Shape and Click: What My Dogs Taught Me about Building Better Systems

Back in 2012, the speaker at the University of Nevada, Reno Foundation’s annual banquet was Charles Duhigg of the New York Times, author of the book The Power of Habit.  What he described in his talk (and in more detail in the book) had to do with why people do what they do over and over again, and how they can change old habits or learn new ones.  He outlined the system of “cue, routine, reward” as a means by which behaviors are continually reinforced, and he offered the following framework for change:

Identify the routine

Experiment with rewards

Isolate the cue

Have a plan

As I sat listening to his talk, I recognized what he was describing as essentially being what psychologists and behaviorists refer to as operant conditioning.

While I had been exposed to the idea of operant conditioning in classes before, though, the truth is that I hadn’t really thought through all of the implications of its practical applications until nine years ago, when I adopted a dog from the humane society.  I took her to training classes with varying degrees of success and looked for various resources online.  I sometimes heard people refer to “clicker training,” but didn’t know exactly what it was or how it worked until, after having done a little research, I bought a book about it online.

The book explained the theory of operant conditioning and said that clicker training had been used to train dolphins and other marine mammals.  The book also explained the idea of “shaping” and it described in detail the steps one could take to teach dogs various kinds of tricks.  I was intrigued, so I got a clicker and started trying it out.

Although technically all dog training is based on the theory of operant conditioning, as explained in the infographic below, clicker training is primarily a form of positive reinforcement, so it is focused on the left side of the quadrant.  By contrast, traditional dog training usually involves more of a mix of both positive reinforcements and positive punishments.

“The Four Quadrants of Operant Conditioning” by lilita (Lily Chin) licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Using the clicker as a form of positive reinforcement provides a way of communicating with the dog to encourage more of certain behaviors.  As the dog figures this out, he or she will start offering up all sorts of behaviors that have been rewarded in the past.

With a little creativity and patience, people can begin to figure out how to break behaviors down into manageable steps as a way of teaching the dog something new.  When you want to train a new behavior, you only reward the steps that lead to that behavior as a way of shaping a new behavior.  It certainly takes patience, but when applied regularly and diligently, it can achieve amazing results.

We’ve all heard the expression “herding cats,” but as demonstrated in the video below, clicker training can work for both dogs and cats as a way of shaping behaviors.

So what does all this have to do with the topics I usually write about: prospect development, data analytics, research, and management?  Everything.  If we can understand how to use positive reinforcement to shape and develop new behaviors in dogs or cats, then we can certainly think through its implications for ourselves and those we work with.

In an earlier post, I cited Scott Adams on the importance of systems over goals; I’m pretty sure that he’d agree that a good understanding of the applicability of operant conditioning to many situations is a necessary prerequisite for a good system.  One of the reason that the situations in his comic strip Dilbert are as amusing as they are is that the systems at work in Dilbert’s workplace are set up to reward the most peculiar things, and so those things keep happening.

How have you used operant conditioning to shape behaviors in the past?  Perhaps you’ve applied it in your own life, or to teach a dog or cat a new trick, or to train someone at work.  And if you’re not sure if you’ve ever consciously applied it before, can you think of some situations in which you would like to try it? I’m interested in reading your comments below.

Returning from a Conference: Six Steps for Avoiding Post-Conference Let-Down

Although I was not able to attend this year’s APRA conference in New Orleans, I’m not complaining, as I have been fortunate enough to have attended three conferences since July 2013.  One thing I’ve learned as a result of having attended many conferences over the years, though, is that the conference high can sometimes be followed by the post-conference let-down, as you return to your office and fall back into your old routine, or worse, you find that few are interested in the things you learned or the ideas you have for how to change or improve things.

So what is a newly re-energized employee to do?  The most important thing is to focus and to develop a plan.  That means you need to figure out what you learned at the conference that was most useful and most valuable, and then you need to figure out what you want to do differently and how you intend to implement those changes.

That last sentence said a lot rather abstractly, so below, I’ve broken it down into a list of steps you might take.

“New Orleans Lakefront Airport” by kevinomara (Kevin O’Mara) licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

1. As you travel back from the conference (or at some point before you return to work next week), review your conference materials, and decide on three key points or issues you’d most like to focus on in the weeks and months ahead.  Why three?  One might be sufficient if it’s a big change, but start by identifying a few key areas for improvement, and then prioritizing.  I don’t recommend many more than three, though, because it is easy to lose focus and become overwhelmed.
2. With your three key issues identified, begin to figure out the steps you need to take to bring about those changes.  Is there anything you can change by yourself, just by modifying your routine?  Or do they require more of a long-term change that will require systematic changes around your division or department?  Maybe the items on your list are a mix of both.
3. If the issues that interest you involve others in your division or department, identify some key allies with whom you can share your ideas.  Maybe they are colleagues who went to the conference with you, or maybe they are people who work in completely different areas of development with whom you have developed a good working relationship over the years.
4. With your action steps in mind and your allies identified, begin meeting and making plans to implement some of your changes.  Part of this involves thinking strategically, and recognizing the challenges and obstacles you are likely to encounter, be they technical, political, or both.
5. With the challenges and obstacles clearly identified, revise and expand your action steps with your strategy in mind.  Maybe one person on your newly-assembled team has a better relationship with a particular individual or department than you do, and you need the cooperation of that individual department to bring about more of a change.  Or maybe what you really need to do is to develop a better communication plan for getting your message out to more people in the division.
6. Be focused and persistent; recognize that you’re working to improve the system, and that systemic changes often take time.  You might start out with one vision, but you might end up in a completely different place, and that’s o.k.  The important thing is that you are remaining engaged, that you are taking action, and that you are forging stronger relationships with others in your department and your division in the process, and hopefully, everyone is working together more effectively than before to further the goals of your organization.

What do you generally do to retain your enthusiasm and engagement after you return from a conference?  Have you followed steps like those above in the past?  Or maybe you went about things in a different way?  Please share your thoughts in the comments below.

Prospect Development, Continued: Goals vs. Systems

In my last post, I wrote about the rationales behind the changing name of the field in which I work, from prospect research to prospect development.  In my post, I wasn’t trying to belittle the value that prospect research offers, has offered, or can offer; instead, I was explaining that the changing name is about positioning research and allied fields in the context of the development process, and explaining that these days, an increasing number of organizations are recognizing that the role of research departments can be optimized by making sure that research is fully integrated with many other functions, including data analytics and relationship management.

Focusing just on the terminology of “prospect research” and “prospect development,” though may be the wrong approach to appreciating the nature of the repositioning.  A more useful explanation of the different strategies comes from Scott Adams, creator of the comic strip Dilbert.  In March of this  year, I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the DRIVE/ 2015 conference in Seattle, where Adams was one of the featured speakers.  His speech was based around themes from his book How to Fail at Almost Everything and Still Win Big: Kind of the Story of My Life.

His speech entertained us with stories of his various failures in life, but it also served as an occasion for him to advance his unconventional advice.  People giving advice typically say things like “you need passion” and “you need goals,” but in his book and in his speech, Adams dismisses both of those as key elements of success.  About goals, for instance, he writes:

To put it bluntly, goals are for losers.  That’s literally true most of the time.  For example, if your goal is to lose ten pounds, you will spend every moment until you reach the goal–if you reach it at all–feeling as if you were short of your goal.  In other words, goal-oriented people exist in a state of nearly continuous failure that they hope will be temporary.  That feeling wears on you.  In time, it becomes heavy and uncomfortable.  It might even drive you out of the game.  (Adams, 32)

Instead of goals, he recommends systems, and he explains the difference this way: “let’s say a goal is a specific objective that you either achieve or don’t sometime in the future.  A system is something that you do on a regular basis that increases your odds of happiness in the long run.  If you do something every day, it’s a system” (Adams, 33).

In his speech, he illustrated the difference by talking about some of his experiences in high school.  He said that in high school, he was very goal-oriented, and one of his goals at the time was finding a girlfriend.  He would decide on a girl who he was interested in, he would spend a lot of time thinking about her and learning what he could about her, and when he finally got the nerve to ask her out, one of three things would happen.  She would say: 1). “I don’t like you,” or 2). “I have a boyfriend,” or 3). “I don’t like you and I have a boyfriend.”

He contrasted his experience with that of his friend Manuel.  Manuel had a system for finding a girlfriend.  He would go to places where there were lots of girls, he would meet quite a few of them, he would ask many of them out, and most of the time they said no, but some of the time they agreed.  In this respect, Manuel had much more success in finding a girlfriend than Scott Adams because Manuel had a system that increased his odds of success, whereas Scott Adams was just fixated on his goal.

That anecdote applies perfectly to the way many development offices operate, as well.  Although most development offices say they are working towards goals, some are fixated on those goals in a way that can hinder their success, whereas other offices are more interested in implementing good and workable systems–and a multi-faceted and well-integrated prospect development operation is a key part of a great system.

Part of the beauty of the advice about goals vs. systems is that it can be applied to various components of any kind of work.  We could set goals for our work and feel frustrated when we don’t meet them, or we can devise systems for getting things done and feel successful for all we are able to accomplish every time we apply those systems.

How might the distinction between systems vs. goals help you to be more successful in your job?  How might it benefit the organization for which you work?  I’d welcome your thoughts and comments below.