Analysis of the Sociologically Examined Life - The Beginning 03/04 by CharlesXLamson | Art

Analysis of the Sociologically Examined Life - The Beginning 03/04 by CharlesXLamson | Art: 'Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors - ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.' -Sam Harris 1st half: Where the Esoteric Meets the Exoteric - Part 1 of Analysis of Manly P. Hall's The Secret Destiny of America 2nd half: Where the Exoteric Meets the Esoteric - The Sociologically Examined Life Analyzed (part 1)

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 7)

The Value of Intermittent Reinforcement

by

Charles Lamson

A reinforcer is a stimulus (such as a reward or the removal of an electric shock) that increases the probability of a desired response in operant conditioning by being applied or effected following the desired response. Common sense tells us that if people receive reinforcers every time they do something, they will maximize their efforts. If you knew that every time you performed a certain way, you would get something you want, wouldn't you work your hardest? If you answered yes, common sense would have led you astray.

The answer to this question, believe it or not, is no. Once the basic performance has been well established, intermittent reinforcement generates higher levels of performance than continuous reinforcement.

There are at least four advantages to intermittent reinforcement.

1. Intermittent Reinforcement Maintains Performance

If you have a reinforcer and deliver it effectively, performance will usually change rapidly. Your goals will be reached and often exceeded in less time than you ever imagined. Maintaining this performance gain in the ensuing months and years requires intermittent reinforcement. What could make a fisherman spend hours sitting nearly motionless, holding on to a pole with a piece of string dangling in the water? For simplicity, let's regard the behavior as fishing and the reinforcer as catching a fish. Examine the following sequence of events.

On the first few fishing trips, a young fisherman is successful, he catches fish each trip. After several successful trips, he goes on a trip where he catches no fish. Will he go again? Probably. Suppose on his next trip he is successful again, but on the next two trips he is unsuccessful. Will he go again? Probably.

With this kind of reinforcement history, he will most likely continue fishing for a long time even though he will have occasional trips when the fish aren't biting. His experience has taught him that if he does not catch fish on one trip, he might catch fish the next time out. His performance will probably be maintained despite failure because catching fish is on an intermittent schedule of reinforcement.

Some hunters hunt all season without killing a deer. Football fans continue to go to games in spite of their favorite team's long losing streaks. Many golfers have vowed to quit the game during a bad round, only to change their minds after hitting their best drive ever on the last hole. Millions of people buy tickets to the state lotteries every week but rarely win. Many writers persist in writing in the face of numerous rejections. Thomas Edison was reputed to have said that he discovered 10,000 ways not to make a light bulb before he found a way that worked. Examples of this kind of motivation are endless. You might say that a history of intermittent reinforcement gives people hope.

People do, however, give up on projects and lose interest in hobbies and activities. If reinforcement does not reach some minimum level, extinction will occur (Extinction refers to a procedure in which reinforcement of a previously reinforced operant performance is discontinued. When a previously conditioned performance is extinguished (no longer reinforced), it generally occurs initially with a high frequency and then falls continuously until its rate reaches near zero.). However, intermittent schedules produce behavior that is relatively resistant to extinction.

To help people develop a habit that is resistant to extinction, the behavior must get high levels of reinforcement early in the learning stage. If that is done, the habits can be maintained with relatively little reinforcement.

The advantage that intermittent reinforcement provides for organizations is that it permits employees to maintain high levels of performance under limited supervision. Salespeople working away from the office for extended periods of time, long-distance truck drivers, service technicians, security guards, night-shift employees, auditors, entrepreneurs, and consultants are a few of the jobs that must be established on intermittent schedules for best performance. An additional advantage of intermittent schedules is that they allow a manager to be away from the office for a long time and not have decreases in performance due to lack of social reinforcement. The advantage that intermittent reinforcement has for individuals is that you can't just pat someone on the head and forget about him. Some reinforcement is required on a continual basis. In other words, don't take high performance for granted. Managers frequently ask, "How long do I have to reinforce behaviors?" The answer is as long as you want that behavior to continue.

2. Intermittent reinforcement avoids the problem of satiation.

Reinforcers lose their effectiveness if they are used too often. We all experience this condition when we tire of a particular food or dessert because we have had it too frequently within a short period of time. It happens with clothes, with activities, and can occur with practically all reinforcers. Satiation is especially likely when the selection of tangibles is limited. How many logo pens, key chains, or coffee mugs do you really need? Using tangibles only occasionally will sustain their reinforcing properties for a longer period of time. Reinforcement on an intermittent schedule and using a variety of social and tangible reinforcers maximizes effectiveness.

3. Intermittent reinforcement frees managers to reinforce many different behaviors and performances.

Managers are responsible for numerous performers and their many behaviors. Reinforcing all of the behaviors on a continuous schedule is impossible. There simply is not enough time. Intermittent reinforcement makes reinforcing the behavior of many individual performers possible. Often, in organizations using Performance Management, managers or supervisors have five or more performance improvement plans under way at the same time. This is possible because as the demand for reinforcement decreases on one project, another can be started.

4. Intermittent reinforcement explains why some people seem to perform without reinforcement.

You may occasionally encounter a situation where people perform at a high level apparently in the absence of positive reinforcement. To the skeptic, this apparent exception proves that reinforcement is useful only for some problems and for some people.

Consider the star performers who are constantly prompt, efficient, and productive. In watching them perform over extended periods of time, you may not witness any positive reinforcement. In response to surveys, they may not recall receiving any reinforcement. But a long time ago, most likely when they were children, their parents probably gave them attention for achievements and for learning new tasks. Or, perhaps as new employees, they were fortunate enough to receive a good bit of reinforcement. As they learned the job, their supervisor or trainer may have given considerable reinforcement as they made progress.

After awhile, as a natural course of events, the supervisor began to reinforce their performance less and less often as they became more and more proficient in the job. By that time, even if new supervisors took over, an occasional comment about their work would be all it took to keep performance at a high level. Now, years later, they seem to work independently of reinforcement. In reality, they can sustain high performance on a very lean schedule of reinforcement because of a rich reinforcement history.

People who respond with high levels of behavior, even with little reinforcement in the present, can do so because of their reinforcement history. These people are typically referred to as self-motivated, inner-driven, or self-starters. And you will discover, even these people need reinforcers on some schedule.

Eisenberger (1992) in a series of studies investigating what he called learned industriousness found that people with a history of reinforcement for extra effort, generated not only a high rate of performance on the reinforced tasks but approached other tasks with the same high effort. This same history also produced performers who were more persistent, who tolerated aversive tasks better, and who were more honest than those with a history of continuous reinforcement.

*SOURCE: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, AUBREY C. DANIELS & JAMES E. DANIELS  PGS. 77-80*

end

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 6) 03/01 by CharlesXLamson | Management

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 6) 03/01 by CharlesXLamson | Management: 'Take advantage of every opportunity to practice your communication skills so that when important occasions arise, you will have the gift, the style, the sharpness, the clarity, and the emotions to affect other people.' -Jim Rohn 1st half: The Esoteric - Manly P. Hall's Analysis of Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma 2nd half: The Exoteric - Analysis of Organizational Communication for Survival

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 5) 02/28 by CharlesXLamson | Management

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 5) 02/28 by CharlesXLamson | Management: 'A man's character may be learned from the adjectives which he habitually uses in conversation.' -Mark Twain

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 6)

Negative Reinforcement

by

Charles Lamson

Negative reinforcers increase behavior because people behave to escape or avoid a negative consequence. We shut the window to avoid the cold. We close the door to keep out insects. The difference in escape and avoidance is often defined in terms of whether we are proactive or reactive. The proactive response is to prevent the negative consequence from occurring (avoidance). We work late to prevent the negative consequence we know will happen if we are late with our project. Working late, then, is an avoidance behavior. We are reactive when we respond to a consequence that is occurring. We are cold so we close the window to stop the cold from continuing to enter the room (escape).

Negative reinforcement as a concept is somewhat confusing in that most people think of avoiding or escaping a consequence as not being a consequence. Usually all we see is the behavior because the behavior prevented the punishment from occurring, but it was the presence of that potential punisher that caused the escape or avoidance behavior. Negative reinforcement is usually the answer to the question, "Why are they doing that?" when there is no evidence of positive reinforcement. Usually you will find the punishment or penalty contingency when you investigate. Note that the contingency may be stated to reduce the frequency of a behavior ("If you do that one more time..."). Whatever you do to avoid or escape aversive consequences is driven by negative reinforcement.

Many times you will hear someone say, "I negatively reinforced that behavior." More often than not this is an incorrect statement. Most likely they punished or penalized some behavior. In many popular management books, negative reinforcement is often confused with punishment: The two terms are often presented as synonyms. They are far from synonyms. They produce the exact opposite effects. Negative reinforcement increases behavior; punishment and penalty decrease behavior.

Negative reinforcement consists of two separate conditions, both closely linked to possible punishment. The first condition occurs when a punishment or penalty contingency is in operation and your behavior terminates it. If you have ever been told "I know you need to go, but you must finish this job before you leave," your behavior was under the control of negative reinforcement. Your behavior terminates the unpleasant condition and you leave work as soon as the job is done. The second condition occurs when you receive a threat or warning such as, "If you do that again, you will be written up."  You will work to avoid having that negative consequence occur. Whatever you do to avoid being written up is a negatively reinforced behavior.

After a number of years of not teaching the difference between positive and negative reinforcement, the writers of Performance Management discovered that when managers do not understand the difference, the majority of performance improvement efforts are driven by negative reinforcement. In addition, because negative reinforcement increases behavior, some managers do not see the need for positive reinforcement. In other words, as a result of using negative reinforcement to reach their goals, the managers may receive bonuses and other positive consequences. The problem is that once the consequence has been avoided, there is no motivation to do more. As long as the person does enough to keep the negative consequence from happening, he has maximized his effort.

William Edwards Deming was an American engineer, statistician, professor, author, lecturer, and management consultant. In his seminars, he told managers mangers to eliminate goals and standards. His observation was that they capped performance. He was observing that most goals and standards are achieved and maintained by negative reinforcement. He also told his audience to eliminate fear from the workplace. He did not use the term negative reinforcement as the method by which fear is maintained in the workplace, but that was, in effect, what he was describing. There is a cost to the organization that relies on this process either as a deliberate strategy or by a lack of awareness. Such settings, in Deming's words, "drive-in fear." Even though in some cases it may be difficult to see real differences in either rate or duration of responding under the two consequences, negative reinforcement almost always produces negative reports from employees as it relates to management and the workplace in general. When leaders endorse the use of negative consequences as the primary way to achieve organizational results, directly as an active participant or indirectly through policies and systems, it always produces ethical concerns and an organization that never performs up to its potential.

Although some behavior analytic research (e.g., Perone, 2003) suggests that it is often difficult to discriminate between results produced by positive reinforcement from those produced by negative reinforcement, these researchers rarely consider the contextual aspects of fear-driven organizations as part of the experiment. The writers would argue as well that such experiments cannot be generalized easily to the real world of work. Performance Management is not simply about obtaining results quickly or at high rates. How we obtain those results does count.

We encounter negative reinforcers many times every day. The behavior we display shows up as in driving fast to avoid being late. Children do their homework to avoid nagging from their parents. We go to the dentist to escape some pain or discomfort. We put on sunglasses to avoid the glare. Our legal system is almost exclusively a negative reinforcement system with few rewards in it for good behavior, only negative reinforcement and punishment for illegal behavior.

As you may understand by now, negative reinforcement requires some level of fear to be effective. The degree may be slight, such as fear of being embarrassed in a meeting, worrying about disappointing someone who is important to you, or fear of loss of income and status. This poses a problem for the company that relies too heavily on negative reinforcement to get work done. People do not want a job they are afraid of. They will escape such work by quitting. When they cannot usually because of economic circumstances, they will go to great lengths to avoid the feared consequence, including sometimes lying, cheating, and stealing. It is not unheard of that a manager or supervisor juggles the numbers to meet a quota or budget. In the case of Enron, executives went to the trouble of setting up companies for the purpose of hiding losses. We have known of cases where employees have carried production waste home rather than having it show up on a report. Absenteeism, turnover, and poor morale are other problems associated with excessive reliance on negative reinforcement.

If negative reinforcement is used to get a behavior started, positive reinforcement should be used to keep it going. The cost of managing by negative reinforcement is high. The cost is not only in terms of organizational profit, but it takes its toll on the managers as well as the employees they manage.

It must be pointed out that negative reinforcement is not bad; it just causes a predictable effect on behavior. When compliance is all that is needed, negative reinforcement can often get you there. When there is no behavior to positively reinforce you may need a negative reinforcement contingency such as "If you haven't finished this task by 5:00 pm, you must stay until it is completed" to get a behavior to positively reinforce. However, once the behavior has occurred under negative reinforcement control, to be most effective and efficient, the behavior must be positively reinforced as soon as it occurs.

*SOURCE: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, AUBREY C. DANIELS & JAMES E. DANIELS, PGS. 62-64*

end

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 4) 02/26 by CharlesXLamson | Management

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 4) 02/26 by CharlesXLamson | Management: 'Words - so innocent and powerless as they are, as standing in a dictionary, how potent for good and evil they become in the hands of one who knows how to combine them.' -Nathaniel Hawthorne 1st half: The Esoteric - Manly P. Hall's Analysis of Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma 2nd half: The Exoteric - Analysis of Organizational Communication for Survival

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 3) 02/25 by CharlesXLamson | Current Events

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 3) 02/25 by CharlesXLamson | Current Events: 1st half: The Esoteric - Part 3 of Manly P. Halls Analysis of Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma 2nd half: The Exoteric - Part 3 of Analysis of Organizational Communication for Survival

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 5)

The ABC Model

by

Charles Lamson

The ABC Model is based on scientific research in behavior analysis. So in this post we will begin our scientific exposition of why people do what they do. Here we begin to look at behavior from a much more precise perspective. If we are to build processes and systems that maximize the return on assets employed, we must know as much as possible about the essential building block: behavior.

The ABC Model is also known as the three-term contingency - Antecedent, Behavior and Consequence. The three-term contingency refers to the fact that every behavior is affected by something that comes before it and by what it produces.

We continuously respond to signals and signs in our internal and external environment (antecedents) that lead to some action on our part (behavior), which in turn leads to something happening as a result of our action (consequence). As illustrated by Figure 1, a consequence may be an antecedent for another instance of the same behavior. We have all experienced the situation where someone offers us chips or candy (antecedent). We take one piece and eat it (behavior). It tastes so good (consequence/antecedent) that we take another and eat it (behavior). Unfortunately, for most of us this is repeated too many times every day.

Figure 1 ABC Model

It is important to know that antecedents and consequences are not equal in their effect on behavior. Simply put, antecedents draw their power from consequences. To use an analogy from electricity, consequences charge antecedents. As you will see throughout this analysis, common sense experience often teaches us the wrong thing. If you observe people in problem-solving situations, you will find that their behavior indicates that they believe antecedents are the most effective way to change behavior.

By far, the most common way of trying to implement change in an organization is to change antecedents rather than consequences. We train, explain, involve people in decision making, have meetings, send out clarifying memos, et cetera. We do these things in spite of the fact that the closest thing we have to a behavioral law is that behavior is a function of its consequences. In helping executives understand why their organizational change initiatives did not live up to expectations, it is almost always due to the fact that they implemented change with no significant difference in the consequences to the people involved in the change. Billions of dollars are wasted every year by such tactics.

If you are to grow any organization or even maintain it over time, an understanding of behavioral consequences is necessary to make maximum progress. We use the term behavioral consequences to differentiate it from the more common use of the word consequences. Understanding the use of the complete ABC Model is important if you are to arrange conditions and change behavior efficiently, effectively, and for the longer term.

Consequences

Behavioral consequences are events that follow a behavior and change the probability that the behavior will recur in the future. Consequences are the single most effective tool a manager has for improving employee performance and morale. As amazing as it may sound, there is one straightforward answer to the problems of poor quality, low productivity, high costs, and disgruntled employees - behavioral consequences.

In hundreds of offices and plants, hospitals, hotels, restaurants, and other kinds of organizations, the ineffective use of consequences has created and maintained poor performance and low morale. But providing appropriate consequences has produced dramatic increases in the bottom line and employee satisfaction.

Here you will be introduced to the various consequences and how they operate in the everyday work environment. You will see that consequences affect performance whether you attempt to manage them or not. If you do not manage consequences, they will simply operate unsystematically and often in ways that are counterproductive, because consequences are always occurring and always impacting behavior. Think of it this way: We are not always aware of how gravity is affecting what we do, but we know that it is. Similarly, consequences always affect our behavior, whether we are aware of it, believe it, or understand it.

There are two basic consequences: those that increase behavior and those that decrease it.

The Effects of Consequences

Some consequences increase the probability that a behavior will occur and some decrease the probability that a behavior will occur. Although a casual examination seems to indicate that some behavioral consequences have no effect on behavior, close examination shows that not to be the case. It is just that the change in the behavior is too small to be detected by casual observation.

Behavior followed by consequences - this pattern repeats itself many, many times throughout every day. It is so obvious, so commonplace, we have learned to ignore it. For example, put money in a candy machine and press the button. Usually, the candy comes tumbling out. But what if no candy comes out? Will you use the machine again? You might try again but if it still failed to work, you would probably stop. The behavior of putting money in that machine depends on the consequence - receiving candy. Remove that consequence and behavior changes. You will probably seek another machine that works - one that produces the consequence you want - or, you will forget it and go on to something else.

Every behavior has a consequence that affects its future probability. That is, consequences do not simply influence what someone does; they control it. To understand why people do what they do, instead of asking "Why did they do that?" ask "What happens to them when they do that?" When you understand the consequences, you are most likely to understand the behavior.

Consequences come in many forms and endless varieties. What people do to us, what they say to us, what they give us, and what they don't give us can all affect our behavior. As you will see, both the presence of a consequence and the absence of a consequence affect behavior.

Take a look at the examples in Figure 2. In each of the examples, something has happened to the individuals after their behavior. We cannot say how these consequences will affect other performers in similar situations because different people often respond differently to the same consequence. If Bill does not like to work overtime, the consequence of having to work late or on the weekend may increase the likelihood that he will complete his work on time in the future. On the other hand, if he needs the money, he may be less likely to complete work on schedule in the future. The point is that whether a consequence has a positive or negative effect on behavior can only be determined by its effect on future behavior.

Figure 2 Consequences Follow Behavior

*SOURCE: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, AUBREY C. DANIELS & JAMES E. DANIELS, PGS. 49-51* 

end

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 2) 02/23 by CharlesXLamson | Management

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 2) 02/23 by CharlesXLamson | Management: 'The best way to solve problems and to fight against war is through dialogue.' -Malala Yousafzai

Performance Management: Changing Behavior That Drives Organizational Effectiveness (part 4)

TOP STORIES

Search Results

Ohio River continues to rise, officials warn against more flooding

KFVS-12 hours ago

Ohio River continues to rise, officials warn against more flooding ... The Ohio Riverhas already forced the closure of the casino and about half a ...

Flooding may force closure of US 51 Ohio River bridge between ...

WPSD Local 6-17 hours ago

WICKLIFFE, KY — The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet says floodwaters may force the U.S. 51 Ohio River bridge connecting Wickliffe, ...

By West Kentucky Star Staff
West Kentucky Star-18 hours ago

View all

Overflowing Ohio, Mississippi Rivers Raise Specter of Midwest Flooding

Bloomberg-20 hours ago

An onslaught of rains over several months has raised water levels for the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers, threatening floods along banks in the ...

Flood precautions underway with river on the rise
Vicksburg Post-15 hours ago

View all

Forget the Mind Games; Deal with Behavior
by
Charles Lamson

What is going on in employees' heads is not the business of managers. The employees' behavior is our business. We do not hire people's knowledge (that which is inside the brains or minds of people); we hire their behavior that demonstrates what we define as their knowledge. In business, the employee enters into an understanding or a contract, explicit or implicit, with the employer that says that he or she will do what the organization requires. It is legitimate to require people to change their behavior at work. It is not legitimate to require to require them to change their minds. 

Trying to solve a business problem by trying to change thoughts and feelings is a very inefficient approach to changing performance. While everyone has thoughts and feelings, and those thoughts and feelings seem concrete enough to the individual, we do not attempt to manipulate them in our approach. In conducting scientific research, thoughts and feelings are difficult to get at and study. Although much has been written and much research has been, and is being, conducted on thinking and feeling, those elements are not the primary subject of the book Performance Management. Granted, the thoughts and feelings of each of us are important. If such private events are shared or demonstrated in ways that we might describe as "emotional" (a loud outburst, crying, laughing, yelling) or in other overt ways, then they become relevant to our discussion, since they are observable. We know that if people are treated well, they will often say that they feel good about their work environment. If people are encouraged to act in ways that reduce differences between themselves and their colleagues, they will often report a reduction in thoughts of exclusion. That is how thoughts and feelings function in relation to behavior. Managers and colleagues are interested in how others think and feel, but again, we only know them by what we are told or what we see. We ask, "What could you have been thinking when you did that? or say, "You act like you don't feel well" or "You act like you are angry all the time" or "You act happy." We can only assume those things from observing some overt behavior of the person.

We infer thoughts and feelings of others from behavior; there is no other way to know that thoughts and feelings even exist. So why not focus on what can be known rather than what we can only speculate about? A little reflection reveals that when we say someone has a bad attitude or a good attitude toward work we are basing our statement on what he is doing and then using what we infer as an attitude to be the internal cause of behavior. This reasoning is circular and has no place in science because it is false logic and counterproductive.

If thoughts and feelings do not translate at some point to overt behavior they have no value to the business. Some would say that decision making and problem solving are mental activities. It would be helpful if we could capture brilliant thought, but we can only observe the overt actions and the ultimate result; then we use that data to improve decisions and solutions of others. We can describe exemplars in this area based on the value that their effective decisions (actions) have on solutions. If we study them closely, we can find patterns that may be worthy of replicating.

Trying to solve a business problem by first trying to change thoughts and feelings is usually not efficient. It is much more productive to change behaviors that would result in different thoughts and feelings (i.e. behavior under the skin). Contrary to popular psychological thought and practice, you do not always need to get what is bothering you out into the open before you can solve a problem. While people have negative thoughts and feelings about things that have happened to them in the past, dealing with them is not necessary to change behavior. Forgetting and forgiveness can happen without reliving the past. The best way to change someone's feeling or thoughts is to change their behavior. If you are doing things that lead to positive outcomes for you, that are successful, that make you smile or laugh, you no doubt feel good and think positively about your situation. Where what you are doing is unsuccessful or leads to criticism and rejection, you feel badly and think negatively.

The writers (Aubrey C. Daniels & James E. Daniels) contend that when the methods suggested in this book are implemented correctly, people will have positive thoughts and feelings about what they do and about the place in which they do it. With that said, however, it is worth pointing out that behaviors we typically label as emotional (negative) are of considerable concern to management. Generally these are behaviors of such intensity and are so disruptive and inappropriate that we are forced to attend to them immediately. Our society has many examples of employees who reacted to some aversive consequence(s) at work in a very destructive way. For example, a manager displaying repeated anger in front of his or her employees will create an environment of fear. How management acts to prevent or correct such behaviors is important. The key to successfully dealing with overtly negative behaviors is important. The key to successfully dealing with overtly negative behaviors is to investigate behavior-consequence relationships that produce the reaction and then, if possible, make the necessary changes.

*SOURCE: PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT: CHANGING BEHAVIOR THAT DRIVES ORGANIZATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS, 4TH ED., 2004, AUBREY C. DANIELS & JAMES E. DANIELS, PGS. 37-39*

end

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 1) 02/21 by CharlesXLamson | Management

Organizational Communication for Survival: An Analysis (part 1) 02/21 by CharlesXLamson | Management: 'Don't tell me the moon is shining; show me the glint of light on broken glass.' -Anton Chekhov