Showing posts with label positive reinforcement. Show all posts
Showing posts with label positive reinforcement. Show all posts

Friday, November 13, 2009

An Example from Starbucks of How to NOT Get What You Want


 (requests) + (incentives) = results

I was going through my email today and got a request from Starbucks (edited for space considerations):

Dear David,


Thank you for being a Starbucks customer. As a customer, you canprovide a unique perspective on the products we offer. We would like you to participate in a brief survey about your away-from-home preferences for coffee, espresso and tea beverages, last occasion at Starbucks and interest in select special offers from Starbucks.


We know how busy you are, and with that in mind we have structured the survey to take no more than 5 minutes of your time. When you are ready to start, please go to the survey by either clicking on the link or copying and pasting the address into your browser.


Thanks for being a Starbucks customer, and we look forward to serving you in our stores!


Warm regards,
The Beverage Team
Starbucks Coffee Company


What's wrong here? No reward, no incentive for me to comply. Why in the world would I take five minutes of my time to give one of the wealthiest multi-national companies in the world my information with no compensation? For a second I thought they were going to give me a reason (We know how busy you are....) but what was missing was the second half of that sentence (created, obviously, by moi):

and to thank-you for your time and assistance, we will give you a code for a free drink of your choice in any or our stores.

But that carrot was not there so I hit the delete button and moved on. All stick does not work for me, and doesn't for most people.

Want results? Give someone a reason to act. Otherwise, they will probably hit delete too.

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Why Doesn't Supernanny Spank Those Rotten Kids?


(structure) + (love) + (praise) + (consistency) + (communication) = happy families

Over the years, either via Hulu or during a late-night workout,  I have seen ABC's program, Supernanny, on several occasions. It is a little one-note for me, with the same premise week after week but the ratings blockbuster keeps on rolling along (like so many others...).


For those of you who have not seen it, here is the outline of most, if not every, episode:

Jo, the titular character, is invited into some poor schmo's house that is overrun with awful kids. The children are everything adults dread--loud, ill-mannered, disrespectful, indolent. Jo observes, has a few meetings with the parents on a new behavioral method and then that method is applied. The kids raise hell, the parents almost waffle and then, in the end, Jo's method works! Another family saved.




Supernanny is a money machine with an apparently endless supply of bad families who need some nannizing. And Americans seem to love it as they watch those snotty unappreciative brats get their comeuppance from Ms. Jo.

So a question; why doesn't the nanny, a guru to millions of child beating Americans, ever spank those brats? After all, doesn't spanking work?

Could it be that she is a foreigner with snooty ways? Possibly but probably not. Is it because she is a socialist? No, but nice try.

The reason is that spanking does not work. Hitting a child to produce good behavior has never worked and it never will. I know, you were spanked. That is called anecdotal evidence and does not prove anything. Striking a child does nothing but make them sneakier and a bit afraid of the person who is, ironically, supposed to be protecting them.

Next time you watch Supernanny, look at the method she applies. She creates systems with incentives and focuses on praising and rewarding good behavior. And week after week after misbehaving week, her approach works.

Catch your kids doing something good. It will go a great deal farther and eventually create a better relationship between the two of you as well.

Wednesday, November 4, 2009

Can Being an Individual Put You at Incresed Risk for Depression?


 (culture) + (biology) = (depression)?

I just read a fascinating article about the complicated role a person's culture plays in their likelihood to be depressed.

I can tell you as one who lives as an iconoclast that such a life comes at great expense. There is a great cost for not conforming to group rules, and it makes sense that when a person is ostracized that she would be more likely to be depressed, anxious, or both.


Happy Wednesday!