Shaping Corporate Success through Organizational Behavior Science with Francisco Gomez

Send us a text

In this episode, my good friend and Vice President at Aubrey Daniels International, Francisco Gomez, breaks down the application of Organizational Behavior Management strategies in organizations. If you are interested in learning more about OBM and leadership, this is definitely an episode for you. Francisco, an OOG in this space, has supported organizations with improving performance and achieving valued outcomes across different industries across the globe!

About Francisco:
With a career that has encompassed performance management consulting for multiple industrial sectors across the globe, as well as executive positions in the tech industry, Francisco consolidates this experience to generate results and bring value to his customers.

Francisco is a board member for industrial as well as a nonprofit organizations and serves as public speaker and columnist on behavioral science and performance management. He and his family currently reside in Asheville, North Carolina. In his free time, he enjoys spending time in the North Carolina mountains and playing music. 

Pick up a copy of the #1 bestseller: Adaptive Intelligence: The Evolution of Emotional Intelligence Through the Proven Power of Behavior Science

The Behavioral Toolbox  equips those charged with supporting behavior change in schools with practical applications of the science of human behavior for making a positive difference in the workplace. In this case, the classroom and school!

Be sure to subscribe to Dr. Paulie's Heart & Science YouTube channel for a variety of content related to behavior science and bringing out the best in yourself and others. 

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Thoughts and Rants of a Behavior
Scientist show hosted by WallStreet Journal and USA Today
bestselling author Dr Pauly.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
Okay, welcome back to the Thoughts and Rants of a
Behavior Scientist podcast.
I'm your host, Dr Pauly, andI'm here with a good friend of
mine, Francisco Gomez.
Francisco, how you doing,brother?
I'm all right.
Very happy to be here with you,Paulie.
I appreciate it, man.
So, Francisco, I met many yearsago I think what was it?
2002 or 2010 or 2012?

(00:33):
Somewhere around there,Something like that?
Yeah, yeah, he is a VP ofConsulting Services at Aubrey
Daniels International and I'vealways had massive respect for
Aubrey Daniels.
I mean, the fact is that I'vegotten into the field because of
his work.
Bringing out the best in peopleis what turned me on to

(00:55):
organizational behavior.
Management helped me to turnaround failing schools, failing
now organizations, and Iactually, coincidentally, now
teach courses in obm and it'saubrey's work.
That uh is the curriculum um,so it's great because I get very
fluent in this work.
Uh and uh.
Aubrey is the uh.
I guess we call him thegodfather of obm.

(01:17):
Is that or is the father of obm?

Speaker 1 (01:19):
I like godfather sounds kind of cooler man to me
yeah, I think it's the father,but I'm sure he'd accept the
godfather too hey, uh, anyway.

Speaker 2 (01:27):
So, uh, francisco's all over the place.
I mean he's consulting inmultiple fortune 500 companies.
Uh, he's like literally allover the world north america,
south america, africa, oceania,europe.
Uh, we were just talking abouthim being on the road like
70-75% of the months.
So he's doing some very coolthings out there and I could

(01:50):
probably pick his brain foranything.
But I really like to speak aboutthings folks are passionate
about, and Francisco and I justchatted a little bit offline
about he's doing a lot of workin these high hazard industries,
helping people or helpingleaders and their teams be more

(02:12):
deliberate about setting up safeproduction cultures, things.
And I was thinking, man, that'sgoing to be a lot of pressure
because I'm working in, you know, schools and organizations, but
you know the stuff that I'mdoing doesn't result in people,
you know either, it doesn'tresult in saving lives.
So, you know, I'm interested tohear about that.

(02:35):
But before we get into that,man, could you just talk about
how you came into being in thefield?
Just let people know a littlebit about your background,
francisco.

Speaker 1 (02:43):
Sure, well, I was a dog trainer.
That's how I got started.
I was an animal behaviorist.
My very first exposure to thescience of behavior many, many,
many moons ago was as an animaltrainer.
I read a book called how DogsLearn, written by John Bailey

(03:05):
and Mary Birch, and that was myfirst exposure to operant
conditioning and I fell in lovewith subject matter and I knew
that I was going to.
I had my bachelor's at thatpoint.
It was in philosophy, I hadtaken psychology classes, it was
my minor, but I didn't reallyhave a whole lot of exposure to

(03:27):
behavior analysis until I readthat book.
But after reading that book, Ithought I need to learn more
about this and I need to go tograd school and equip myself
with this material, thismaterial.

(03:49):
So I ended up writing emailsand trying to connect with
different universities all overthe US, trying to figure out
where I could learn more aboutoperant conditioning.
At that point in time it wasn'tas clear of a path for people
to get into behavior analysis.
First of all, it was adifferent online world.

Speaker 2 (04:03):
What year was this?

Speaker 1 (04:04):
brother behavior analysis.
First of all, it was adifferent online world.
What year was this brother Fromthe nineties man?
I don't.
I don't know exactly what year,but it was.
It was a long time ago, allright.
So I got a few responses thatwere very helpful, one of them,
ironically, from John Bailey,and he said well, you need to go
to the UNT program and learnabout behavior analysis there.

(04:26):
They have a good program,there's a lot of experimental
stuff going on, they have someanimal trainers there, and so
that was the beginning of it.
I ended up going to grad school,and it was in grad school that
I maintained my animal trainingbusiness, but it was in grad
school that I was first exposedto OBM and I fell in love with

(04:49):
with OBM.
I was taking classes with CloydHyten, and, and it was still
during grad school that I wasrecruited by a consulting
company that did performancemanagement, and it was not ADI
yet, but I that's how I startedmy work, which was yeah, I was
still I was finishing up doingmy thesis, running my animal

(05:11):
training business and doing someconsulting on the side.
Once that I graduated, then Isold my animal training business
and went straight into just100% into doing OBM work and
I've been doing that for thelast, I guess going on 17 years
now.

Speaker 2 (05:28):
Wow, man.
So I remember the first time Imet you.
I remember like it wasyesterday, I'd kind of gotten a
scholarship for lack of a betterterm, I guess to ADI to spend
the week there and it wasawesome because you came into
one of the trainings and weconnected because my background
mixed martial arts and you weredoing jujitsu.
Um, yeah and uh, obviously wethink about the science.

(05:51):
You end up writing an article.
I think, uh, mma is everywherejust illustrating how the
science can be used in mma.
That was pretty cool, man.
That was fun to collaboratewith you on that article.
Sure, yeah, it was fun, man,and uh, I mean, and since then,
um, you know, I've learned a lotfrom you and uh, you know some
key things, uh, I've learned.
It's been very, yeah, very,very helpful to me.

(06:13):
Um so, uh, this is gonna be funto talk about this stuff,
brother.
Um so, uh.
So let's let's start with whatsome of the issues in these
organizations are.
Explain a little bit about theorganization that you're working
about, about these hazards,what some of the issues are, and
then what the typical approachis for addressing these issues

(06:33):
and why that isn't necessarilythe best approach, because what
you're bringing to the world isorganizational behavior
management.
We're bringing the science ofhuman behavior to making a
difference, and that must bedifferent from what other people
are doing, because my go withyou or ADI, if you know what
they're doing, is the best thing.
I think we're biased about thisand the science is the best

(06:54):
thing you know.
So just you know what some ofthe common issues and common
approaches for addressing thoseand why they might be
questionable.

Speaker 1 (07:02):
Sure.
So just a little bit ofbackground.
I'm assuming, since most ofyour audiences, they're going to
be behavior analysts andbehavioral folks, so they
probably have a general sense ofwhat we do.
But just briefly, my job is toequip leadership teams with some
tools and some principles,derived from over 75 years of

(07:25):
research in the science ofbehavior, to encourage, to
motivate, the behaviors thatmatter most in their business.
And so, as you know, everysingle business metric is driven
by human behavior, and so whatwe do is we teach those
leadership teams how do youleverage a better understanding

(07:49):
of behavior?
And so that's basically, in anutshell, what we do, how we do
it.
To answer your question moredirectly, we typically start
with a diagnostic where we needto figure out if our clients
come to us and they say well,listen, we need you to help us

(08:10):
with our productivity metrics orwith our quality metrics or
with our safety metrics.
You know, the first place is weneed to do some diagnostics to
figure out, well, what are theydoing or what are they not doing
?
That is, either optimizing orsub-optimizing employee
performance, which you know inbig picture.

(08:31):
That's one of the things that'sdifferent that we bring to the
table with the science ofbehavior, which is we turn the
camera around on leadershipteams.
Historically, typically,whenever performance isn't where
it needs to be, the finger getspointed at the worker.
And well, the worker's screwingthat up.
Regardless of the businessopportunity, the worker's

(08:52):
screwing something up.
What we do is we turn thecamera around and so if the
performance isn't going in thedirection that you want it to go
well, what are you doing as aleadership team that's
contributing?
If the performance is goingexactly in the direction that
you want it to go well, what areyou doing as a leadership team
that's contributing?
If the performance is goingexactly in the direction that
you want it to go well, what areyou doing that's contributing?
So part of that diagnostic ishelping them understand that the

(09:15):
definition of culture thatyou're familiar with and most of
your audience will be familiarwith that I think is very useful
is culture is defined by thepatterns of behavior that are
encouraged or discouraged bypeople, by processes or by
systems.
So culture is defined by thepatterns of behavior that are
encouraged or discouraged bypeople, processes and systems.

(09:36):
So that's an actionabledefinition of culture.
You can do something about yourculture.
That's the first implication.
The second implication is youare doing something about your
culture, whether you're aware ofit or not.
In the leadership practices thatyou engage in and how you
respond to a question when thatemployee asks you something, and
what you talk about during anall-hands meeting.

(09:58):
And then, of course, in theprocesses and the systems that
you implement, you're moving theculture in the direction that
you want or you're moving itaway from where you want that
culture to go.
So what we do is we helpleaders be more aware of how
what they do is creating aperformance framework for

(10:19):
employees to respond to, howwhat they do creates the context
for their performance.
And so that's a starting point,the diagnostic aspect of it,
which is letting leadershipteams know these are the things
that you're doing across yourprocesses, your systems, your
leadership practices that arehelping or not helping with your
objectives.
The next component is we trainleadership teams, from frontline

(10:43):
supervisors up to seniorexecutive levels and everyone in
between, on the tools and theprinciples from the science of
behavior to help them be moredeliberate about how they're
influencing the culture and thedirection that they're moving
the culture.
And then the last component isthe follow-up, which is where
we're helping them implementthese tools and these principles

(11:06):
that they learned during thetraining.
So, in a nutshell, that's whatour initiatives look like,
whether it's, like I said, couldbe in productivity, could be in
quality, could be in safety.
Now, most of my clients are inhigh hazard industries, and so
what that means is, almostinevitably there's always going
to be a safety component in thetype of work that we're doing

(11:27):
with them, because our focus ison not on production, but on
safe, safe production Right.

Speaker 2 (11:33):
Oh man, that was cool man, that was some very cool
things to unpack.
So, behavior analysts if you'relistening to this, just like
any good behavior analyst,you're working with an
individual learner.
If you're working in the withautistic population or special
needs, you start with anassessment.
We got to figure out, you knowwhat's going on and you know
that I the shift I made when Iwent in, I learned OBM.

(11:56):
The simplest shift I made Icall it zooming out is that a
lot of these, a lot of peopleare looking at learner behavior
right when they're working withspecial needs, right.
So the student, the client, theconsumer, in this case, you
know that person, that behavioris challenging, because that's a
lot of times why behavioranimals are brought in.

(12:17):
But I think about it nowthrough an OBM lens that that
behavior is a result and it'sreally the behavior of the other
people in the environment thatare going to need to change in
order to change that result.
So I think about that.
That.
That is like the simple OBMshift that were at least how I
describe it to other people, andso that's similar to what

(12:38):
you're talking about there andthat is you having performance
in the environment and theseorganizations and that
performance as a result ofleadership and the systems that
they develop or fail to develop,whatever the system is.
That's what's producing thatresult right now.
We need people to be deliberateabout their systems.
You know, good systems bringabout good instructional control

(13:00):
and stimulus control and allthat kind of stuff and stimulus
control and all that kind ofstuff.
You know.
I usually use a driving exampleto say you know, imagine there's
car accidents happening allover the place and people are
getting pulled over, they'regetting tickets, they're getting
their driver's licensesuspended and some are even
being sent to jail.
But then you zoom down and youfind out that there's no rules
of the road.
You know there's no lines inthe road, there's no green light

(13:21):
, yellow light, red light orsigns that tell you where to go.
And good systems generatepositive reinforcement for
value-added behavior, so theyget people to get where they
need to go or produce theseresults.
That's your destination, youknow, effectively and
efficiently.
So you guys assess that.
I'm assuming that you figureout like what it should look
like, what they want it to looklike, where it's at, why we're

(13:42):
not performing at that level,and then train people in the
skills and I assume also ifthere's any process that are
developed along with that, andthen there's the follow-up,
which I would just call coaching.
So training doesn't stick.
We need to make sure that wesupport the generalization of
learned skills into the naturalenvironment.
That's pretty cool, man.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
Um, very yeah and and so to piggyback a little bit on
what you just said, the wholestatement of behavior, that is
not a.
That's a fairly abstractconcept, and if they have an

(14:29):
understanding of it, it's anunderstanding that requires some
refinement, and so part of thework that we do I'm assuming
part of the work that you do isreally helping unpack that and
show them precisely what thatmeans.
If you have a goodunderstanding of behavior and
you understand antecedents, youunderstand consequences, you

(14:50):
understand stimulus control, youunderstand operant conditioning
, then that statement is notthat abstract.
It's pretty clear.
But if you don't understandthat and somebody tells you that
employees are responding to thecontext that you create as a
leader, what does that mean?
So part of the work and part ofthe training is helping them

(15:13):
understand that.
What does that actually meanand what are the things that
they're doing that are helpingor not helping when it comes to
employee performance?

Speaker 2 (15:21):
Yeah, and I think that's a really good point.
Constant point of performanceyeah, and I think that's a
really good point.
In fact, a lot of times we liketo put our money where our
mouth is.
When we go into organizations,I'm like, before you like
contract with us, I'm nottelling other people to do this,
this is just what we do.
We want to create a want, youknow is establishing operations,
and it's like it's kind of likeputting our money where our
mouth is by saying like hey, youknow, here in general, here are

(15:47):
typical ways of producingresults and here's why that's a
challenge in most organizationsand here's what it could look
like.
So it's like what you're saying, turning the camera on, you
know, leadership.
We'd like to promote a littleself-awareness and like really
getting people in touch withtheir pain points and their
values, ie their reinforcers,because they need to see how

(16:09):
there's a path forward toachieving some sort of results
and they need to reflect on theway things are going around here
right now, including their ownbehaviors and how that's either
producing results or not.
And so I think a little upfronteducation or just a talk, you
know, again, I just like inspirepeople, like know, get it.
You got to create a want forpeople like I.
I used to go in there and justtalk about all the great things

(16:30):
the science could do for people,and it was putting people to
sleep, um.
So I think there's a way to goabout it with asking good
questions, um, to get people toreflect again on the way that,
that that things are set upright now, and why, because they
gotta see a path forward, uh,for this stuff.
Um, that's one of the thingsthat you uh, that that's one of
the big things that I've learned, actually, from liple's book

(16:53):
and uh, you know that you, uh,you and I wrote an article about
actually getting betterperformance.
Uh, um, in mma a while back.
Uh, you know you guys call itreverse behavior engineering.
Uh, you know you guys call itreverse behavior engineering.
You know I like to call it.
You know, planning with the endin mind.
That's the way we talk about ineducation.
You know instructional designdoes it that way.

(17:13):
You know you have an objectivein doing it, but unpacking your
engineering performance acrossan organization, I mean, that's
really what your system is madeup of processes.
Processes are made up of tasks.
Tasks are made up of behaviors.
It's all going to come down tothat, so I think that it
simplifies it for people.
I think Otherwise, like, wherethe hell do you start?

(17:36):
What does your assessment looklike?
I mean, how do you know how toscale your assessment?
Even?

Speaker 1 (17:39):
when you go in there.
Well, part of the assessment.
There's multiple components toassessments and there's
everything ranging from surveysthat we do to give us a good
perspective across allorganizational layers about
what's helping, what's nothelping in terms of employee
performance, and that's a surveycomponent.

(18:03):
And that's a survey component,the assessment itself.
It's a combination of directobservation of meetings, people

(18:24):
working, getting a tour offacilities, all the different
processes, different systemsthat are being implemented.
We look at their data.
So if we're doing a, anassessment on safety, for
instance, one of our safetyculture assessments, we're going
to be looking at the differentsafety data that they have and
look at their near misses, lookat their incident investigations
and any of the leadingindicators that they have.

(18:45):
We want to make sure that wehave a clear understanding of
what those are.
We want to make sure we have aclear understanding of what the
safety processes that they'recurrently running look like and
how that's working.

(19:09):
A JSEA or a pre-task hazardassessment of some type, where
the objective of pre-task hazardassessments for a worker to
assess what are the hazards,given this job that I'm about to
do, and how am I going tocontrol for those hazards.
That's a very important safetyprocess a lot of companies use,
and most companies that are highhazard industries.
They have one of thosecompanies that are high hazard
industries.
They have one of those, one ofthe many versions of those.
So we want to see what thoseare and also, how are they being

(19:30):
used.
Are they actually being usedthe way that they were designed
and getting the value that andproviding the value that they're
supposed to?
Or are people checking the boxon them?
And so we need to figure outwhat those safety processes
entail and how are they beingused.
Then we go into more the formalaspect of it.
We're going to be interviewingpeople.

(19:51):
We're going to be interviewingworkers and leadership and again
, to try and get a betterunderstanding of what is it that
the organization is doing, thatleadership is doing and when
I'm talking about leadership,I'm talking from frontline
supervision all the way up tosenior executive levels and
everyone in between.
What are these leaders doingthat is helping or not helping,

(20:14):
and that we do through thegathering of patterns from our
interviews, where we're reallyjust getting a better sense of
what's actually going on here,which is backed up by the survey
process itself, and so that'skind of the you know in a
nutshell how we conduct ourassessments Go ahead.

Speaker 2 (20:33):
So a couple of questions about that.
Well, one I want to make thegeneralization of you know, for
any behaviorist listening again,this is a good behavior
analysis.
I mean, they want to make suredoes the plan look right?
If it's a behavior plan youknow, behavior plan Is it a good
plan?
Are people running the planbefore we start changing a bunch
of things Because it could be agreat plan but nobody's running

(20:54):
it.
But we call it a fidelity checkor treatment integrity, and
then, I suppose, unpacking itfrom there, the survey man.
I have always been a bigsupporter of social validity,
people checking in, checkingwith the people to see how
they're feeling about the waythings are going around, et

(21:15):
cetera, et cetera.
And I'm guessing you guys haveyour own survey process.
So does that make it easier toget surveys that are more
truthful?
Because what I've found, what Ibelieve strongly, is that in
organizations where there'stoxic leadership and imagine
that there should be toxicleadership in some organizations
that people tend to be afraidto speak truthful, and that

(21:41):
makes it hard to wade throughand figure out what is really at
the root of that.
And so that's the first part ofthat question.
Maybe we'll get this in alittle bit.
But I would also like to knowhow do you approach it when
you've come across situationswhere, like you know, like hey,
the real issue here it's not theprocesses, the system is fine,
it's like the CEO, you know,it's like it's trickling down

(22:04):
toxicity.
So I'm not sure if you can talkabout that or not.

Speaker 1 (22:13):
I'm assuming you've come across that kind of thing.
So, yeah, there's two partsthere, yeah, so you know, going
back to the definition ofculture, patterns of behavior
that are encouraged ordiscouraged by people, processes
or systems, we're looking atprocesses, we're looking at
systems, but we're also lookingat what people are doing.
We're looking at what do theinteractions look like, whether
it's peer-to-peer interactions,which can certainly support or

(22:35):
not support safe behavior.
But we're also looking at,obviously, leadership
interactions.
And what do those look like,whether it's a frontline
supervisor with frontlineworkers, or managers with
frontline supervisors, or seniormanagers with managers.
I mean, if we're talking aboutan organizational cascade, we

(22:55):
very much care about whatsources of motivation are these
leaders leveraging?
And so, are they leveragingprimarily negative reinforcement
?
Are they leveraging theavoidance of punishment
primarily as a source ofmotivation?

(23:15):
Because if they are, the morethat they do that, the more of
the problematic side effectsthat you're going to get in that
organization, which canactually be very dangerous from
a safety perspective.
If people aren't reporting nearmisses, if people aren't
reporting injuries becausethey're afraid of getting in
trouble, then you have anorganization that doesn't truly
understand what is going on atthe front line and what are the
hazards that people are trulyrunning into?

(23:37):
They can't learn from mistakes.
So that type of approach thatis heavily weighted on
punishment and disciplineTypically it's driven by
organizations that care deeplyabout safety.
They don't want their people toget hurt and they're doing the
best that they can.
And fortunately they don't havethe understanding of behavior

(24:01):
to know that you'resub-optimizing your objectives
if you're pulling on that levertoo hard.

Speaker 2 (24:09):
Yeah, winning the battle, but losing the war right
.

Speaker 1 (24:11):
Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah, exactly.
And so they're doing somethingabout it and, without knowing
any better, they are pulling onthat lever.
The more that they pull on thatlever, the more side effects
that they're going to get andtherefore, the farther away that
their culture is moving forwhere they want it to move.

(24:33):
So what we help them with is wehelp them understand that and
we help them understand that.
Look, there are multiple toolsthat you can use to motivate
behavior, not just discipline.
Discipline is one tool, butyou've got several other tools
in your toolbox and that's whatwe want to teach you, and that's
what we want to teach you howto use, so that they can

(24:56):
actually start to use somepositive reinforcement instead,
and also an assessment ofpositive reinforcement, because
I think quite often in OBM wetalk about leaders providing
reinforcement, and I think it'smore important to talk about in
terms of arranging sources ofreinforcement and arranging
multiple sources of motivationfor employee performance.

(25:17):
And so that's back to yourquestion do we run into toxic
leadership?
We certainly run into situationswhere leaders are leaning too
far into discipline as theprimary source of motivation,
and that creates all sorts ofproblems, as you know, If the
primary source of motivation foran employee to comply with

(25:39):
safety procedures is avoidingdiscipline.
What happens when there'snobody there to discipline them?
The rules are going to go outthe window.
I recently had a client of minetell me something that really
stuck with me.
He said our culture is definedby what people will do at three
o'clock in the morning andobviously this is a night shift
operation and I thought that wassuch a great statement.

(26:01):
That really highlights thatpoint, which is you need to
leverage multiple sources ofmotivation for employee
performance, not just discipline, Because if all that you're
relying on is discipline, you'renot moving in the direction
that you want to move in from asafety perspective or

(26:22):
productivity or qualityperspective.

Speaker 2 (26:25):
Yeah, if that's all you're doing, you're engaging in
what I call my latest book, assClown Behavior.
People are not aware of it.
It doesn't mean they're assclowns right, but it's behavior.
We've all engaged in this kindof behavior.
Again, it's winning the battlebut losing the war.
I always think about like if youcould measure things right and
the reason leaders do this stuffis because they see it improves

(26:46):
performance.
Get down, do your stuff rightnow, so there's a visible
outcome there.
But if you could see all othermeasures like morale, you know,
and the likelihood that they'regoing to stay at the
organization for a long time,and performance in other ways,
we could see that data go likedown.
I think of like almost like bargraphs going down this side and
like, wow, the one behaviorgoes up at least while the
leader is looking, which is, youknow the whole whole issue that

(27:08):
you bring it up in your world.
I mean, we're in any world, butin your world, when we're
talking about safety, the peopleare not practicing safe
behaviors when they're not beingwatched, and that's probably a
majority of the time that peoplearen't watching them.
That is a big challenge I'massuming that you do anything
with.
Well, I don't want to.

(27:29):
I don't want to skip ahead ofthat.
And so when you, when you turnthe because I do want to get to
the follow-up piece on this whenyou turn, actually I want to
look at the training piece atfirst, what your trainings look
like or what you focus on there.
But when you turn the camera onthe leadership team, do you
find that they're accepting mostof the time?

(27:51):
Do you find that?
Or is it like?
Is it like hard?
Like you know, you look in themirror like oh my God, I'm, I'm,
I'm the issue here.
You know how often does thatbecome a thing and how do you
address that?

Speaker 1 (28:03):
Yeah, that's a good question.
I think, generally speaking,they're accepting of it.
You know, the beauty ofbehavior analysis and OBM is it
presents a pretty rock solidargument and, as long as you
know how to present the argument, there isn't a whole lot of
room for denying that what isbeing said is accurate and it's

(28:34):
backed up, like I said, by 75years of research.
And so, as a starting point,making sure that you present it
as objectively as possible andyou do let them know that this
isn't our idea, that this issomething that is anchored on
research, typically we'reworking with highly technical

(28:55):
folks, we're working withscientists, we're working with
engineers, we're working withpeople that their interests
might be in cracking moleculesor extracting minerals from the
earth, and our interest is inbehavior change.
But ultimately, we use a lot ofthe same tools, a lot of the
same principles, a lot of thesame concepts quantifiability,

(29:16):
the scientifically provenobjectivity, and so whenever we
go to leaders and we let themknow that, hey, listen, we've
got this way that you can managehuman performance in terms that
they understand, in terms thatthey can recognize, and this is
the first time that they've beenable to apply it to human
performance they're fairlyaccepting, and we get a lot of

(29:40):
pull from that.
So I think it all depends onhow you present it to them, but
it is rare once that we've hadenough time to speak with a
leadership team and by that Imean anything beyond 15 minutes.
They're in.
They understand that, okay.
So this is actually somethingthat is legitimately going to
help me on this thing that hasalways been somewhat of a

(30:03):
mystery to me, which is humanperformance and the things that
people do.

Speaker 2 (30:07):
Yeah, I think that comes back to what I was saying
earlier about.
I mean, it's really amotivating operation if you have
a want for people to want toengage in this change.
I do a lot of stuff in theworld where there's you know bit
like in the educational worldthere's no more money, there's
no money to pay people you knowfor.
So they, they have to see howit's going to help them produce
valued outcomes and get themaway from some of their pain

(30:28):
points there to create a want,and they've got to be able to
leverage that stuff, thatknowledge, so it trickles down I
guess, for lack of a betterword, or cascades down, that's
probably the better word for itUm, so, um, now, when you talk

(30:50):
about so you're going to you, soyou, then you don't have to be
what I think folks need tounderstand.
They're listening to this.
When in the OBM world you don'thave to be a content expert, uh,
when you're going into consult,uh, because you're just you,
you're, you're relying on themas subject matter experts,
You're still just looking atbehavior change, right, You're
not saying what behaviornecessarily needs to change,
You're helping them to changethe behavior they tell you

(31:13):
exactly.
I mean, I suppose you can.
You know you've been in.
If you've been working insafety for a while, you have a
good idea of what kind ofbehaviors need to be changed.
But you help them unpack theirprocesses and you ask them about
the behaviors and whatbehaviors you want more of and
what behaviors you want less ofright.
Is that a way to?

Speaker 1 (31:30):
simplify it.
Yeah, I mean having a goodunderstanding of their business,
having a good understanding oftheir processes and the
procedures is important.
So yeah, just for me personally, I've worked in nuclear,
petrochemical mining,manufacturing of various types,

(31:51):
aerospace, banking, death careservices, transportation I mean
you name it.
I've probably done some work inthat type of industry.
I'm not an expert in all ofthose industries by any stretch.
My area of expertise is inhuman performance and that's why

(32:14):
we can work across that manydifferent type of industries and
different business objectives.
It's because our area ofexpertise is in performance
management and OBM.
So it is helpful to have a goodunderstanding of the business,
and we do a good bit of studyingup when we're working with our

(32:36):
clients to make sure that weunderstand it, and certainly a
lot of us.
I spend a lot of time in mining, for instance, and I've worked
with some of the largest andmost sophisticated mining
companies in the world, and soyou're going to learn a lot from
that type of experience.

Speaker 2 (32:53):
But you're learning.
In this case you can actually,as you go in there, through your
initial assessment just thinkabout somebody that went in
there new and this wasn't partof the question but you're going
to learn about their processes.
But in the nuclear you don'tneed to know how to split atoms,
for example.
You need to know the processthat gets there to that person

(33:14):
and chain it.
So you need to know kind ofhigh level behavior processes
and key behaviors that lead tothat stuff.
But you don't need to be anexpert in splitting atoms.
You know that's exactly right.

Speaker 1 (33:24):
Yeah, that's exactly right.
Yeah, that's exactly right,yeah, yeah, you need to have a
very good understanding.
I wouldn't even say become anEHS subject matter expert if
it's about safety or you know,you don't.
We don't all need Sig, sigma,black belts in order to be able
to work in manufacturing.
It helps, and we do haveconsultants that have that type

(33:46):
of background, but the mostimportant thing is have a good
enough understanding of theirsystems and their processes that
you're able to provide supporton the performance management
side of things.

Speaker 2 (34:00):
Yeah, that is what's freaking amazing about our
science.
I I say it's the greatestscience, uh, in the world.
Case in point, what otherscience can improve other
sciences by improving theperformance of the respective
scientists?
Right?
Uh, we are freaking cool man.
Well, the science is cool.
I don't know, I'm not alwaysthat so cool, but anyways, all

(34:21):
right.
So we train them in the science.
Human behavior you unpack theprocess, you train them in uh,
I'm human behavior.
You unpack the process, youtrain them in, I'm assuming some
performance managementapproaches.
People listening to this needto understand this.
If you're a consultant thatgoes anywhere and this is our
folks that are going to schoolsor going to clinics If you're
not going to be there all thetime, you need to have local

(34:41):
performance management, becauseif you don't, when you're going
to give some recommendations,which are antecedents, you're
going to leave and nobody'sgoing to follow them In my.
You know the way that I'veapproached things and I'm pretty
sure it's the way that youapproach things.
I just call it a coach-to-coachmodel, because you need things
to stick.
It's going to be the peoplethat are on the ground, that are
there daily, that are going tohelp things to stick, so it's

(35:04):
essentially not giving peoplethe fish, it's teaching the fish
, otherwise it's.
It's just a waste of money,yeah.

Speaker 1 (35:10):
Yeah, that is, that is very true, and I think that
coach coach model is is a modelthat should be a part of any
responsible performancemanagement company, which is
equipping them to be able tomanage the their their own
initiatives.
And, again, our job is to equipthem with those tools and those
principles, and so the wholeidea is to build sustainability

(35:37):
and how they're going to be ableto use those tools and those
principles so they can addressfuture initiatives, future
performance problems that theyneed to address, and so that is
a great part of coach, the coachmodel, which brings up an
interesting point about coaching, because coaching is an
important component, it's acritical component for the type
of work that we do in this field.
It's equipping leaders tobecome more like coaches that

(36:01):
are going to be observingperformance, that are going to
be providing feedback, that aregoing to be thoughtful about the
sources of motivation for thedesired behaviors, that are
going to do their best toarrange the right sources of
motivation for the desiredbehaviors.
And that's the kind of thingthat you do as an MMA coach.
That's the kind of thing that Ido as an ADI consultant.

(36:23):
It's the same thing differenttypes of behaviors consultant.
It's the same thing, differenttypes of behaviors, but it's
still the same principle inplace.

Speaker 2 (36:30):
Yeah, nick and I you know your former colleague Dr
Nick Wedley, my dog we wrote abook called Deliberate Coaching.
I know you're aware of that,and what we did was we described
coaching as functional Trainingis about skill acquisition.
Coaching is about supportingthe generalization of learned
skills into the naturalenvironment.
I just like to think about itas getting people to behave well

(36:50):
enough and long enough that itproduces some sort of naturally
occurring reinforcer or naturalto the system, so that way you
can fade out, and I think thatis the ultimate goal, because if
they don't see that's producingsome sort of valued outcome for
them, they're going to fallback into old habits or the
habits aren't even going togeneralize.
They're not even going to startthe habit, they're just going
to go right back to theworkplace and continue to do the

(37:12):
things that they were doingbefore, and I see this happen
all the time.
I know that you do.
So what is your, what are yourcoaching processes look like?
I mean, I'm assuming there'ssome boots on the ground.
I'm assuming that there's someremote work as well remote
coaching.

Speaker 1 (37:25):
It's a combination of a variety of different things,
depends on the client, dependson the contract that we have.
Sometimes, most of the time, itis boots on ground.
Most of the time, it is actuallyin great part because we like
to see leaders in action in avariety of different contexts,
not just like you and I aretalking right now.
That might be part of it, but Iwould like to see that leader in

(37:48):
a start of shift meeting or inthe production meeting or in an
all hands meeting.
I would like to see how peoplerespond to that leader and I
would like to see how thatleader attends to that, how
people are responding to him orher.
These are all things thatrequire some boots on ground,
actually being out thereobserving, and so we do remote

(38:10):
as well, no doubt, but I thinkfor the most part, we spend a
lot of time in the field, whichis why we you know, I think we
talked about this before westarted the podcast but I could
be a two-hour drive away fromwhere I live and doing work in a

(38:30):
manufacturing plant there, or Icould be in Australia doing
work in a mine, and it justdepends on where the client is.
But we do tend to spend a lotof time on site.

Speaker 2 (38:42):
So you're on site, though, and I mean we know we're
in the business of creatinghabits, not just changing
behavior, and it takes time tocreate those habits.
So imagine you have some.
Really, when you're on site,you can give some really tight.
You have some really tightfeedback loops going on, but
still, how long are you on sitefor before you go back?
You know it's not like it's notnecessarily that that habit's

(39:03):
going to be in place at thatpoint.
There's going to be in place atthat point.
There's gotta be.
What do you have, like somechampions that now are reporting
out and that's where I'massuming that's who you're
coaching to begin with.
But like you got to still keepthat feedback loop process going
right.

Speaker 1 (39:16):
There's a lot of models and it just depends on on
who we work, who we're workingwith, what the initiative
entails, and so there could besome champion components or it
could be some coach to coachcomponents.
It just it really it depends onhow widespread the initiative
is.
Do they just want to tacklethis one initiative or do they

(39:41):
want a more broad approach?
Therefore, several differentinitiatives that we're going to
help them with, and so it reallyit depends a great deal on what
the client need is.
We don't have one one approach.
We we have multiple approachesto meet the client need gotcha,
okay, so now, uh, but let's, can?

Speaker 2 (40:01):
we?
We'll make the shift here,because we we started off saying
that we were going to focus onwhen we have, you know, these,
these organizations that arehaving safety issues, and what
are?
What does that actually looklike?
Right, a safety issue?
I know it looks a little bitdifferent.
I mean, there's some commoncomponents, though, across these
different industries.
What is it that it looks like?

(40:22):
And why are people not engagingin safe behaviors?
Because then that's going.
We'll go full circle back totalk about, like, why you're
doing what you're doing.

Speaker 1 (40:29):
Yeah, yeah.
So this goes back to where westarted the conversation, which
is employee performance is aresponse to the context that
leadership creates for thatperformance.
Leaders are going to beproviding the vision and the
mission and the direction.
They are going to be providingthe vision and the mission and
the direction.
They're going to be providingthe resources, they're going to

(40:51):
be providing the training.
They're going to be providingthe incentive programs, the
systems, the processes, thefeedback, the coaching.
That's the context ofperformance, that's the
performance performance, that'sthe performance framework for

(41:12):
employees.
And so what we do in order tofigure out, well, why are people
engaging in at-risk behavior?
Why are they getting hurt, iswe parse that out?
We try and figure out well,what's going on, why are these
performers not doing whatthey're supposed to be doing?
A huge component there is thepoint that I made about the
sources of motivation for themto comply with the safety

(41:34):
procedures.
And so, if we go back to, ifit's primarily discipline that
is driving their performance,well then not only is that going
to be the example that I gaveearlier is what happens when
nobody's there to disciplinethem, but there's another
problem with that, which isthey're doing it because they
were told to do it.

(41:55):
They're doing it because theydon't want to get in trouble.
They're doing it because theydon't want to get fired, and the
problem with that is, if that'sa primary source of motivation,
well then they're going to dojust enough to meet that
criterion, just enough to notget fired.
This is the kind of thing thatyou'll read all over Aubrey's
books.
When we talk about discretionaryeffort, which is is this an

(42:19):
environment where people arejust meeting minimum
requirements, meaning they'redoing what they're doing just to
avoid discipline requirements,meaning they're doing what
they're doing just to avoiddiscipline or is this an
environment where they're doingit because they're connected
with multiple sources ofmotivation to encourage them to
comply with these safetyprocesses and procedures, which
is what discretionary effortgenerates?
And so what you want isemployees that engage in the

(42:43):
different processes that youwant them to engage in, because
they're inspired by them,because they're motivated by
them.
These are the employees thatfeel motivated by seeing a
safety metric up on a wall andthey can say what I do impacts
that safety metric.
These are the employees thatare motivated by providing
peer-to-peer feedback and seeingtheir peers improve their

(43:03):
performance and improve theirsafety practices.
These are the employees thatare motivated by providing input
and ideas about safetyimprovements in the environment.
So our argument is that leadersit is a leader's responsibility
to help close that gap betweenthey're doing it because they're

(43:26):
avoiding discipline to they'redoing it because they connect
with multiple sources ofmotivation.
And that's what we help leadershow to do, how we equip leaders
to help their employees connectwith multiple sources of
motivation for following thesafety processes and procedures,
or quality processes, dependingon the business objective.

Speaker 2 (43:48):
So you mentioned earlier and this ties right back
to this in the OBM world,leading and lagging indicators,
or the business world, is acommon knowledge, right?
So I'm assuming, when we talkabout safety metrics, folks
listening, you have to makeprogress salient.
Assuming, when we talk aboutsafety metrics, you have to
folks listening, you have tomake progress salient, and I'm
sure that you've found this alot.
But usually these feedbackloops are so delayed that people

(44:12):
, it's like driving somewhere inthe area that you don't know,
like New York City, and the GPSis only coming on every 10
minutes.
You know you end up engaging ina bunch of trial and error and
it's not effective, efficient,efficient and sometimes you go
down the wrong neighborhood.
It could be even dangerous, uh,if you're not doing that.
So you have to make progresssalient.
And so some of the progressthat you you discuss is you know

(44:35):
we wanting to have discussionand effort, and I suppose you
could measure that in, in, inbehavior.
You know people going above andbeyond, even when you're not
looking, although you have tolook at some point to know.
But what other metrics do youuse there to connect the dots
right?
And I'm assuming that socialvalidity is one of these metrics
.

Speaker 1 (44:52):
Yeah, Well, the leading indicators typically
come from the client, meaningthey're going to have some sort
of indicator to show thatemployees are following the
safety processes, following thesafety rules.
So they might have some processmetrics.
They might have some near-missreporting, which is for those in

(45:13):
the audience that aren'tfamiliar with that.
Near-miss reporting is wheneverthere was almost an incident
that occurred, that gets turnedin as a hey listen, there's this
thing that almost occurred thatcould have gotten me hurt and
there's a lot of learning thatcomes from that finding.
And so the leading indicatorsreally are the different metrics

(45:40):
that the company has.
That's letting them know if wedo well in these, we will do
well in our lagging indicators.
So, in the context of safety,obviously you're lagging
indicators.
We're talking about thedifferent injury rates, but an
injury rate that is, you know,that is, that is about as
lagging as it gets.
It's too late if somebodyalready got hurt.

(46:01):
So the leading indicators arethe metrics that inform us on
what's the likelihood thatsomeone is going to get hurt.
How well are we doing againstthese different safety processes
?
And if we're doing well in them, it decreases the probability
that we're going to get hit onthe lagging indicator side on
the injury rates, and so theleading indicators typically
come from the client.

(46:22):
Now there might be some leadingindicators that we set up,
especially if we're talkingabout some sort of
behavior-based safety programwhere there's going to be a
tracking of safe behavior andat-risk behavior, but most of
the leading indicators thatwe're helping our clients with
are their current safety leadingindicators.

Speaker 2 (46:40):
It's so ironic, man, that most of the OBM work that
Anik and I do is in education orbehavior analytic organizations
.
And the irony, particularly inbehavior analytic organizations,
is that they're not using OBM,but they're equipped with the
science to do it.
They have metrics that are verydelayed.
They usually don't have thingslike you know, good leading

(47:01):
indicators, uh, in in place,especially with things like
social validity.
You know, they in education andthese organizations, they have
a, uh, a climate survey theygive at the end of the year.
That I call an autopsy, becausewhat are you going to do with
that data to let you know?
You know, and I think that inin places where I've gone, where
they're having lots ofstruggles, I I had coming out

(47:22):
every week, you know, like afive question form just to see
how people are feeling about theway things are going over there
.
That's that's really involvingyour stakeholders.
I feel like, if people say theyvalue safety, for example, or
they value people feeling safe,um, you know, and feeling
respected, I'm like, if youvalue it, you measure it.
Um, if you're not measuring it,you're not really showing a lot
of value for it.
Now, um, one of the issues I'vecome across is that you

(47:46):
mentioned like this near missreporting out.
I got to think you have to havea really good culture to
support that, because that's apretty scary thing to say that.
Hey, I'm guessing thatsometimes it's people made a
mistake.
That's why the near misshappened.
So you know what kind ofpositive reinforcement is in
place for somebody to actuallyreport out that they had this

(48:10):
near miss.
Otherwise you don't haveaccurate data because people get
punished for it, like you can'tdo stuff like that, and they're
like well, screw that, I'm notgoing to report out.

Speaker 1 (48:17):
That's exactly right.
Yeah, and trust is critical fora healthy near miss reporting
system.
And trust is critical for ahealthy near-miss reporting
system.
And if an employee doesn'ttrust their leaders and their
organization and how they'regoing to be treated, when they
say, hey, I did this thing andit almost got me hurt, you know
you fire that employee, youpretty much just destroyed your

(48:40):
near-miss reporting system.
It's not going to happen.
People are not going to bereporting near misses, because
why would they?
So, yes, it does take trust andit takes a sophisticated
organization to be able to run agood near miss reporting system
.
And also, you know, when wewere talking about diagnostics

(49:02):
and trying to figure out what isactually going on in this
organization, one of the placesthat we start is we look at the
near miss reporting system andif we see we see that it's a at
a just flat lining, that tellsus that's informative.
That's a data point that saysis there a trust problem in this
environment?
Are employees afraid of what'sgoing to happen if they turn in

(49:24):
their dear missus or theirinjuries, even?

Speaker 2 (49:28):
That's a very hard metric to get to have accurate,
the closest thing I can.
In schools we had things likeoffice discipline referrals when
kids were being called out ofthe classroom.
The problem is you're measuringthe behavior of people
reporting it.
I had to create a coding systemthat when everybody called for
assistance, we'd log that datapoint in.
If there were 100 calls forassistance, there should have

(49:49):
been 100 referrals.
I was getting about 40 to 60referrals in places where there
were a lot of behavioralchallenges, because there's not
only the trust component butthere's the response effort.
This stuff is effortful to do.
People aren't going to want todo it.
It's double jeopardy, I guess.

Speaker 1 (50:06):
Sure, sure.
Something that's interestingthat I've been noticing over the
last few years is that there'sbeen a first of all.
There's a whole lot moreeducation about leading and
lagging indicators and theimportance of making sure that
you're looking at both, and I'veseen that evolution in

(50:26):
different industries likepetrochemicals and like mining,
where there was a period in timewhere, really, when it came to
safety, they were just lookingat their injury rate.
Nowadays you'll still run intothat, but it's typically not the
companies that are calling usto help them with their culture.
Typically, those are going tobe companies that are fairly
sophisticated and they alreadyhave some pretty world-class

(50:48):
safety processes and systems.
They just need a little bit oftweak, a little bit of help in
the performance management sideof things.
But there has been a growth ofleading indicators and safety
that we've been seeing,including leadership behavior,
including layered audits orGemba walks where leaders.

(51:08):
Part of what's being tracked isleaders going out, observing,
giving feedback.
So there has been someevolution in that in terms of
the EHS metrics, which is goodto see, where people are
starting to understand that itneeds to be another layer that
we need to be looking at frombehaviors of things that people

(51:28):
are doing and are laggingindicators and that's, and
that's been the growth of theleading indicators that we've
been seeing.

Speaker 2 (51:35):
Yeah For for the behavior analysts out here,
because the, the, the again, ifyou're not in the game field,
the term can be foreign.
But I'd like to give thisexample If I was going to drive
up to see Francisco, and let'sjust say Francisco was living in
Virginia, you know I might seta goal that I'm going to get

(51:55):
there within, you know, 15 hours.
I have no idea if that's.
You know, a leading indicatormight be that I'm, you know I
have the mile markers going byright, and I'm making it every
hour.
I'm making it 70 miles.
A lagging indicator might bepassing the state lines in
service of that in X amount oftime.
So one's letting you know whereyou're at at the moment, and

(52:16):
you know you're right, of course.
And next one, you look back andsay did I reach this mile marker
, did I reach this state linewithin the time that we thought?
And then it allows you in bothcases to make adjustments.
Am I going in the rightdirection now and did I make it
within that time frame?
Do you think that's a goodanalogy, francisco?
Yeah, that works.
Yeah, because I think these,you know, I'm glad to hear that

(52:39):
there are such sophisticatedprocesses.
That makes sense.
That's why these companies areFortune 500.
They got a lot of good thingsand you go out there and you
find that tweak, like the oldman with the hammer story with
the ship.
You go out there and bang it ina place and you know exactly
where to bang it.
In this case, it's just makinglittle changes in behaviors.

Speaker 1 (52:59):
Yeah, usually the way that I explain for folks the
difference between leading andlagging when it comes to the
business metrics, we're talkingabout a relationship of your
KPIs and your indicators.
And so your lagging indicator,that's going to be the one that
has a lot of inputs going intoit.
You're probably not going tosee significant changes on them

(53:21):
very often or with highfrequency.
You might see some changes,maybe from a month to a
quarterly basis.
Your leading indicators, thoseare the ones that will change
more frequently.
You might see those change froma daily to weekly basis and the

(53:43):
most important thing is, ifyou're doing well in those
leading indicators, it'sinformative of how you're going
to do when you're laggingindicators and that's the main
difference.
And so, again, if we go back tosafety, the safety processes
that people are following, thecompliance to safety procedures
or to training, following thecompliance to safety procedures

(54:04):
or to training those areinformative of the lagging
indicators and that's typicallyhow we explain that difference.
And also, the leadingindicators are closer, from a
correlation standpoint, to thebehaviors.

Speaker 2 (54:20):
In fact, quite often they behave their own way
themselves.
Do you guys lean into thingslike I love Thomas Gilbert's
work on accomplishments?
You know, and that's the.
I forget his name, it's justright in the tip of my tongue.
I love this guy too.
He does work on work outputs.
Carl Binder, dr Carl Binder, hecalls them countable nouns, you

(54:41):
know.
You know the number of peopledoing this, the number of
meetings that have been, thenumber of decisions that have
been made, number ofrelationships that have been
made, those can all be unpackedinto leading and lagging
indicators.
I think figuring out that stuffup front, you know it's like a
behavioral roadmap.
It becomes almost, like in mymind, like a checklist.

(55:02):
You know, like, are we movingin the right direction?
Check, check, check.
And I think when you have thissalient progress where people
can actually self-monitor andreport out which I've found to
be a very valuable approach,because you know that's the one
thing that everybody can take alook at their behavior and the
results that they're producingand they can report it out to
other people.

(55:22):
And then you can pop inintermittently and you need to
make it that feedback loop needsto be tighter at first, just to
have a little inter-observeragreement and hopefully
positively reinforce or ask somegood questions and, you know,
to help help improve performanceif needed.
But, man, these metrics, this,this, these metrics are so

(55:43):
needed with a good feedback loop, and do you find that is often
one of the main areas that youguys need to focus on, or is
that just one of many differentthings?

Speaker 1 (55:55):
What do you mean focus on, like helping them
integrate these, or helping them?

Speaker 2 (56:00):
Helping them integrate them, yeah, or I
suppose that, helping themimprove them.
For my, you are doing Fortune500 companies.
I am not doing that.
So, again, your systems are waymore sophisticated.
I'm having to go into placesand build things from the ground
up a lot of times.
I mean, they're a mess.
Yeah, a lot of things I'mseeing.
So where's the focus?
You have to build it or youhave to tweak the feedback

(56:22):
processes.
You know they just always seemdelayed where I go.

Speaker 1 (56:25):
Yeah, no, typically the leading indicators are
already there.
The question is, what's thequality of the behaviors going
into those leading indicators?
And that's really our area,which is is there a whole lot of
checking the box?
So what is the quality of theirnear miss reporting, for
instance?
What is the quality of theirnear-miss reporting, for
instance?
What is the quality of theirhazard recommendations, if

(56:46):
that's a leading indicator?
And so it isn't.
So much on helping them buildleading indicators, although we
can and we have Most of the time.
These companies already have abattery of leading indicators.
The question is, how are theyusing them?
And also, what is the qualityof the behaviors going into
those numbers?
Are these numbers indicative ofactually what people are doing

(57:09):
out in the field?
Going back to the point that wetalked about earlier, the more
that leadership is relying ondiscipline and you better do it
or else in order to producecompliance then the less
trustworthy that those leadingindicators are, because people
are doing it just to avoiddiscipline, not because they see
the value in the safety process.

Speaker 2 (57:31):
And that information so the area that we help Go
ahead, go ahead.

Speaker 1 (57:34):
Well, the area that we help them with is making sure
that leaders are engaging inthe right type of behaviors to
motivate the right type ofperformance.
That will then generate morelegitimate data sources or
leading indicators In the rightway.

Speaker 2 (57:50):
I'm assuming you're going to get all this
information up front with yourinitial assessment.
That's where you have to comein, and then yeah, yeah, okay
Well man, that's exactly right.
So we're up here on this hour.
Man, Is there anything else youwant to leave our listeners
with?
Like, hey, if you're ever goingto an organization, definitely
do this or definitely don't dothat.

(58:10):
I don't know.
Some wisdom, some nugget.

Speaker 1 (58:15):
Yeah, I mean.
Feel free to reach out if youhave any questions, if you want
to chat about any of this, ifyou're interested in hearing
more about ADI, I'll be morethan happy to make myself
available to chat with youraudience.
It's been a pleasure to talkwith you, Pauly, as always.

Speaker 2 (58:32):
And I'll drop in the show notes, man.
But what would be the bestplace for people to reach out to
you, francisco?

Speaker 1 (58:39):
I think through ADI, they'll be able to connect with
my email through LinkedIn aswell.
I have a pretty lively LinkedInnetwork and so they can connect
with us via ADI.
Has a profile on LinkedIn, butalso just me individually I have
my own and then just reachingout to aubreydanielscom they can

(59:03):
connect with us that way aswell.

Speaker 2 (59:04):
Yeah, and I'll drop everything in the show notes,
man.
Well, thanks, brother.
It's been fascinating, man.
I love stepping in your worldto see what's going on there.
And, who knows man, maybe oneday we'll be able to work
together.

Speaker 1 (59:14):
That'd be great, Pauly.
It's always great to chat withyou and we'll talk soon.