“If you pit a good performer against a bad system, the system will win almost every time” – Rummler & Brache

[An encore post from the Peregrine Performance Group archives. Originally published May 2012.]

I returned last week from a conference about performance improvement. In several of the workshops I attended, we talked about a model of behavioral influence that I find useful in my day-to-day work and I thought I’d provide a pointer to it.

I build training programs and tools that support training (e.g., games, eLearning modules, videos, job-aids, etc.). But, as we all know, training is expensive—sometimes HUGELY expensive—and, often, behind almost every request for a training program is a larger human performance issue. When addressing these performance issues, I often find myself using this model to help our clients troubleshoot performance issues. It helps us talk about ways to influence behavior that are often more effective than training – things managers and organizations must do, in addition to training, to bring about desired performance (i.e., behavior changes, better work outputs).

Behind almost every request for a training program is a larger human performance issue.

The model comes from the work of Thomas Gilbert (he dubbed it the Behavioral Engineering Model, or BEM), and it has been updated by several people, including somewhat recently Carl Binder (the Six Boxes and Performance Thinking models) and Roger Chevalier (the Updated BEM).

The model has six components.

The first three are factors from the work environment (i.e., the organization has a great deal of control over these) and the second three are individual factors (i.e., they are dependent on and related to the person).

The environmental (or organizational) factors include information, resources, and incentives. The individual (or personal) factors are knowledge/skills, capacity, and motives.

What do these mean?

In order for your organization to get the performance it wants from its workers it must provide (i.e., managers must ensure/confirm) the following for the workers:

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS

(1) Information – Clear expectations and feedback around the performer’s roles and responsibilities.

(2) Resources – The materials, tools, and time required to do the job. This includes clearly defined processes and procedures.

(3) Incentives – Both financial and non-financial incentives; enough compensation to take the money-issue off the table, and a positive work environment.

INDIVIDUAL FACTORS

(4) Knowledge/Skills – You must have performers with the necessary knowledge, skills and experience to perform the job. And you must have them in the right positions. (This is of course the domain of training.)

(5) Capacity – You must have (hired) workers who have the capacity to learn and do what is required.

(6) Motives – You must have (hired) workers whose motives are aligned with the work you want them to do and with the work environment. 

Roger Chevalier has produced a useful summary table of these factors.

Also, I’d like to point you to a diagram, Leveraging the Solution, from Chevalier's article (page 10) that suggests that the two most important factors for leveraging results are information and resources. Note that of these six factors knowledge and skills development (the domain of training and the point closest to the fulcrum) provides the least leverage.

What Does this Mean for You?

When you start thinking that you’ve got a training issue, it's usually wise consider questions of this nature first:

• Have I (or have my managers) been clear regarding my expectations for my workers?
• Are my/our processes clearly delineated?
• Do I/we have reasonably good job-aids in place?
• How well does the environment my employees work in support what I’d like to teach them? And, if necessary, what can I do to change that?

And What's the Upshot?

While training professionals may design and develop great training programs for you (at Peregrine, we're exceptionally good at this; contact us if you need help in this area), your training dollars will be much better spent and your performance improvement interventions far more effective if you confirm supports of this nature are are in place: clear expectations; relevant and frequent feedback; required materials, tools and time; clearly defined processes and procedures; etc.

As our colleagues Geary Rummler and Alan Brache put it:

Over the long haul, even strong people can’t compensate for a weak process. Sure, some occasional success may come from team or individual heroics. But if you pit a good performer against a bad system, the system will win almost every time.

If you'd like assistance analyzing the degree to which these factors are aligned with your upcoming training initiatives, contact Peregrine Performance Group today.

See also The Six Boxes model and Roger Chavalier’s original article, “Updating the Behavior Engineering Model”. Roger’s article (a PDF) contains a nice summary of and update to Thomas GIlbert’s Behavior Engineering Model as well as a useful cause analysis tool. Rummler and Brache’s book Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart provides a useful framework for process design.

Follow Russ on Twitter, and Peregrine Performance Group on Twitter, LinkedIn and Facebook.