What makes someone a good manager or a bad manager? What are ineffective strategies that some managers use?
According to Aubrey C. Daniels, when employee performance is subpar, the problem usually lies within the work environment, not the employee. Most mainstream management styles don’t account for this, so they tend to work inconsistently (if they work at all).
Below, we’ll look at the difference between good management vs. bad management.
Overhauling Performance Management
In this article, we’ll take a look at the difference between good management vs. bad management. There are two common management approaches that Daniels says are ineffective: methods based on “common sense” and methods based on behavioral antecedents. Then, we’ll discuss Daniels’s scientific approach to management—one that uses behavioral analysis to modify the work environment and improve employee performance.
Ineffective Management Strategy #1: The Common Sense Approach
Daniels asserts that many businesses take a “common sense” approach to management. This means that managers operate on a case-by-case basis according to their personal insights. Daniels argues that this isn’t a dependable way to make business decisions—common sense reflects opinions that are based on people’s specific, bounded experiences. Because everyone’s experience is different, management practices that people think are “common sense” are often ineffective, unclear, inconsistent, and difficult to replicate. Relying on common sense leads companies to waste time and money as they try countless strategies without understanding why they work or don’t work.
(Shortform note: Another shortcoming of the common sense approach is that it overlooks cognitive biases that skew decision-making. In Thinking, Fast and Slow, Daniel Kahneman explains that people often rely on heuristics (mental shortcuts) when making judgments, which can lead to errors. One common heuristic is representativeness, where we estimate the likelihood of an event based on stereotypes we already hold. Managers using the common sense approach often rely on representativeness: For example, they might choose a charismatic employee to lead a team simply because they fit the stereotype of an outgoing leader, ignoring other candidates who have stronger leadership skills but are less extroverted.)
For example, a manager might give public recognition to high-performing employees based on the common-sense intuition that this will motivate others to improve. However, Daniels says this tactic can be hit-or-miss. Some employees may find it motivating, but others may not value public recognition or may even feel embarrassed or stressed by it. So while this management strategy might occasionally yield positive results, it lacks the consistency and reliability needed for effective performance management.
(Shortform note: What’s behind the common-sense belief that public recognition is an effective motivator? In Quiet, Susan Cain offers a plausible explanation: According to Cain, many workplaces idealize extroversion, so they place high value on outward displays of success and social interaction (like public recognition). However, as Daniels notes, these outward displays can be stressful for some employees—namely, introverts. Cain argues that introverts usually prefer more private forms of acknowledgment or appreciation, as they tend to feel drained or uncomfortable in the spotlight. She also suggests that learning to accommodate both kinds of people can help businesses achieve greater success.)
Ineffective Management Strategy #2: The Antecedent-Only Approach
Many companies also try to manage people’s behavior by telling them what to do, often using a variety of means such as meetings and memos. Daniels refers to these instructions as antecedents—signals that are intended to prompt a desired behavior. If the employees don’t respond to antecedents in the way management wants, managers tend to repeat the antecedents more forcefully, hoping that increased frequency or intensity will eventually compel compliance. However, Daniels says this doesn’t usually get better results.
(Shortform note: Why is simply repeating antecedents an ineffective management strategy? One reason is that excessive repetition can lead to message fatigue. In Made to Stick, Chip and Dan Heath explain that the most powerful messages are unexpected. Unexpected messages capture people’s attention by leveraging surprise, which the brain is biologically wired to notice and remember. So when managers repeat themselves, the antecedents become more predictable and less impactful—employees are likely to tune them out. Repeating messages more forcefully may create some surprise; demanding managers evoke emotions that are difficult to ignore. But it may also create employee resentment that damages morale.)
According to Daniels, antecedents are only one half of the behavioral management equation. The other half is consequences. Antecedents may encourage employees to engage in a behavior once or twice, but they don’t increase the likelihood that they’ll continue the behavior over the long term. To be truly effective, antecedents must be paired with appropriate consequences—the outcomes that follow a behavior that either reinforce the behavior with positive outcomes or discourage it with negative outcomes.
To illustrate, consider this example: Say a company introduces a new AI tool, and management asks employees to start using it. They hold training sessions and send reminder emails, and these antecedents prompt employees to start using the tool. However, the learning curve slows down the employees’ workflow, leading them to perceive the consequences of the desired behavior—using the tool—as negative. As a result, they resist using it and revert to previous techniques. In this case, simply repeating the antecedent isn’t motivating enough; instead, management must find a way to improve the behavior’s consequences—for instance, by clarifying the long-term benefit of using the new tool.
(Shortform note: The idea that both antecedents and consequences are crucial to behavioral management aligns with psychologist B.F. Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning. According to this theory, antecedents (or stimuli) prompt behaviors, while consequences—whether positive or negative—determine the frequency and persistence of those behaviors. This theory has also been used to explain the science of habit formation. In The Power of Habit, Charles Duhigg illustrates how habits are sustained through a cycle of cues (antecedents), routines (behaviors), and rewards (consequences). Like Daniels, Duhigg argues that to change behaviors (like bad habits), you must reinforce the desired behavior with a rewarding consequence.)
The Most Effective Management Strategy: The Behavioral Analysis Approach
Daniels provides an alternative to the ineffective strategies we just discussed; we’ll call this the behavioral analysis approach. He describes this approach as a five-step process. We’ll discuss each step in detail in the next section, but here’s the gist of it:
Using Daniels’s approach, managers systematically analyze the factors that influence employee behavior, rather than relying on intuition or trial-and-error methods. Then, they carefully optimize both antecedents and consequences to maximize what Daniels calls “discretionary effort”—employees’ willingness to go above and beyond their basic job requirements so that they take initiative to improve their performance and contribute more to the business. Discretionary effort is key to employee engagement—one of the markers of a successful business.
Daniels writes that the behavioral analysis approach beats out other approaches for two reasons:
First, it’s systematic and rooted in empirical evidence. Managers use science-backed behavioral management principles to effect the change they want to see. Then, they measure the impact of their interventions and fine-tune their methods over time.
Second, it’s universal. Daniels says that the principles of behavior analysis apply across a variety of situations and settings. This means you can use his approach no matter what kind of business you run.
