Leadership®
consultation, intervention and coaching where day to day operations are taking place.
The Responsive Management Systems® paradigm posits that if you want
quality to happen irrespective of what the product or service may be, three Key
Elements must be defined and integrated. Those Key Elements (see diagram A)
are: STRATEGY, STRUCTURE, PROCESS.
| |
| 1. Strategy, the first Element, is the sum total of all the statements of why an
organization exists. Those statements come in various forms and have various labels,
i.e., Mission, Vision, Goals, Values, Ethics, Product/Service focus, or
philosophy/beliefs. These statements are more-often-than-not cognitive-emotional in
nature and, if used correctly, can serve to focus the organization financially,
intellectually, operationally, emotionally, and analytically in answering the questions:
what is the single overriding reason for the organization's existence? Why
have these people come together as an organization?
2. Structure, the second Element, consists of the number and type of positions, how
the positions are deployed, schedules of work, allocation of non-human resources, needed
technologies, and reporting relationships within the organization.
3. Process, the third Element, is all the operations of all the members of the
organization occurring within the STRUCTURE that will result in accomplishing the
organization's STRATEGY. Part of this PROCESS is Managing Performance Quality.
Usually accomplished by supervisors and mid-level managers; employee Performance
inputs and outputs are Managed to assure Quality
outcomes.
|
Key Organizational
Elements of Quality
Diagram A - Click for larger image
|
|
|
Effectively Managing Performance Quality requires satisfying five Steps (see Diagram
B):
| 1st: Performance Definition;
2nd: Performance Assessment;
3rd: Performance Instruction;
4th: Performance Monitoring; and
5th: Performance Feedback.
If one or more of these five Elements is missing then the desired performance outcomes
will not be achieved. |
Key Steps to
Managing Performance Quality
Diagram B - Click for larger image
|
1st: Performance Definition. Two levels of defining performance are
important: a) what the outcome or result is supposed to look, sound, feel, taste,
or smell like; and b) what steps or procedures the employee would go through to achieve
the outcome or result. In both instances defining the event(s) using observables is
critical; otherwise the supervisor/manager will not know if the outcome or result is
achieved or if the employee is progressing or digressing.
2nd: Performance Assessment. Two assessment events are commonly
undertaken by the supervisor/manager: a) using an interview/assessment center
process to determine the value of hiring a prospective employee, and b) following
promotion or transfer into a new supervisor/manager position; observing existing
employee's performance for 30-45 days. In both instances the goal is to determine
how each individual (i.e., Samantha, Enrique, Max, Henrieta, Maria, Yolanda, Maxine, Adam
or Rachel) will perform relative to the Performance Definitions (first Element).
3rd: Performance Instruction. Depending on the employee's ability
and skill, it may be necessary following Performance Assessment to design an instructional
system to help her/him achieve the performance standards. There are many types of
instruction available to enhance the employee but if a low error rate is needed then
"applied" or "direct" skills instruction is the most effective.
4th: Performance Monitoring. The only way to know whether an
employee is performing to standard or moving in the desired direction is to occasionally
take a "look-see" at the performance. The monitoring can be accomplished
through direct observation, review of some permanent product that is created from the
employee's work, a survey, or the employee's self-report. Which monitoring procedure
to choose depends on the level of reliability and validity needed.
5th: Performance Feedback. The information gleaned from Performance
Monitoring is then provided to the employee as performance feedback.
"Informational" feedback may be positive and/or negative, reinstruction, or
reanalysis. The "consequential" feedback could be in the form of
compensation changes, selection/deselection into the organization or a new position,
increased participation in determining the direction of the organization, or formal
recognition as in certification or graduation.
If you want to achieve a performance outcome with an individual employee or group of
employees, regardless of the type of performance (e.g., data entry, quality audit,
welding, sales, caring for the elderly, customer contact, educating preschool children)
and regardless of the organization (e.g., government, business, recreational, human
services): First, Define the Performance; Second, Assess the
employee's current level of Performance; Third, Teach, Coach or otherwise Instruct
the employee how to Perform; Fourth, take a "look-see" at the employee's
Performance; and Fifth, provide Feedback to the employee on how they are
Performing.
Effectively performing in an organization requires three kinds of Performance (see
Diagram C): STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE; TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE; and INTERPERSONAL
PERFORMANCE.
|
1.
Strategic Performance.
Examples of Strategic Performance are problem analysis, critical thinking, and analyzing
for short- and long-term impact of decisions. Each employee in the organization,
irrespective of position or function, will bump into something that is different in the
"PM" than it was in the "AM". Inadequate analysis or short-term
solutions might result in longer term costs.
2.
Technical Performance.
Position descriptions broadly describe the Technical Performance of employees.
3. Interpersonal Performance.
How the members of the organization behave "conversationally" toward one
another; vertically--up and down the organization (supervisee to supervisor/manager and
supervisor/manager to supervisee); and horizontally--across the organization (peers to
colleagues to co-workers). See Interpersonal Performance
Errors for examples of performance breakdowns.
|
Key Elements of
Individual Performance Quality
Diagram C - Click for larger image
|
|
|
On the surface this sub-title probably sounds more reasonable than problematic; until
you directly observe the interaction and analysis processes used by a supervisor/manager
when encountering an employee performance problem.
When encountering a
Technical Problem,
a supervisor/manager would begin to use an analysis model similar to that outlined under
Key Steps of Managing
Performance Quality: ...have I Defined the technical performance steps and
standards correctly and clearly?; have I Assessed the employee's abilities and skills
accurately?; have I provided the necessary Instruction so the employee has the knowledge
to perform?; have I Monitored frequently enough to be aware of progress or trouble spots
in achieving the desired performance standard?; have I provided the employee the timely,
clear and frequent Feedback based on those monitorings or observations to encourage
performance correction?
In an interesting twist, when a supervisor/manager encountered an
Interpersonal Performance
Error,
i.e,
an employee constantly arguing about performance feedback, an employee complaining always
and about everything, an employee seldom if ever volunteering to assist fellow employees,
an employee that won't talk to certain coworkers, an employee that always blames others
for errors or mistakes, etc....etc....etc... the supervisor/manager would take what is a
very efficient and effective analysis model used to analyze Technical Performance
problems: Key
Steps of Managing Performance Quality; MENTALLY OR COGNITIVELY SHIFT IT TO THE SIDE and then begin
to search through various Psycho-Social models attempting to come up with an explanation
for the occurrence of an Interpersonal Performance Error. The supervisor/manager
would then settle on a model that they felt would explain the problem. There are
three difficulties with an approach that uses most of these Psycho-Social modes: a)
the model chosen may or may not be the real explanation of the Interpersonal Performance
problem; b) the model may identify a causative agent for which the supervisor/manager has
little or no influence; and, c) the model selected, more often than not, will not be
effective defining an intervention strategy to change the employee's
Interpersonal Performance Error rate.
The key to preventing and solving Interpersonal Performance problems in an organization
is to manage Interpersonal Behavior of employees and potential employees of the
organization like Technical Performance. Operationally, this means the
organization, through its supervisors/managers, will Define all Performance processes and
standards including Interpersonal Performance; Assess for all needed Performance abilities
and skills including Interpersonal Performance during interviews; Instruct all Performance
including Interpersonal Performance where at all possible before the employee assumes the
position; continuously Monitor all Performance including Interpersonal Performance; and
finally, provide timely, clear and frequent Feedback on all Performance including
Interpersonal Performance.
When searching for effective supervisors/managers, our initial investigative
observations took place during naturally occurring conversations between employees and
their supervisor/manager. Employees experiencing difficulty on the job were commonly
observed arguing, debating, disagreeing, not interacting, refusing to meet, changing the
subject, etc., etc., etc. The employee appeared to be having difficulty receiving
feedback, criticism or job direction. This difficulty it turns out, is a significant
employee Interpersonal Performance skill deficit or error.
This is one example of Defining Interpersonal Performance. Assume this is
one of the skills important to defining the organizational culture you wish to
create. The next step in Managing Performance is to Assess the Performance.
How might an interviewer Assess in an interview for this ability or skill? Ask "How
do you take feedback?" What would be the answer? "I'm open,
always looking for suggestions on how I can perform better, etc...." The
interviewers have asked an intellectual question and received an intellectual answer but
would still be mostly in the dark as to the ability of the employee at receiving or
accepting feedback or job direction.
Another way to assess the prospective employee's receiving feedback Interpersonal
Performance skill level in an interview is to provide real-time feedback based on what is
occurring in the interview. Most questions in an interview focus on Technical
Performance. The prospective employee's answers will often be at variance (sometimes
small; sometimes large) with the how she/he will be asked to Technically Perform if they
receive the position. Interviewers have the tendency not to challenge discrepant
information (often at the recommendation of legal counsel and HR staff for fear of legal
recriminations) and simply record discrepancies discussing them after the interview.
But, it is in politely challenging the interviewees' responses that vary from
expected Technical Performance that the interviewer will develop a more realistic picture
of how this prospective employee will probably Interpersonally Perform.
For new hires, little time would pass before they would be briefed on their benefits
and where to find the bathroom; even time would be spent orienting them to the Technical
Performance side of the position. Probably little orientation time would be
allocated to discussing and reviewing how to "get along" in the
organization. If empl0yees are prepared for possible mistakes or errors (whether
Technical or Interpersonal) they are more apt to choose the desired Performance and, as
with Managing any Performance, Interpersonal Performance must also be Monitored and
followed closely with timely and clear Performance Feedback.
Responsive Management Systems®
Can Help with
the Solution
Responsive Management Systems®
- S3®
Leadership Development Survey
Rev:
12/30/21
|
