The Performance Improvement Blog

Time To Get Cultured

This article was originally published in The EvoLLLution.

The biggest workplace hurdle to identifying and assessing development and training needs is lack of a “learning culture.” Organizational culture is defined as the values, assumptions, beliefs, behaviors, and norms of the enterprise, sometimes referred to as the organization’s DNA. Culture influences priorities, decisions, performance management, incentives (praise, reward, promotion, etc.), allocation of time and effort, morale, and engagement. If learning is not valued within the culture of an organization, if learning is not woven into the fabric of the workplace, then learning needs will not be identified and addressed in a way that helps the organization achieve its goals.

In most organizations today the training and development function is marginalized. Responsibility for learning is given to a department (HR, Training, CLO, etc.). Managers assume that anything employees need to learn will be provided by someone else; someone assigned to the training role. Assessment of need typically occurs when there is new equipment, new procedures, or new strategies and the organization’s training professionals are made aware of these changes. Or, in many cases, training and development are opportunistic activities based on no assessment at all, occurring only when the timing and cost of an event fits the availability of an employee. Assessment, when it does occur, is not strategic. It is not aligned with the business goals of the organization and, therefore, has limited value.

In a truly learning culture, learning and performance improvement are valued and supported throughout the organization. In this kind of organization, learning and performance improvement are frequent topics of leaders’ speeches and writing. Employees at all levels are given the time and resources to acquire new knowledge and skills that will contribute to performance improvement. Employees are recognized and rewarded for learning and using that learning to achieve important business results for the organization. Leaders are recognized and rewarded for supporting the learning of their direct reports.

Leaders need to ask themselves, “Does our culture support learning? Do we have every-day processes and procedures in place to ensure that learning and change are embedded in the way we work together? Do our top leaders make continuous learning a priority and communicate this throughout the organization?”

Assessment in this kind of culture identifies what individuals, teams, and the organization as a whole need to learn in order to achieve the goals of the enterprise. Assessment in this kind of culture determines how best to help people attain this knowledge and develop these competencies. Assessment in this kind of culture brings to awareness the support system that will help employees apply their learning on the job and improve their performance. Assessment in this kind of culture gives the organization feedback on its readiness for change.

It is this “learning culture” for which organizations should be striving. The periodic assessment of needs by a training department is not enough. Training events (workshops, courses (classroom or elearning), seminars, conferences, etc.) have never been particularly effective at improving performance by themselves. Estimates are that only 10% to 50% of learners continue to apply new knowledge and skills to their jobs after training. This has been true even while the quality of the content and delivery of training events have improved markedly. Therefore, needs assessment should examine all of the factors in an organization’s culture that are barriers to learning and performance improvement. In this time of economic contraction all resources must be used efficiently and effectively. We need to focus on developing a learning culture, not on deciding which training events to deliver.

IMAGE BY VISUAL ARTIST FRANK BONILLA 

The 0% Solution to Learning

Ideally, organizations should be striving for a culture in which every aspect of the workplace supports continuous individual, team, and whole organization learning. It should be a place where Individuals are learning how to help the organization achieve its strategic goals, where teams are learning how to help the organization achieve its strategic goals, and where the organization as a whole is learning how to achieve its strategic goals.

In this kind of culture, formal classroom training is superfluous. The most important learning occurs in the conversations that employees have with their supervisors and co-workers, in the conversations that teams have about team development and effectiveness, and in whole organization experiences with problem solving and planning. Learning occurs from the feedback and reflection around individual, team, and whole organization successes and failures. Learning occurs because of a performance management system that permeates every aspect of organizational life, not because of isolated instructor-based courses, workshops, and seminars.

Robert O. Brinkerhoff makes this point in his writing about measuring the contribution that training makes to learning and performance improvement. He argues that the isolation score, that indicator of how much training contributes to performance results, should be zero. He writes:

An isolation score of zero, on the other hand, seems to me to be the perfect solution: it means the organization has figured out a way to drive a desired performance improvement and resultant business result solely by manipulating the performance system, so there is no need for any training at all. Isn't this scenario exactly what the performance-oriented practitioners would seek? Training is always an expensive solution. If you can get to the desired business outcome without spending a dime on training - by just adjusting incentives, motivation, performance support, etc. - isn’t this what a thoughtful HRD leader should strive for?

The implication of striving for an “isolation score of zero” is that the whole organization owns learning, not just HR and the CLO, and when the organization needs performance improvement, training is not the first course of action. We have to change the way we think about learning and performance improvement, especially as people need to learn faster and achieve better results.

Unfortunately, it’s a very difficult mental model to change. In a recent post on ASTD’s Learning Circuits Blog, Connie Malamed asks, “What do you think the future role of the training professional will be?” She offers this model of future roles:

Malamed's model is an accurate representation of the current state of things but not where I think the field needs to go in the future. My model would not include “design and create courses.” My model would put “align learning with the strategic goals of the organization” at the center and “create a culture of learning throughout the organization” as the next key role. We have so many learning support options now, including just-in-time elearning (desktop and mobile), coaching, mentoring, simulations, on-demand video, experiential learning, internships, and on and on, that we rarely need to develop courses. Learning and development professionals need to be focused on performance results, not on training. 

 

Bad News is Good News

When evaluating programs and organizations, bad news can be good news. What I mean by that is any feedback is helpful to an organization if leaders listen to the feedback, look for value in the information, and make improvements accordingly. However, what so often happens is that leaders immediately become defensive and look for ways to discredit or cast doubt on criticism. Almost impulsively, they look for ways to find fault with negative feedback and only accept high ratings and praise. The tendency is to automatically try to identify the people who made critical comments and explain away what was said because of who said it: “They’re always complaining”; “That person is poisoning the well for everyone else”; “We couldn’t give them raises this year so they’re angry”; and on and on.

Some organizations have a culture that is so insular they can’t hear bad news. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), “founded more than one hundred years ago as a way to protect student-athletes”, appears to be one of these organizations. In a series of columns written for the New York Times, Joe Nocera has described some examples of the NCAA failing to act in the best interests of students. He writes:

The N.C.A.A. claims — as it always does — that it is acting to protect its athletes “from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.” But this is classic N.C.A.A. Orwellian spin. Its true purpose in preventing athletes from engaging with agents while in college is to exacerbate their exploitation. The professional and commercial enterprise doing the exploiting, of course, is college sports itself.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the facts that Nocera cites, but it does seem that the NCAA is not making use of this opportunity to look at itself in the mirror and make improvements. Rather than accepting the feedback and explaining what they will do to make the NCAA a better organization for students and its member institutions, organizational leaders have become defensive and have attacked Nocera in the press. Dave Pickle, a long-time employee of the NCAA, wrote a blog post about Nocera titled, “News not fit to print.”

This isn’t a constructive response, especially by an organization that has responsibility not only to its member institutions but also to the wider public.  One of the primary ways in which organizations learn is by periodically examining what they do and what stakeholder’s (customers/clients, employees, suppliers, wider community, etc.) think of what they do. If leaders do not listen to the “bad” as well as the “good”, they cannot learn. Barriers to listening, such as the argumentum ad hominem defense, do not allow for continuous improvement. Like the NCAA, a culture can develop in organizations in which these barriers become ingrained in the way they do business. “Bad news” should provide an opportunity for learning and change. Great organizations turn bad news into news they can use.

 

Evaluate Learning Process

As organizations evaluate their programs and services they need to pay attention to process as well as outcomes. Catherine (Brehm) Rain, of Rain and Brehm Consulting Group, Inc., writes this in aea365:

Process evaluation ensures you answer questions of fidelity… did you do what you set out to with respect to needs, population, setting, intervention and delivery? When these questions are answered, a feedback loop is established so that necessary modifications to the program or the evaluation can be made along the way.

Life is a journey—and so is a long-term evaluation. Stuff happens. However, it is often in the chaotic that we find the nugget of truth, the unknown need, or a new direction to better serve constituents. A well-documented process evaluation assists programs to ‘turn on a dime’, adapt to changing environments and issues, and maximize outcome potential.

The problem with much of the evaluation that goes on in organizations, whether that’s evaluation of training and development programs, communication programs, marketing campaigns, a new sales approach, or strategic planning, is that the process is not examined. You might discover what participants thought of the program from “smile sheets” and you might even know how participants applied what they learned if you are fortunate enough to do a follow-up assessment, but none of this tells you what happened and what could be changed to achieve greater impact in the future. This is what process evaluation does.

If you tell me that you provided coaching, or diversity training, or emotional intelligence training, or relationship selling, that doesn’t tell me what actually happened. These interventions could be very different from organization to organization, from department to department, or from day to day. Even if an organization implements a highly structured program such as The Fish! Philosophy with its video, guidebook, playbook, and accessories, the experience could be very different for participants in different organizations with different facilitators at different times. To assess its value to the organization and improve the program for future audiences, we have to know what happened and how that was experienced by participants.

It’s like a friend telling you that she went to Las Vegas, Nevada for a vacation and had a good time. If that’s all you know, then you don’t know very much about her trip. You couldn’t replicate her experience or improve on it for yourself. Maybe she stayed on the Strip and spent every waking moment gambling in casinos. Or maybe she stayed downtown and spent each day on Hoover Dam, Red Rock, and Grand Canyon sight-seeing trips without ever setting foot in a casino. Both experiences might receive a “five” on the vacation evaluation form but that data would be useless to you until you knew what “Las Vegas Vacation” means in her case.

So too with learning interventions, whether classroom, online, or informal, we need to know the actual process of learning (anticipated and unanticipated) in those situations in order to improve the experience for other learners and maximize impact on organizations. It is insufficient to know outcomes without knowing what happened to achieve those outcomes. 

I’ve evaluated employee training programs that included follow-up coaching. Some participants used the coaching and some did not. Some coaching consisted of several, hour-long sessions and some consisted of 15 to 20 minute sessions. Some coaching was done by phone, some was done online and asynchronous, and some was done face-to-face. Some coaching was learner-centered and some was coach-centered. Without knowing how the actual coaching process was delivered, we shouldn’t be making decisions about the program.

Lately, the trend in the employee training and development industry has been to emphasize measurement of results and ROI. While I applaud this recognition that end-of-program, smile sheets are an inadequate measure of the quality of programs, I think measuring outcomes without describing the factors that contributed to those outcomes is also inadequate. We need both process and outcome evaluation. 

 

There They Go Again: Bashing Brainstorming

What did brainstorming ever do to receive such vitriol? Jonah Lehrer writes in the January 30 issue of The New Yorker:

Typically, participants leave a brainstorming session proud of their contribution. The whiteboard has been filled with free associations. At such moments, brainstorming can seem like an ideal mental technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is one overwhelming problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.

Susan Cain writes in a January 13 opinion piece for the New York Times titled “The Rise of the New Group Think”:

…brainstorming sessions are one of the worst possible ways to stimulate creativity. The brainchild of a charismatic advertising executive named Alex Osborn who believed that groups produced better ideas than individuals, workplace brainstorming sessions came into vogue in the 1950s. …But decades of research show that individuals almost always perform better than groups in both quality and quantity, and group performance gets worse as group size increases… People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure.

And now Cliff Kuang raises concerns with brainstorming again in an article for Fast Company titled, The Brainstorming Process Is B.S. But Can We Rework It? At least Kuang is asking how to make brainstorming more effective. Let’s brainstorm some possibilities (just kidding).

As I wrote in a previous blog post, “I believe the problem is in the implementation, not the method.” Indicting brainstorming is like saying that elearning is more effective than classroom-based learning. The truth is there is effective elearning and there is ineffective elearning. It all depends on the purpose, design, content, and delivery of the course.  

It’s the same with brainstorming. It all depends on the quality of design and facilitation. The critics are right; if all the facilitator does is allow participants to free associate for an hour and then go home, the process is “B.S.”. When that happens we can predict little creativity and little impact on planning.

However, when it is done well, when it is done in context and with preparation of participants, and when there is follow-up after the initial generation of ideas, then brainstorming can be very effective. A good facilitator:

1. Is clear about the purpose and intended results of the exercise and discusses this with participants
2. Prepares (even trains) participants for doing brainstorming (e.g., gives an example)
3. Establishes norms for how participants are to behave in the session
4. Leads the conversation in such a way that gets everyone involved, gets all of the ideas displayed in front of the group, and does not allow criticism until all ideas are listed
5. Helps the group reach consensus on a subset of ideas on which to do further work
6. Begins action planning to do the follow-up work
7. Helps participants learn (and learn how to learn) from their involvement

There is an art and science to brainstorming. The facilitator must be able to follow the rules of brainstorming but also deviate from and expand on those rules depending on the situation.  

When done well, there are many uses of brainstorming. It could be used to evaluate a program, consider new strategies and methods, identify problems, create a vision for the future of an organization, or solve problems.  Often, brainstorming is used simply to warm up the group for a lengthy strategic-planning or prolbem-solving discussion. The technique creates an atmosphere of trust where everyone is heard and all ideas are respected. Now, what’s wrong with that? 

 

Investing in Training in Downturns and Upturns

The U.S. is emerging from a training drought that occurred during the worst economic period since the Great Depression. At least, that’s what’s indicated by organizations that do this kind of
research. ASTD reports an increase in spending on L&D in 2010 (latest year for which data is available); they estimate companies spent about $171.5 billion. Bersin & Associates reports that corporate spending on training increased 9.5% in 2011 – the largest gain in three years.  And Training magazine’s research found a 13% increase in spending on L&D in 2011. Each of these studies uses a different method for calculating spending. However, the trend is undeniable: spending on employee training is increasing.  

With this increase in spending comes a great opportunity to do things right. In our book, The 5As Framework, Sean Murray and I wrote that most training programs significantly impact only 10% to 20% of their participants. This represents a huge waste that no organization can afford any longer. As the worldwide recession comes to an end, organizations must use every dollar very wisely. Garry Marsh, director of the U.K. company THM Business Simulations, gives us some thoughts about best ways to use those dollars. Here are those seven ideas with my spin on each one:

• Get it right first time – Think in terms of what learners need, not the latest training fad (content or delivery). Only provide experiences that will help learners improve performance and contribute to achieving the strategic goals of the organization – no more and no less. Pay attention to the quality of content and quality of the learning intervention.
• Keep employee satisfaction high – Involving employees in opportunities to learn is an effective way to increase engagement. Many employees value learning more than a pay increase. To keep engagement high, make continuous learning part of the culture of the organization.
• Train your managers – Many managers did not reach that position because they were great managers of people. This is something that all managers need to keep learning. And if organizations want to prevent their top talent from leaving as the economy improves, they must give managers the opportunity to learn and grow.
• Focus on customer experience – All organizations should have the improvement of customer experience as one of their top strategic goals. To achieve this goal, they will have to train employees in how to create a better experience. Learning about the customer experience should be on every manager’s agenda.
• Spend less, get more – Organizations should not rely on the usual suspects and usual methods for delivery of training. It’s about learning; it’s not about glitzy programs. It doesn’t have to cost much to develop talent. Maybe a manager will become a more effective team leader with the help of a mentor. Maybe a manager will become more effective at giving performance feedback with the help of a coach. Maybe a manager will become better at financial management by attending the CEO’s “open-book” meetings.
• Be ready for the upturn – As the economy improves and companies start hiring again, the best talent will look elsewhere. They have stayed only because nobody else was growing and hiring. Unless managers continue to see opportunities in their current organizations and they feel respect from their leadership, they will be gone. Organizations should do something about these conditions now.
• Look after yourself – Many resources are available to help any organization be successful while keeping costs low. Look for help internally and externally. Use what the organization already owns when that makes sense and then go outside to peers, consultants, and training organizations when they can help you improve performance and achieve your business goals.

 

Can Groups Be Creative?

It would be easy to become anti-teamwork after reading “The Rise of the New Groupthink”, a Sunday New York Times opinion piece written by Susan Cain, author of the forthcoming book, “Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking.” She writes a thought-provoking article that challenges the prevailing thinking about employee innovation and creativity. In effect, she makes the case for solo innovation. While I agree that organizations try to do too much in groups, I fear that an article like this might prompt managers to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Cain starts with this generalization about workplaces:

Most of us now work in teams, in offices without walls, for managers who prize people skills above all. Lone geniuses are out. Collaboration is in.

This describes the image, not the reality. First of all, most of us are in work groups, not teams, at least not the kind of teams that Katzenbach and Smith (and others) define as being a team. And work group meetings tend to be poorly planned and badly run. I’ve posted about this previously. As for people skills, managers sure don’t act like these are prized abilities. A command-and-control management style still dominates the workplace. And regarding collaboration, too few managers and employees know how to collaborate effectively. To them, collaboration means ccing everyone on an email.

There is much rhetoric about teamwork and collaboration, but these behaviors are still very rare in organizations today. So to indict the current work environment as not being conducive to creativity and innovation because it is too collaborative misses what is actually happening in the typical workplace. In fact, employees are not collaborative enough.

Cain is also critical of group brainstorming.  She writes,

…brainstorming sessions are one of the worst possible ways to stimulate creativity…The reasons brainstorming fails are instructive for other forms of group work, too. People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure.

I believe the problem is in the implementation, not the method. Any group that makes a list of ideas these days calls it “brainstorming”. This is not the kind of brainstorming which results in new and better ideas. When done right, brainstorming is free-flowing, non-judgmental, and relies on the dynamic interaction of everyone in the group, regardless of status. Unfortunately, every manager thinks that he or she can manage a brainstorming session. After all, how difficult can it be to ask a question and make a list of the answers? However, effective brainstorming requires highly skilled facilitation and not every manager has the skills and temperament needed to provide this to a group. An effective brainstorming leader ensures that everyone is engaged in the work, encourages everyone to contribute their own feelings and beliefs to the conversation, and doesn’t allow one or two people to dominate the conversation.  

Isolating everyone and putting up barriers to interaction is just as counterproductive as forcing everyone to interact with others all day long. Some people need some quiet and solitude to be at their productive best and some people need some social interaction. Even the research cited by Cain supports this notion. Not everyone in the research populations she cited seeks isolation. The last thing you want to do is label someone “introvert” based on an assessment tool and then make that person toil alone until they come up with the next big idea. While some people can’t tolerate frequent interruptions, becoming tense and irritable, others thrive on the chaos and perform best in that kind of high-energy, social environment. 

We need to do a better job of helping employees figure out in what kinds of environments and on what kinds of projects they work best and provide those conditions for them. We need managers who take responsibility for helping employees optimize performance. And we need leaders who can build teams that nurture creative and innovative thinking.

Thank you, Susan Cain, for stimulating this blog post.

 

Ban Those Words!

In my last blog post, I wrote about the Harvard Business Review blogger Dan Pallotta and his post titled, “I Don't Understand What Anyone Is Saying Anymore.” He writes about business buzz words and how they get in the way of clear communication. Speaking of words that do not improve communication, Lake Superior State University recently announced its "37th annual List of Words Banished from the Queen's English for Misuse, Overuse and General Uselessness."

The words for 2012 are:

1. Amazing
2. Baby Bump
3. Shared Sacrifice
4. Occupy
5. Blowback
6. Man Cave
7. The New Normal
8. Pet Parent
9. Win The Future
10. Trickeration
11. Ginormous
12. Thank You In Advance

Read the entertaining comments about these words on the LSSU Web site.

What words do you think should be on the list? "Learning Organization" would be my nomination.

What Do You Mean?

Dan Pallotta, president of Advertising for Humanity and HBR blogger, in a post titled “I Don't Understand What Anyone Is Saying Anymore”, writes about business jargon and how it affects communication in organizations. The blog post must have hit a nerve because it has broken the record for most comments to a single HBR Blog Network post.

One of these comments is a perfect way to begin 2012. That is, with humor that pokes fun at ourselves and the way we talk to each other. The commenter, BrainToniq (Scott Ohlgren), writes as if talking to his staff:

While in the run-up to transitioning in this phase of right-sizing and redeployment, we still need to—at the end of the day—drill down and make sure that our mission-critical, goal-oriented core competencies are in alignment and on the same page as the most current best-practices paradigm. While we as a customer-centric longtail company are still on the runway, we need to each firewall enough time to allow out-of-the-box thinking and strategize the low-hanging fruit in the marketplace. Envisioning the metrics here will require accountability management on each team member to come up with a value-added solution that doesn’t require putting out fires or a lot of bandwidth. Bottom line? The truth is we have to step up, work smarter, not harder, and create a Web 2.0 solution. This is an exciting model for limitless potential and mutually agreed synergies!

I’ve got an open door policy, so touch base and keep me in the loop. If we can move forward and proactively get on the same page about this, it’ll be a win-win-win. Remember: our people make the difference.

Come again? The truth is this is how we sound sometimes. And with email, text messaging, and all of the forms of social media, the use of buzzwords to replace plain speaking has gotten much worse. We are sacrificing clarity for brevity, which means there is greater risk of miscommunication.

Dan Pallotta’s solution is to “speak authentically” in communicating with employees and customers. He writes:

You will gain tremendous credibility, become much more productive, make those around you much more productive, and experience a great deal more joy in your working life if you look someone in the eye after hearing one of these verbal brain jammers and tell the person, "I don't have any idea what you just said to me."

Let's hope communication improves in all of our organizations in 2012. 

A Year of “The Performance Improvement Blog” in Review

It’s that time of year again. It seems like everyone has their top this or top that from 2011. Not to be left out, I thought I would do a little year-end reflecting of my own.

Throughout 2011, I used this blog to shed some light on critical leadership and management issues. The topics ranged from “the vision thing”, to shaping organizational culture, to improving the effectiveness of employee training programs, to building trust, to breaking down communication silos, to doing better presentations, to seeing organizational blind spots, to increasing employee engagement, and more.

Out of all of these blog posts I’ve selected five that seem to have had the most interest for readers. They are:

Hospital Culture Trumps Equipment and Techniques - Culture, with all of its values, assumptions, beliefs, expected behaviors, and norms, is a powerful force within organizations. Culture shapes how things are done. In hospitals, culture has life and death implications. Evidence suggests that health care outcomes are improved when the culture of a hospital encourages trust and honesty among staff and with patients and when people act consistently in accordance with these values.

Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels of Training Evaluation: A Critique – I explain why evaluating training by using a survey that asks trainees questions about each of the “Kirkpatrick Four Levels” is a flawed way to determine if that program is having a meaningful impact on an organization. Although a four-levels survey is a very common way to approach evaluation of training in organizations, it probably will not provide managers with the information they need. I suggest an alternative approach.

Performance Management is Broken - What is intended to pass for performance management in too many organizations today is the annual compulsory performance review. To label this a “performance management system” is to give the process much more credit than it deserves. A perfunctory meeting between a manager and employee once a year to review a standard rating sheet that lists competencies and goals that are probably no longer relevant, is not a performance management system.

How to Use PowerPoint – Millions of presentations are given every day using some form of slideware, often PowerPoint. It is an important communication tool of managers. Yet, management’s messages are not getting across. I frequently hear that employees didn’t know something that had been mentioned in an all-staff presentation, or that they didn’t realize its importance, or that they didn’t understand what it had to do with them. Apparently, PowerPoint slides are, in many cases, failing to communicate key messages. I refer the reader to suggestions for more powerful PowerPoint presentations.

20 Signs of Employee Disengagement - An important question for all managers is, “Do I have an employee engagement problem in my organization?" You don’t need an organization-wide survey to answer this question. Pay attention to what your employees are saying and doing. Look and listen for the clues. This blog post lists twenty tell-tale signs of disengagement.

Wishing you a healthy and prosperous 2012!