Admissions of Wrongdoing
Students and faculty at MIT were surprised when their school dropped several places in U.S. News & World Report's annual ranking of colleges. MIT fell from a three-way tie for fourth to seventh place. Only after questioning from MIT's student newspaper did college admissions officials explain the drop. Until this year, when calculating the average SAT scores of new students, MIT had been excluding the scores of foreign students; since non-native English-speaking students tend to score lower in reading on SAT tests than their American-born classmates, omitting their scores inflated MIT's average and, thus, improved its standing in the magazine's report.
"We were not at all trying to do this in any way to increase our rankings," says interim admissions dean Stuart Schmill. He said it was an honest mistake uncovered during a database software change. But wait. There's a reason MIT has an INTERIM admissions director: this isn't the first scandal involving the MIT admissions department this year.
In April, Marilee Jones resigned her position as dean of admissions after admitting she lied about her credentials when applying for a job at MIT twenty-eight years ago. Jones falsely claimed to hold degrees from Albany Medical College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Union College. At the time, MIT Chancellor Phil Clay said, "It represents a very long deception when there were opportunities to correct the record. This is not a mistake or an oversight."
So, if Jones had no qualms about fabricating a few degrees on her resume, is it a stretch to imagine she had been purposely fudging the numbers submitted to U.S. News & World Report every year?
"We were not at all trying to do this in any way to increase our rankings," says interim admissions dean Stuart Schmill. He said it was an honest mistake uncovered during a database software change. But wait. There's a reason MIT has an INTERIM admissions director: this isn't the first scandal involving the MIT admissions department this year.
In April, Marilee Jones resigned her position as dean of admissions after admitting she lied about her credentials when applying for a job at MIT twenty-eight years ago. Jones falsely claimed to hold degrees from Albany Medical College, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Union College. At the time, MIT Chancellor Phil Clay said, "It represents a very long deception when there were opportunities to correct the record. This is not a mistake or an oversight."
So, if Jones had no qualms about fabricating a few degrees on her resume, is it a stretch to imagine she had been purposely fudging the numbers submitted to U.S. News & World Report every year?
Labels: credibility, integrity
Bookmark this post on del.icio.usAttribution Training
A client recently described to me her frustration with a chronically tardy worker. The employee performed well in most aspects of her job, but she was routinely late for work. Like many organizations, this company issues workers points, or demerits, each time they're late or have an unexcused absence. This particular employee was nearing the limit of points allowed and was facing certain termination. Why, wondered her manager, did the employee ignore the warnings and continue to put her job at risk?
I've written before about our tendency to hold external factors accountable for our own bad behavior (I'm late because traffic was really slow this morning) while crediting internal factors for our good behavior (I landed the account because of my tenacity). What if, instead of relying on punishments, we could influence worker actions by changing the way they attribute their own behavior?
In the 1970s, researchers Richard Miller, Philip Brickman, and Diana Bolen tested that concept with a group of fifth graders. They visited a classroom and, just before teachers dismissed students for recess, passed out pieces of candy wrapped in plastic. Once the students left for the playground, the researchers looked for the candy wrappers. Not surprisingly, they found more wrappers on the floor than in the wastebasket.
The experiment continued during the next two weeks, with grownups at the school provided comments to make to the students. For instance, the principal stopped by and said something along the lines of, "What a neat classroom. You must all be very neat students." One evening the custodian left a note on the blackboard, which read, "This is the neatest class in school. You must be very neat and clean students." And the teacher made similar comments, all with the same message, "You must be very neat students who really care about their room."
Two weeks later, the researchers returned, again with candy and right before recess. But this time when they counted the wrappers, they found a lot more in the wastebasket. Simply by providing students with the attribute "I'm a neat kid," the researchers were able to alter their littering behavior.
Of course, rewarding the kids for not littering, or punishing them when they did, might have also influenced in their behavior. To compare those options, Miller, Brickman, and Bolen studied the math achievements of second graders. They gave teachers preplanned scripts for individual students. Some students received attribution training (You work hard and seem to know your math assignments very well). Some received persuasion (Try harder, you should be getting better grades in math). And others received reinforcement (I'm proud of you and pleased with your progress). After eight days, students who received attribution training scored one to two test points higher (out of twenty) than those receiving persuasion and reinforcement.
When you're trying to change employee behavior, keep this in mind: Rewards and punishments are external factors and, as such, they prevent workers from forming the internal attributions that bring about the behavior that you're attempting to encourage. Try attribution training instead.
I've written before about our tendency to hold external factors accountable for our own bad behavior (I'm late because traffic was really slow this morning) while crediting internal factors for our good behavior (I landed the account because of my tenacity). What if, instead of relying on punishments, we could influence worker actions by changing the way they attribute their own behavior?
In the 1970s, researchers Richard Miller, Philip Brickman, and Diana Bolen tested that concept with a group of fifth graders. They visited a classroom and, just before teachers dismissed students for recess, passed out pieces of candy wrapped in plastic. Once the students left for the playground, the researchers looked for the candy wrappers. Not surprisingly, they found more wrappers on the floor than in the wastebasket.
The experiment continued during the next two weeks, with grownups at the school provided comments to make to the students. For instance, the principal stopped by and said something along the lines of, "What a neat classroom. You must all be very neat students." One evening the custodian left a note on the blackboard, which read, "This is the neatest class in school. You must be very neat and clean students." And the teacher made similar comments, all with the same message, "You must be very neat students who really care about their room."
Two weeks later, the researchers returned, again with candy and right before recess. But this time when they counted the wrappers, they found a lot more in the wastebasket. Simply by providing students with the attribute "I'm a neat kid," the researchers were able to alter their littering behavior.
Of course, rewarding the kids for not littering, or punishing them when they did, might have also influenced in their behavior. To compare those options, Miller, Brickman, and Bolen studied the math achievements of second graders. They gave teachers preplanned scripts for individual students. Some students received attribution training (You work hard and seem to know your math assignments very well). Some received persuasion (Try harder, you should be getting better grades in math). And others received reinforcement (I'm proud of you and pleased with your progress). After eight days, students who received attribution training scored one to two test points higher (out of twenty) than those receiving persuasion and reinforcement.
When you're trying to change employee behavior, keep this in mind: Rewards and punishments are external factors and, as such, they prevent workers from forming the internal attributions that bring about the behavior that you're attempting to encourage. Try attribution training instead.
Labels: communication, employees, leadership
Bookmark this post on del.icio.us
Author George Brymer's comments about the leaders who get it, and those who never will.
