Josh Birkholz

Do performance metrics actually change behavior? Part 2 of 3

In my last blog post (part 1 of 3), I discussed motivating behavior by being mindful of employee self-interest while outlining organizational priorities.  In this week’s posting, I want to discuss the idea of the data-itself motivating behavior.

The concept of the feedback loop describes the interchange of data which influences behavior directly.  You might be familiar with the Wired magazine article on the subject which used speed limit radar signs as an example.  Even though the speedometer provides you with direct data on your speed, the radar sign declaring “Your Speed is:” has a greater impact on changing your behavior.  Even though this is only 20 degrees difference in sight line, it makes a difference.  A motivating factor might be that other’s also see your speed.

Data changes your behavior when peer input is a factor (pressure or competition), self interest is a factor (personal security or success) and in gamification (fun). the speed limit sign is an example of peer pressure.  A leader board is an example of positive competition.  

A good example of personal security is mission control.  An astronaut will immediately act upon data because it is tied to his or her well being.  Hearing “Fire!” or “Danger!” will cause us to react without being told we need to change what we are doing.  The reaction is without persuasion.

Success-based self interest might be seen in the stock market.  Based on performance data alone, we might buy or sell securities, rethink our 401K distribution, or change or risk levels.  Motivated by success, the data alone changes our behaviors.

We also see this behavior in video games.  When I am playing Bioshock, I will switch from Eve to weapons when my Eve levels deplete.  Or, I will play more conservatively when my health meter declines.  No one is persuading me to change my behavior, the real-time data is all I need.

How on earth does this apply to fundraising?  I think your mind is probably racing the same way mine was as I thought through these examples.  Motivating gift officer performance is thought to require management intervention based on findings in the metrics.  However, if the metrics can be delivered in such a way that influence is immediate, there is a distinct advantage.

Are your reports tapping into peer pressure or fueling competitiveness?  In other words, do you communicate these broadly for all people in your organization to see?  Do your fundraisers, as described in my first post, see their performance and the resulting organizational benefit as directly tied to their personal benefit?  Is it fun?

As you develop or enhance your fundraising performance metrics, consider these examples to see real and immediate change.

In part 3 of 3, I will describe 7 steps to rolling-out effective performance management plans at your nonprofit.

Joshua Birkholz

Bentz Whaley Flessner

Do performance metrics actually change behavior? Part 1 of 3

Last week I delivered a presentation on performance metrics in fundraising with the very brilliant Heather Campbell of Princeton University.  During the session, I commented that most of the prospect management and metrics sessions and articles fall way too short.  Typically, they provide new means of measuring activity, but lack any suggestions for improving lackluster performance.

So, for my next three blog posts, I will muse about changing behavior through performance metrics.  In my now 8th year of consulting nonprofits on prospect development and operational improvements, perhaps no topic surfaced with greater frequency.  I hope my observations add some value to the discourse.

To start, check out my very unartistic venn diagram above thanks to the easy charting capabilities of GraphJam.  The more I consult, the more I realize how much people are motivated by self-interest and the path of least resistance.  Everyone has self-interest, those short- or long- term personal goals that define our choices.  And, without an intervening motivation, we pursue the path with the least resistance.  I would define the least resistant path as the easy path.  We might follow a difficult path when self-interest bears more weight.  For example, we might spend hours researching fishing holes, quilting techniques, video game strategy, or sports statistics—not because the work is easy, but because it is fun.

Organizations, be they for-profit or nonprofit, have goals.  Typically, these are increased production, operating efficiency, mission impact, constituent engagement, or profitability. Rarely do the organization’s goals align with the worker’s self-interests except in cases of leadership or incentive systems.  Typically, leaders further expect that the organization’s goals do align with the worker’s goals, but rarely is this the case.

When an organization chooses to enforce performance standards without acknowledgement of the employee’s self-interest, the result is compliance.  The employees will choose the easiest way of meeting the bare minimums to preserve their job.  They do not choose to perform.  They do not go above and beyond.  They do just enough.

However, when an organization views its talent as central to their success, something different happens. They understand that one system of enforcement doesn’t work.  Leadership seeks to discover why each employee is there.  And, they align the why we do what we do to the why do you do what you do.

The result of the alignment of a true self-interest with the organization’s goals is a realization by employee that the path of least resistance is actually performance.  Work becomes fun.  Rather than doing just enough, the employee does more. 

It comes down to listening, understanding the workforce, tying individual success to organizational success, and staying true to it.  When it works and the employee believes it will continue, the organization achieves sustainability.  And, a funny thing happens.  Employees stick around.

Watch for parts 2 and 3 coming soon!

Joshua Birkholz

Bentz Whaley Flessner