The Responsive Management^® Paradigm

Evolution: Identifying and Replicating Excellence

Responsive Management^® is a model or paradigm whose evolution goes back some 25 years.  It all "started", you might say, 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):

1. Find "that someone" who is achieving the desired outcomes;
   
2. Observe what they do;
   
3. Record their actions in temporal sequence;
   
4. Replicate their actions by developing instructional strategies;
   
5. Measure for achievement of the desired outcomes.

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:

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   
3. Recording the observations, without interpretation, and organizing them into skill sets.
   
4. Replicating the recorded observations (skill sets) with other supervisors through applied instruction (not didactic instruction);
   
5. 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^® is based on the thinking and interaction skills identified in that investigative process begun in 1974 and continues to this day since 50% of the services provided by Responsive Management Systems^® are "on-the-line" consultation, intervention and coaching where day to day operations are taking place.

Key Organizational Elements of Quality

The Responsive Management^® 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.

Key Steps to Managing Performance Quality

Effectively Managing Performance Quality requires satisfying Steps (see Diagram B):

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.

Key Elements of Individual Performance Quality

Effectively performing in an organization requires three kinds of Performance (see Diagram C):  STRATEGIC PERFORMANCE; TECHNICAL PERFORMANCE; and INTERPERSONAL PERFORMANCE.

The Problem:  Managing Different Kinds of Performance Differently

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 Elements 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 Problem, 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 Elements of Managing Performance Quality; MENTALLY 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 problem.  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 problematic Interpersonal Performance.

The Solution:  Manage Different Kinds of Performance the Same

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.

An Example

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 employees 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^®
Can Help with the Solution

Responsive Management Systems^® - Company Profile

Responsive Management Systems^® - Training

Responsive Management Systems^® - Conflict Resolution

Responsive Management Systems^® - Facilitation

Upcoming Public Seminars

Rev:  02/04/09