It never ceases to amaze me to see the latest cause analysis model that borrowsextensively from the work of Thomas Gilbert without giving him the credit hedeserves. Sometimes a new category is added, typically there are some newdescriptions, and perhaps even a dash of color, but somehow they forget to

acknowledge the body of work they have built on.

Sir Isaac Newton said it best: “If I can see much farther, it’s because I am standing onthe shoulders of giants.” We should remember to credit the contributions of those whocame before us.

The Behavior Engineering Model (BEM) developed by Gilbert and presented in hislandmark book, Human Competence: Engineering Worthy Performance (Gilbert, 1978),provides us with a way to systematically and systemically identify barriers to individ-ual and organizational performance. The BEM distinguishes between a person’s reper-tory of behavior (what the individual brings to the performance equation) and theenvironmental supports (the work environment factors that encourage or impede per-formance).

Updating theBehaviorEngineeringModelby Roger Chevalier, CPT

8 www.ispi.org • MAY/JUNE 2003

Figure 1. Behavior Engineering Model (Source: Gilbert, 1978, p. 88).

An Updated Model

In presenting the model as shown in Figure 1, we havelearned a lot from our students that led us to update themodel. Our work in presenting our program in house at onehigh-tech company gave us insight into ways in which themodel could be made more comprehensive as well as scal-able from the individual to the organization itself.

Figure 2 shows how we have adapted some of the termsused by Gilbert to reflect the way we typically speak aboutperformance; in the figure they are numbered to identify theorder in which the causes are identified and remedied.

Using the Updated Model

As was the case for the original BEM, the updated model asshown in Figure 3 focuses our attention on the distinctionbetween environmental and individual factors that affectperformance. Environmental factors are the starting pointfor analysis because they pose the greatest barriers to exem-plary performance. When the environmental supports arestrong, individuals are better able to do what is expected ofthem. We look to environmental causes first because, in thewords of Geary Rummler and Alan Brache, “If you pit agood performer against a bad system, the system will winalmost every time” (Rummler & Brache, 1995, p. 13).

Performance Improvement • Volume 42 • Number 5 9

Figure 2. Updated Behavior Engineering Model Cells.

Figure 3. Updated Behavior Engineering Model (Adapted from Gilbert, 1978, p. 88).

The support given by the work environment is divided into three factors that influence performance: information,resources, and incentives. Information includes communi-cating clear expectations, providing the necessary guides todo the work, and giving timely, behaviorally specific feed-back. Resources include ensuring that the proper materials,tools, time, and processes are present to accomplish the task.Incentives ensure that the appropriate financial and nonfi-nancial incentives are present to encourage performance.These apply to the worker, the work, and the workplace.

Individuals bring to the job their motives, capacity, knowl-edge, and skills. Individual motives should be aligned withthe work environment so that employees have a desire towork and excel. Capacity refers to whether the worker isable to learn and do what is necessary to be successful onthe job. The final factor refers to whether the individual hasthe knowledge and skills necessary to do a specific task.

The model gives us the structure we need to assess each ofthe six factors—information, resources, incentives, motives,capacity, and knowledge and skills—that affect individualand group performance on the job. We should review thesefactors in the order described in Figure 2, since the envi-ronmental factors are easier to improve and have a greaterimpact on individual and group performance. It would alsobe difficult to assess whether the individual has the rightmotives, capacity, and knowledge and skills to do the job ifthe environmental factors of information, resources, andincentives are not sufficiently present.

We will leverage our solutions based on the potential impact thata change would make and the cost associated with that changeas illustrated in Figure 4. In leveraging the solution, we canimprove performance by addressing the information present inthe work environment; we can do this by communicating clearexpectations, providing the necessary guides to do the work,and giving timely, behaviorally specific feedback. This can be

done at relatively low cost and has a great impact on perfor-mance. Similarly, we can address shortfalls in the resourcesnecessary to do the job by ensuring that the proper materials,tools, time, and processes are present. This is also relativelyinexpensive and has a great influence on performance. We cansee that if we work at the knowledge level of the individual,the solution will be expensive and does not have the impactthat we get when dealing with the environmental issues.

Cause Analysis Worksheet

Conducting a thorough cause analysis will help betterdefine the reasons why a gap in performance exists. Thestarting point with the Cause Analysis Worksheet is identi-fying the individual’s or organization’s present level of per-formance and the desired level of performance. Thedifference between where the organization or individual isand where they want to be is the performance gap. Anotheruseful step is to identify a reasonable goal, something thatcan be accomplished in a short time that moves the organi-zation in the direction toward where it wants to be. Thisshould be defined clearly with measures of quality, quantity,time, and cost delineated.

We next assess the impact of the environmental factors andthen move to the individual factors in the order described inFigure 2. Environmental factors such as information,resources, and incentives are usually cheaper to fix thanindividual factors. Motives, capacity, and knowledge aremore costly to address and require greater effort. Even if wewere to successfully change the individual factors, perfor-mance would most likely not improve if environmental fac-tors remained unresolved.

The process begins by asking questions to identify how each ofthese factors affects the performance gap. Developed by KurtLewin, force field analysis provides a methodology for identi-fying and weighting the relative strength of the factors that con-tribute to the present level of performance (Lewin, 1947).

Driving forces are those factors that are already working toclose the gap between the present and desired level of per-formance. These are identified and evaluated as to their rel-ative strength on a +1 to +4 scale. Restraining forces arethose factors that work against us as we try to close the gapbetween the present level and the desired level of perfor-mance. These are identified and evaluated as to their rela-tive strength on a -1 to -4 scale. To graphically depict theforces, we use opposing arrows for the driving and restrain-ing forces (see Figure 5).

Figure 6 depicts a one-page worksheet that brings gap analy-sis, cause analysis, and force field analysis into a useful per-formance aid. Whether we are working with an individualor a group, the worksheet gives the needed structure toguide questions as we identify the driving and restraining

1 0 www.ispi.org • MAY/JUNE 2003

Figure 4. Leveraging the Solution (Adapted from ISPI, 2001, p. 6.3).

forces. When the worksheet is complete, we have a pictureof the performance gap and the factors working for andagainst us in trying to close that gap.

Case Study: Identifying theCauses

The following performance improve-ment intervention started the way mostdo, with a request for training. The com-pany provided software products andservices for very large financial organi-zations and government agencies. Itrecently decided to develop productsand services for medium-size financialinstitutions and formed a sales team tobring these products to market.

While the sales manager was looking fortraining to enhance the selling skills ofhis sales team, he was open to a broadersolution to build systems that would sys-tematically track and continuouslyimprove employees’ performance. Notonly would the solution have to containselling and sales management systems tosupport the training the sales team got,but it would have to bridge the gapbetween the sales team and the customerservice people in another division.

The sales manager had joined the com-pany two months ago. While he hadsome experience with the products andservices offered by the company, he hadlittle sales experience. He was veryenthusiastic about the new productsand services, as his previous employerhad purchased the new product threemonths before. He saw the potential ofthe product and wanted to be a part ofthe team that would bring it to market.He sold his interest in his former busi-ness to his partners and re-invested the

money to become a partner in the new company as well asthe sales manager.

In an interview with the sales manager, the following infor-mation was revealed:• The six salespeople hired had a wide range of sales

experience and knowledge of the products and servicesbeing offered. Two of them had been involved in theproduct’s development but knew little about sales. Twoof them had excellent track records in selling softwareand technical products but knew little about the newproducts and services being offered. Another had someexperience with the products and services and somesales experience. The last member of the sales team hadsome experience in real estate sales.

Performance Improvement • Volume 42 • Number 5 1 1

Figure 5. Force Field Analysis.

Figure 6. Cause Analysis Worksheet.

1 2 www.ispi.org • MAY/JUNE 2003

• The sales manager had tried cross-training the sales-people by sending them out together on sales calls inwhich he would try to match people with differentbackgrounds. He would also go on calls with each sales-person to observe and provide feedback. He was nothappy with the results and felt he was running out oftime. The company had not made a sale since the CEOhad made the deal with his former company.

• The sales manager indicated that the group had threemonths with which to obtain one sale per salesperson;this would allow the company to break even and pro-vide each salesperson a living wage. Salespeople had abase salary and worked on commission; they were takingadvances against futurecommissions.

• The software product wasvery expensive, more than$100,000. Additionally, cus-tomers paid about $5,000 amonth for related services.While the sales manager’sold company had the soft-ware in place for only twomonths, the increased prof-its would pay off the ini-tial investment in sixmonths and then start pro-ducing a substantial profitfrom that point on.

• There were no trackingsystems in place to man-age the leads obtainedfrom three sources: currentcustomers, large financialinstitutions that referredsmaller companies to them;trade shows; and govern-ment reports that wouldidentify and qualify poten-tial customers. Each sales-person followed up on leads,but there was no overalltracking system in place.

• The selling process was notdefined. Since the only salewas unique, with the CEOselling the product and ser-vice to an old friend, therewas no model of the sell-ing process that could befollowed.

• The best leads were gener-ated by the large financialinstitutions, which invitedtheir customers to salespresentations. What had

been discovered is that only one of the decisionmakersneeded for the sale would typically attend. The sales-people needed to reach company CEOs, CFOs, and ITmanagers for a sale to be approved. Each of these indi-viduals had different information needs to make theirpart of the decision.

• Interviews with the salespeople indicated that theywere aware of the goal of one sale per salesperson inthree months. They were becoming concerned aboutmaking the goal. They were well equipped with laptopcomputers and demo programs but lacked a structuredway to approach the selling process and analyze theirprogress with prospects. They received feedback from

Figure 7. Completed Cause Analysis Worksheet.

each other and when the sales manager went on a salescall with them. While they liked the sales manager andthe job itself, they were becoming discouraged.

• The salespeople were a very mixed group. While theteam together had what it needed to be successful, eachindividual was lacking some knowledge and skills nec-essary to be successful. Guidance was limited at bestand feedback from their prospects was nonexistent.Everyone wanted to do a good job and appeared to behighly motivated but did not know what it would taketo be successful. There was no performance manage-ment system in place to clearly define the activitiesneeded to be successful.

• Because of the time constraints, the intervention wouldhave to be designed and implemented within two weeks.

The Cause Analysis Worksheet was used to guide the gath-ering of information and to display the overall picture. Itcombines gap analysis, cause analysis, and force field analysisto develop a graphic depiction of the situation and the forcesaffecting it. Figure 7 on page 12 is a completed Cause AnalysisWorksheet that displays the information from the case study.

Once this picture of the performance gap and the factorsworking for and against closing the gap was developed, thestrategy for closing the gap became one of adding to orstrengthening driving forces and minimizing or removingrestraining forces.

What Really Happened

As a result of the systematic cause analysis with the salesmanager and his salespeople, everyone involved could seethat training was necessary, but only as part of a more com-prehensive solution. The cause analysis was completed andreported in three days. The intervention was designed anddeveloped during the following week.

The initial phase of the intervention included four hours ofleadership and coaching training for the sales manager andthe other managers associated with the customer serviceprocess. While the stated goal of the workshop was todeliver needed leadership skills to the various managers,the unstated goals included assessing their perceptions ofwhat was needed, setting goals for the intervention, andbuilding a team for these managers.

Since coaching sales and customer service are all applica-tions of leadership, the training programs were designedaround performance aids derived from SituationalLeadership® (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 1996, pp. 188-256) to assist managers in the performance coaching processand employees in their sales and service roles. By capturingthe parallel processes of coaching, sales, and service inthree similar performance aids, the basis for creating anintegrated system of sales management was established.

Sixteen hours of consultative sales and customer servicetraining were delivered in a weekend workshop. A consul-tant provided the structure by presenting the various salesand customer service models; participants cross trainedeach other as they moved from the generic models to prac-tical courses of action.

Two sales management systems were developed from thecoaching and sales performance aids and the employeeinput given during the training programs. The systemsfocused on the means (how sales people were perceived bytheir clients) as well as the ends (how clients movedthrough the sales funnel to become customers).

A client and customer survey, derived from the sales per-formance guide, was developed to gather information fromclients and customers regarding the selling process and thevalue of the products and services being offered. As soon asa lead was declared dead, a one-page survey was sent to thefailed prospect. A more comprehensive two-page surveywas sent to customers after the purchase was made, the soft-ware installed, and the first month of service provided.

When the surveys were returned, a copy was immediatelygiven to the salesperson. The sales manager’s administrativeassistant would analyze the feedback received for each salesperson and prepare a monthly summary for the sales man-ager, who would then provide feedback on selling tenden-cies and ways for each salesperson to become more effective.

A parallel survey was developed to gather information everythree months from the salespeople on the leadership theywere receiving from the sales manager. The net effect was todevelop an inter-related survey system for the systematicassessment and continuous improvement of the sales andcoaching processes. Ongoing customer service surveys werelater developed to bring that division under the same system.

All sales managers have a difficult leadership task in thatthey do not routinely observe much of the work done by theirsalespeople. The client and customer survey results gave thesales manager information with which to coach the salespeo-ple to improve their performance. Before the surveys, the

Performance Improvement • Volume 42 • Number 5 1 3

The Cause AnalysisWorksheet brings the conceptsof gap analysis, cause analysis,and force field analysistogether....

1 4 www.ispi.org • MAY/JUNE 2003

sales manager was limited to his own infrequent observationsof performance; now he had direct feedback from clients andcustomers regarding the performance of each salesperson.

The client and salesperson feedback contained in the vari-ous surveys also served to identify specific knowledge andskill deficiencies in the sales team as a group. These wereremedied with short training sessions held during theweekly sales meetings, presented by the sales manager, oneof the salespeople, or the outside consultant.

Another element of the system was the creation of weeklysales meetings to reinforce the idea that the salespeoplewere members of a team rather than just individuals work-ing on their own. Whenever possible, salespeople who wereon the road phoned in to participate in the one-hour meet-ing. The agenda allowed salespeople to describe theirprogress and get credit for their victories by ringing a bell foreach victory.

The sales meetings were designed to shape team perfor-mance by shaping group norms. While the emphasis was onassessing progress and reinforcing success in the sellingprocess, the final part of the agenda allowed each memberof the sales team to talk about what was happening in his orher personal life to further build esprit de corps. This team-building process was complemented by having salespeopleattend various marketing programs to work together andwith clients.

The combination of these interventions provided theneeded training and built a basic sales management systemthat helped the fledgling sales team surpass all sales goalsduring the first two quarters following the training. The pro-gram also helped develop a strong foundation for future suc-cess. Bringing the customer service team under the samesystematic assessment and continuous improvement surveysystem the following quarter helped to integrate the salesand customer service functions.

During the third month, the sales team made five sales, oneless than was needed to meet the goal. After several conver-sations between the consultant and the sales manager, thedecision was made to terminate the one salesperson whohad not made any substantial contribution to any of the five

sales. They ended the third month with five sales for thefive sales people.

Conclusion

Gilbert’s BEM has been a valuable tool for systematicallyidentifying barriers to individual and organizational performance. With some updating and the addition of a per-formance aid to guide its use, we have a more clearlydefined process for identifying the causes that contribute toa performance gap. The Cause Analysis Worksheet bringsthe concepts of gap analysis, cause analysis, and force fieldanalysis together in a job aid that can serve as useful tool toguide the assessment process for performance improvementprofessionals.

References

Dean, P.J. (Ed.). (1999). Performance engineering at work(2nd ed.). Silver Spring, MD: International Society forPerformance Improvement.

Gilbert, T.F. (1978). Human competence: Engineering wor-thy performance. New York: McGraw-Hill.

International Society for Performance Improvement.(2001). Online institute: Principles & practices of humanperformance technology participant manual. Silver Spring,MD: International Society for Performance Improvement.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K.H., & Johnson, D.E. (1996).Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing humanresources (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in group dynamics: Concept,method, and reality in social science, equilibria andchange. Human Relations, 1(1), 5-41.

Rummler, G.A., & Brache, A.B. (1995). Improving perfor-mance: How to manage the white space on the organiza-tion chart (2nd ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Roger Chevalier is a Certified Performance Technologist (CPT), ISPI’sDirector of Information, and a faculty member for the ISPI Human PerformanceTechnology Institute. As an independent performance consultant, Roger spe-cialized in integrating training into more comprehensive performance improve-ment solutions. He believes that models and performance aids add neededstructure to the performance improvement process.

With more than 25 years’ experience in performance improvement,Roger is a former Vice President of Century 21 Real Estate Corporation’sPerformance Division and a former training director for the U.S. Coast Guard’swest coast training center. Roger earned a PhD in Applied Behavioral Scienceas well as two MS degrees in Personnel Management and OrganizationalBehavior. Roger may be reached at rogerc@ispi.org.

Prescription without diagnosis is malpractice.