Transformation Reformers

This site is written for Landmark grads who are open to the possibility of transforming Landmark Education from what it is today into a newly open and amazing engine of transformation. To follow the flow of discussion, please read this blog from bottom up (from oldest post to newest). If you are intrigued by what you see here, please join our Yahoo group and be part of the conversation: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/reformers/

Saturday, May 27, 2006

Misapplication of Statistical Measures

The reform petition calls for "balancing statistical and numerical measures of performance (for seminar leaders, introduction leaders, ILP participants and others) with measures of the quality of participant experience." This post is intended to illustrate the background and value for this key reform.

Currently, Landmark measures the performance of seminar leaders by statistics such as the numbers of guests, registrations, and attendance at each seminar session. Introduction leaders are measured by number of registrations. Provider programs, ILP, TMLP, course supervisor programs and so on measure "effectiveness" by guests invited and registrations. There is relatively little effort spent on directly guaging participant experience or the participant's own measure of value from a course or introduction. Landmark uses measures to drive numbers instead of using measures explicitly to optimize authenticity or participant value.

The reform movement sees that a central driver of inauthenticity and pressure in Landmark is a misalignment of incentives. People will optimize what they are measured to optimize at the expense of other measures so organizations must take care to align the incentives they provide with the end goals of the organization.

As an example of the critical role that appropriate incentives play in organizations, consider teh story of an automotive industry company that measured its managers by their ability to keep parts inventories low. The idea of using parts inventory levels as a measure was to reduce waste, to have the managers order only the optimal amount of parts needed to build and fill orders.

Some months later, a barge heading down a nearby river struck a pile of auto parts. The factory managers faced fluctuating demand that made it impossible to keep inventories near zero and still meet customer demand, so they did what it took to keep inventory low and excel in their performance measures. They dumped excess parts in the river before each measurement day.

A misapplication of incentives, intended to propel the company forward, instead created waste and loss. This is a simple story told in a graduate management course, teaching future leaders to beware about how they measure their employees and managers. Any management instructor will advise that human beings in organizations respond to the incentives they are given, even when those incentives don't line up with the goals of the organization. The message is, choose your incentives wisely.

As with the company using inventory as a measure, the measures Landmark is choosing to use today are at the source of profound losses in its effectiveness. We're no longer talking auto parts. We're talking about spreading the good stuff of transformation. The result we observe is that course leaders are overdoing the guest and invitation conversations to meet their measures. We observe that statistics are filtering their listening, impacting their stands, distorting their perceptions. Those who need to be a stand for an amazing experience for all participants are dealing with countervailing incentives that draw them away from authenticity, instead to make the case for being in their seats and bringing guests.

Harry Rosenberg, CEO of Landmark Education, wrote of surprise about participants feeling pressure, even in introductions where there were no opportunities to register. The pressure is built into a system that has its providers measuring their interaction with guests by statistics instead of by the quality of that interaction and by the quality of the experience of the participant. When the people in the room need registrations to be considered effective, the participants will feel their pressure and feel their inauthenticity. The misapplication of statistical measures drives feelings of pressure and inauthenticity in many areas of the organization. This is why reform of the way statistics are used has drawn such attention in the Reformers Yahoo group, and why it is central to reform.

A renewed Landmark will not have its leaders treat participants as statistics and will not give incentives to course leaders to do anything but provide value to participants.
We believe that there is no need to focus on numbers when one has a conversation of power. No need for pressure where people come together to do good for each other. With the right incentives and with a new spirit of openness, we will see a dramatic elevation in the atmosphere of the organization.

6 Comments:

At 10:21 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, everything you say is valid, and I used to share your opinions in many areas (specifically around statistics).

That is, until I become an Introduction Leader and saw some things I hadn't seen beforehand (I'm no longer an Introduction Leader but I am in courses right now). So I'm going to give you my point of view (not an official Landmark point of view) as someone who was an Introduction Leader for four years.

First, the measure of how many guests come is a very practical way of gauging how much value participants got from the course. Lots of guests == lots of value/breakthroughs. Few guests == little value. When you really look hard -- keeping an eye on what can be practically and easily measured without absorbing too much staff time -- it's not apparent that there are other measures that are better at judging the value the participants receive. How would you -- again, in a practical and useful way -- measure the "quality" of the experience? What is your proposal? Would your measure be nearly as good as how many people the participant invites?

The other important thing about measures is that they actually tell the ILs, seminar leaders, etc. how much pressure there was so that they can work on that. What you see as causing the pressure is actually a way for the IL to know whether they speaking without creating pressure. That's because most people won't register or invite people unless enrollment is present for them and pressure kills enrollment.

The first place I looked when I would lead introductions and no one or few people registered is whether my natural enthusiasm created pressure in the room. Sometimes I would think I hadn't created pressure but then the results told me otherwise. So I had to go back and seriously look at how I was being, where was I not listening completely to a guest, and so forth. How many people registered was *very* important to me because I was committed that *no one* feel pressure in my room.

Second, most companies would kill for the word of mouth marketing that Landmark has. All marketing programs depend on word of mouth to some extent to spread awareness of a product and because prospective customers reference existing customers before making a buying decision. Whatever suggestions you come up with should not limit (in my opinion) this form of highly sought-after marketing.

From personal experience, people are so marketed to by tone-deaf salepeople that the background question "will they pressure me?" is likely impossible to get rid of. I get calls every week from telemarketers who expect me to listen for two minutes straight before I get to tell them that I'm not interested. And just before the pause in their monologue, the last question is a presumption: "Would you like to contibute 25, 50 or 100 dollars?" I used to be frustrated with these people. But now, because I can hear the background commitment (improve the fire fighting ability in my city, or whatever), I just politely thank them for the opportunity to contribute to their cause and let them know that I'm happy with the organizations I'm currently supporting. My buttons are no longer pushed by marketing conversations.

Last, it is difficult for me to see how an Introduction Leader would know where to put their effort to improve their introductions without tracking their results. That would be like a baseball player not tracking their batting average. So if you are suggesting that Landmark stop measuring key statistics (like how many people register in an Introduction), I think you are mising a fundamental aspect of performance improvement and you will not get very far with Landmark, nor should you.

All that being said, the reduction in conversations for the next course is a welcome thing -- except for those people in the course who want to know what's next for them. As in all things, how much to discuss the next course is a judgement act. Where you draw the line is different from where someone else draws the line.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to your conversation,
Andre'

 
At 1:10 PM, Blogger ML said...

Andre,

Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. Let us move the conversation forward together.

My thoughts:

Consider the gap between participant value and number of guests. The two may correlate positively to some extent, but the number of guests indicates the number of guests, not the value. A clear example. If a skilled and experienced seminar leader focused on delivering value and never or rarely mentioned bringing guests, they could likely provide greater value to participants by spending more time on content, and they would also have fewer guests. So there is also to some extent a trade off between guest conversation and providing the stated value/content of the course.

While too much guest conversation may backfire, the guest measure certainly also correlates with effort put into the guest conversation, independent of the value and breakthroughs created. Agreed so far?

A practical and easy way to collect data on participant value is via survey. Participants simply circle a rating between 1 and 10 for value, satisfaction, breakthrough or whatever you wish to measure. This is a very common type of system used in education. Would you agree that this is practical and easy? Would you agree that a survey of participant value will be a more accurate indicator of value than number of guests or registrations? Can you see also that this allows distinguishing of breakthrough value vs. satisfaction, etc., whereas with the current system Landmark relies on indirect measures as proxies for such things.

Another key: The guest conversation has a polarizing effect. Some people enjoy it, some are OK with it, some truly dislike it and it turns them off to Landmark and further participation and has them spreading negative comments about Landmark to others. Measuring guests and registrations does not capture the extent to which Landmark is creating negative impressions in the broader community. The evidence of such negative impressions, even from those who got value out of the Forum, is widespread.

Next take care not to assume that the rate of registration for an IL is a reflection of the IL's authenticity or pressure that they generate and so on. The logic becomes circular. I am more authentic because I have more registrations and I have more registrations because I am authentic. Same sort of circular story with pressure. Be aware of factors such as structural inauthenticity (which creates senses of weirdness, sense of cult, etc.), experience of the IL, persuasiveness outside of authenticity (i.e. classic sales ability which may even lack integrity), and so on.

Yet another factor is the distorting effect of measures. This can be partially captured by the concept of teaching to the test. Tests are used to measure student ability, but teachers can game the system, teaching more about test taking and less content. They get better test results, which is supposed to indicate higher academic skill, but instead the higher test score actually indicates greater test taking skill while actual academic knowledge may be lower. Teaching to the test in the Landmark contest is part of over emphasis on guests without stating that it's happening and built into the strucutre = inauthenticity. People sense this structural inauthenticity as weird, cult like and so on.

In summary, major costs of the current structure are: 1) creating negative impressions among significant numbers of participants and the broader community by over emphasis and over use of time on the guest conversation, 2) distorting behavior of leaders, which leads to inauthenticities adds to a sense for many that something is wrong with Landmark.

Note also that we reformers do not suggest abandoning results tracking or the use of statistics. The reform effort calls at least for balancing the use of currently used statistics with other measures and reform of incentive structures.

Let me know what you think.

-ML

 
At 1:14 PM, Blogger ML said...

P.S. to Andre

I looked at your website and greatly appreciate your involvement in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thank you for doing that.

 
At 9:24 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hi, ML (sorry, I searched for your first name but couldn't find it quickly).

Thanks for the acknowledgment on what I'm doing with global warming. :-)

Before I respond to your points, I'd like to make sure that we have the same commitments. From reading your posts, I believe we do, but let's make sure before we go too far and have to back up.

My commitments (in the area of transformation) are:
1. That the entire world has access to transformation. The outcome of that milestone would be human collaboration on the largest possible scale on all our current problems -- war, hunger, disease, etc.
2. That the people who are working toward that goal play seriously but not significantly (i.e. absence of drama, room for fun and play, etc.).
3. That people get to choose to work toward that goal or not and that they are honored for whichever choice they make.

Those are my commitments -- which, incidentally, happen to be the same ones I use when working on global warming.

What are your commitments in this area? Or, if you can align on these, we can move straight away to each of your points.

-Andre'
www.SavingGreenByGoingGreen.com

 
At 10:07 AM, Blogger ML said...

P.S. A correction from my last post: I wrote "contest" where I intended to write "context" above.

 
At 11:15 AM, Blogger ML said...

Hello Andre,

I am aligned with your commitments. Powerfully stated.

I am also committed in this area that people have the best possible experience with Landmark on the terms that are right for them. This is imprecise wording, but captures the spirit.

For convenience, let me suggest that we continue this dialog off site and post it back later. You can contact me directly.

Thank you.

-ML

 

Post a Comment

<< Home