The Performance Improvement Blog

Tribute to C K Prahalad: Of Sheepdogs and Leaders

We lost one of the great leadership and strategy thinkers of our time on April 16th. CK Prahalad died after a short illness. Much of the way we think about how to make organizations successful and sustainable and, certainly, the way we think about globablization and helping consumers and entrepreneurs at the bottom-of-the-pyramid is due to the influence of CK Prahalad. This short video captures some of his brilliance and his humanness. 

E-Learning vs. In-Person: A False Dichotomy

Online training and conferencing advocates continue to ask the wrong question. The April 19^th issue of eLearning Guild’s Insider Newsletter has an article titled, The True Value of Online Training, which has a link to a whitepaper titled, How to Promote the Value of Online Training Within Your Organization. Although this is obviously a marketing piece to promote Citrix Online’s GoToMeeting Corporate product and does have some useful suggestions for selling Web-based programs internally, it sets up a false dichotomy: online vs. in-person.

No one can deny that online programs offer a substantial cost savings over in-person training and conferences. The authors write:

Members of the training profession often debate the hard and soft performance gains from employee training in today’s workplace, but on one subject there is no argument. As much as 40 cents of every dollar spent on in-person training goes to travel and lodging costs, studies show. Avoiding that expense should be a primary goal of any learning organization.

The single most effective way to eliminate in-person training related costs is to replace classroom instruction with online training. A simple ROI analysis of the savings can underscore the point within your own organization.

The problem with this argument is that it implies that all Web-based training and conferences are superior to all in-person events. The important question is not, “Is online better (or cheaper) than in-person?” The important question is, “What types of learning interventions for what results and under what circumstances are more effective?”This could include Web-based only, in-person only, blended or a multitude of variations within and among each of these broad categories. If I want employees to know the new rules and regulations for FDA compliance, maybe an online program will be sufficiently effective to communicate to them what they need to know. However, if I want those employees to develop good teamwork skills then a totally Web-based program, while efficient, is not likely to get the business results I need. It all depends on what results you want, what you want people to learn, and the organizational circumstances of that learning.

In fact, when the argument shifts to results from online programs, the authors can’t help disagreeing with themselves. They quote Jack Phillips:

“Our studies have shown that participants in e-learning programs are less likely to follow through than in an instructor-led program,” notes Jack Phillips, Ph.D., chairman of the ROI Institute and a renowned expert on accountability and evaluation. “In an instructor-led process there is often a commitment made between the participant and the instructor that might increase the likelihood of participants applying what was learned,” he says.

However, in this quote, Phillips seems to be making the same mistake as the elearning-is-always-better folks in suggesting that instructor-led programs always have better results (follow-through). It always depends on what results you want and under what circumstances. An instructor-led (in-person) program that doesn’t incorporate the 5As , isn’t likely to have any greater follow-through than an “e-learning” program. And regarding the lower-cost argument: a Web-based program that achieves no business results can be more costly in terms of ROI than an in-person program that achieves at least some business results.

Stereotyping Affects Learning and Performance

If you need additional evidence that expectations of self and others shape how well people perform on tasks, just read Claude Steele’s new book, “Whistling Vivaldi: And Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us.”  In an interview by NPR “Talk of the Nation” host Neal Conan, Steele answers questions about how his 20 years of research reported in the book shows that when a math task is important to women, their performance is affected by the stereotype that all women are poor at math. He says:

…if you're a woman, and you don't care about doing well with math, your life is on another path,   then the prospect of confirming such a stereotype about your group's ability… isn't as upsetting to you because you're not invested in that area, but when you've really invested yourself, then the prospect of that stereotype being true or its being seen to be true and you being treated accordingly, that has considerable impact. It scares you, and that fear can directly interfere with your functioning.

Steele calls this phenomenon the “stereotype threat.” When asked about the alternative theory, that low performance is caused by innate limits on ability, Steele counters that argument by saying:

…that theory would predict that nothing you did in the situation would change. If you give them difficult math, women are always going to under-perform. If you give difficult problems, African-American students are always going to under-perform. Well, they don't when you do things in those situations to reduce stereotype threat and that is probably the principal evidence [on] behalf of this argument.

Stereotyping threatens the performance of employees in organizations. In our book, “The 5As Framework”, Sean Murray and I write about the effect that expectations have on learning and performance. We call this “anticipation”. Stereotyping is a negative expectation that causes learners and others in the organization to anticipate an inability to learn and failure to achieve business goals. As a counter to stereotyping, organizations need leaders and managers who are always expecting both high levels of learning and high performance from every employee every day.

Training Outside the UPS Box

Improving the method of employee training is only one of several factors critical to achieving sustained   employee performance. We often hear about major strides companies are making to improve the delivery of training but this change won’t mean much for the business unless organizational issues are addressed, also. For example, according to a Wall Street Journal article, UPS is experimenting with technology that gives new drivers hands-on practice in simulated situations before driving a truck and making deliveries for real. Jennifer Levitz of WSJ writes:

Vexed that some 30% of driver candidates flunk its traditional training, United Parcel Service Inc. is moving beyond the classroom to ready its rookies for the road. In the place of books and lectures are videogames, a contraption that simulates walking on ice and an obstacle course around an artificial village. Based on results so far, the world's largest package-delivery company is convinced that 20-somethings—the bulk of UPS driver recruits—respond best to high-tech instruction and a chance to hone skills.

I applaud UPS for this investment in employee learning. However, I wonder what they are doing about helping these employees understand the link between what they are learning and business outcomes for the company, responding to individual learning needs of each employee, ensuring that someone in the company continues to provide performance feedback frequently over time, providing opportunities to continue to practice all of the skills learned during training even months and years after the initial orientation phase, and holding employees and their managers accountable for their contribution to achieving business goals over the long-term. These other organizational factors are just as important, if not more so, than new games and simulations during the “rookie” phase. 

Business Book Reading Program

With over 11,000 business books being published each year, the task of deciding which books to spend your valuable time reading can be overwhelming. Yet, book reading is a very important method of learning and self-development and should be part of any leader's routine. For some guidance on sorting through nearly a 1,000 books per month, see Wally Bock's blog post, "Leadership Development: Starting Your Personal Reading Program," which reports useful advice from Todd Stattersten, co-author of The 100 Best Business Books of All Time: What They Say, Why They Matter, and How They Can Help You.

Of course, anyone who reads (or writes) business books will find something to quibble about in Stattersten's recommendations. For example, my list would have William Bridges' Transitions and Chris Argyris' Overcoming Organizational Defenses. And for a list of some of the classics that should be considered, see The Best Business Books Ever: The 100 Most Influential Business Books You'll Never Have Time to Read  by the Editors Of Perseus Publishing. Also, 800ceoread is a useful resource for information about the latest business books.

The sad fact of the matter is that many business books are bought, but few are read, and even fewer actually contribute to improved performance of leaders and managers. It is not enough to read these rich tomes of wisdom. Most of us must couple our reading with discussions of the ideas with others and practice, practice, practice of the application of ideas before reading a book can shape our behavior.