The Performance Improvement Blog

Wanted: Adaptable, Collaborative Leaders

Jeff Palfini, in an October 23^rd posting on his blog, cites a study from IBM Global Human Capital that found that there is a world-wide concern of human resource executives with identifying and developing the kind of leaders their companies need for future success. I think we need to pay careful attention to this study. First of all, it appears to have solid data. IBM’s research team interviewed, in-person or by phone, 400 HR leaders across many different types of companies and in many worldwide locations. Seventy-five percent expressed concern with emerging leaders in their companies.

Palfini asks the question, “What stands in the way of companies keeping and fully developing leadership talent?” The IBM study identified three critical factors: 1) ability to anticipate skills needed in three to five years; 2) ability to locate experts within their organizations who can address market changes; and 3) ability to collaborate across organizational silos to foster innovation and growth.

I would add a fourth: ability to develop this talent within their organizations. Too often, this ability is relegated to a separate unit (having its own organizational silo), such as a Training Department, or a Leadership Development Department, or a Department of Learning. They are considered to be responsible for developing leadership within the organization. But this is a false assumption. Such a department cannot know the future needs of every part of the organization; and it can’t know who has what skills and who needs to develop what skills; and it can’t make collaboration occur across all silos. Everyone needs to be involved in developing the company’s talent, whether through coaching from executives, or being given special assignments, or offered feedback from direct reports, or engaged in formal training programs. All parts of the organization must contribute to preparing the right leaders for the future. That should not be the sole responsibility of HR or the training function.

The Only Model You'll Ever Need

In the October 2007 issue of PerformanceXpress, e-newsletter of the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI). Tosti argues that variations of the following performance system model have withstood the test of time and research, and he implies that no other HPT models (or taxonomies) are needed. He says that this model is focused on results and takes a systems view, which are two fundamental principles of Human Performance Technology (HPT).

Download PerformanceSystemModel.doc


I don’t know if I would go as far as to say that we could not benefit from additional models, but I do find this model helpful in determining what I should measure to assess the impact and value of a learning intervention. Kirkpatrick would have us measure “output” and, to some extent, “results” in his four levels of evaluation. Phillips would have us measure “results” in terms of return-on-investment (ROI). As we see from the performance system model, these approaches examine only parts of the system, and, therefore, are incomplete. The systems approach holds that what is important is the dynamic interrelationship of all of the elements of the system. If that’s the case, then we must examine the other boxes in the model as well as the arrows between the boxes to truly understand the impact and value of an intervention. Who are the learners and what do they bring to the learning experience? Is this the right process and how can it be improved to improve organizational performance (receiving system)? What is the organizational environment (conditions, culture, external demands and pressures, etc.) and how does it affect individual and team learning? How is feedback from the intervention being used? And many other questions must be addressed when we use the performance system model.

Give Credit to MasterCard for Whole-Organization Learning

Jack Gordon’s article in the October issue of Training Magazine, describes an excellent example of whole-organization learning at MasterCard Worldwide. The company needed to prepare its 4600 employees for “a new way of life” following its change from a private association of member banks to a public corporation.  Employees needed to understand the strategic direction of the company and the implications for them of this new direction. Using a train-the-trainer approach, 60 HR leaders from MasterCard offices all over the world were trained in how to facilitate a workshop that would teach everyone about the strategic direction of the company. These facilitators then trained over 140 other facilitators who then held 110 workshops in 36 cities during a three-week period in June 2006. Each of these half-day workshops focused on three “learning maps” designed by Root Learning Inc. Since that initial worldwide event, Webinars by the CEO and CFO have continued to inform employees about the progress of the company, participants have been given mini learning maps for their offices that remind them about the goals of the organization, managers worldwide are using the learning maps to have conversations with their teams regarding improving the numbers, and a new seminar that is about execution will be offered in the next few months.

This approach by MasterCard Worldwide and Root Learning appears to be a successful cascade of information and facilitated input from employees. Positive feedback from participants seems to indicate this. The next step MasterCard should take is to find out who is using this knowledge, how they are applying it, and what additional help employees need to feel integrated and productive in the new company structure. MasterCard Worldwide is indeed learning as a whole organization but to sustain this learning and integrate this way of learning into the culture of the organization, the company should be sure that it understands what drives and what inhibits application of this new knowledge and what will sustain this learning over the long term. It would be a mistake to assume that acquiring new knowledge about the strategic direction of the company is sufficient to cause behavioral change. We know from years of research that this is rarely the case.

Green Youth

Tom Friedman, in his October 17 column in the New York Times, describes a compelling idea for bringing inner city disadvantaged youth into the workforce and giving them the opportunity to develop highly marketable skills. He calls this the “green-collar solution”. He quotes Van Jones, head of the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in Oakland, California:

If we can get these youth in on the ground floor of the solar industry now, where they can be installers today, they’ll become managers in five years and owners in 10. Ann then they become inventors,” said Mr. Jones. “The green economy has the power to deliver new sources of work, wealth and health to low-income people – while honoring the Earth. If you can do that, you just wiped out a whole bunch of problems. We can make what is good for poor black kids good for the polar bears and good for the country.

Van Jones’ plea is another way (see my post about Marriott on 10/14/07) that companies can fulfill their responsibility to bring disadvantaged, urban youth into long-term, high paying careers, which benefits employers and their communities. The green energy industry is growing rapidly. The demand for green buildings is skyrocketing and the cost of alternative energy solutions is coming down precipitously. We need to make this window of opportunity open to all young people. This will take the cooperation of the construction trades, contractors, architects, post-secondary training institutions and construction buyers. Each has a role to play in ensuring that disadvantaged high school graduates develop the needed skills, are welcomed into high paying jobs, and that they continue to learn and grow in this new field.  

Wrong Question, Wrong Measure

An article titled “Measuring Pains”, in the October 2007 issue of Training Magazine, reports survey data indicating that learning executives and business executives from a wide range of leading companies are highly dissatisfied with traditional learning metrics (course participation, knowledge tests, reactionnaires, etc.) and with learning management systems (LMS), and want better measures.

These executives are asking the wrong question (or being asked the wrong question). First of all, even though the latest fad is to replace the word “learning” for “training” (as if training and learning are synonymous), the implicit question is still the same, misguided question that has been driving training for years: “What are the best indicators of good training?” This is a monitoring question; it implies usage, quality of delivery, timeliness, and ratings. If executives need to have this data for control purposes, that’s fine. However, they should be asking, “What are the best indicators of training’s impact on important business results?” This is a performance question. If they ask this question, then the answer is, “It depends.” It depends on what executives believe are significant, credible indicators of business impact for their particular organizations. And it depends on assessing organizational factors, in addition to training programs, that might be affecting (a barrier or a driver) the impact of training on learning and then on performance.

Marriott Trains At-Risk Youth

I doubt that it will be very often that I refer you to a travel magazine. But I was intrigued by an article in the October 14 Sunday Business section of the New York Times announcing that the Conde Nast Traveler Magazine World Savers award had been given to Bill Marriott, in part, for a training program for underprivileged kids in countries where Marriott has hotels. Marriott is acting on their sense of social responsibility. Marriott’s partner in this program is the London-based organization, Youth Career Initiative, which works with a number of hotel chains to provide career opportunities for youth. Their Web site says:

Youth Career Initiative programmes are conducted by hotel management teams and combine both theory and practical instruction. The programme includes instruction in personal finance, interpersonal skills, and personal health and wellbeing. It also exposes participants to a successful business environment and a wide variety of workplace situations.

This sounds like a great example of a win-win-win community partnership: young people, who typically have few opportunities, get a chance to learn skills and develop a career; hotels develop committed employees that fill jobs where there are shortages of workers; and local communities benefit from having more skilled workers. What a great program! But it will remain great only if the management teams have and maintain their competencies to teach, advise, and coach these young people who come from difficult life experiences. These teams must maintain these skills over time and as managers change jobs, as they frequently do in the hospitality industry, the teams must maintain continuity and commitment to the program. Otherwise, it will become just another business social-responsibility PR program with limited results for the youth and their communities.

HRD in 2017

Larry Phillips, professor of Human Resource Management at Indiana University South Bend, presents his predictions about the future of HR on the HR.com Web site under the title, “HR2017: Where Are We Going and How Do We Get There?” One of the topics he addresses in that article is the future of human resource development. He predicts that the most important area will be knowledge management. He writes:

In a knowledge economy, it is not the brilliance of one individual but the collective knowledge that is important. We do not need to reinvent the wheel every time an issue surfaces. Sophisticated knowledge management software systems can ensure that knowledge is available to those who need it.

I would agree that in 10 years knowledge management systems will still be part of the role of HRD, but I think knowledge management will have found its place within organizations and no longer be an area of concern. Organizations today that have sophisticated knowledge management systems are not getting the benefits of these repositories of knowledge. These organizations have found that having information readily available online does not mean that people will or will want to learn that way. And reading something does not necessarily mean that the information has been learned. For many types of information, assimilation of knowledge requires discussion with others, personal reflection, and practice, practice, practice. As for Dr. Phillips’ concern about capturing the collective knowledge of Baby Boomers, in some industries, it might already be too late. People are leaving the US auto business in droves due to early retirements and buy-outs. As they go out the door, so goes decades of knowledge about auto manufacturing, marketing, and selling.

CEO Survey Says

CEOs of major corporations indicate that employee development and leadership will be major factors in their success in 2008. This observation is based on the NYSE CEO Report 2008 which describes survey responses from CEOs of 240 companies listed on the NYSE. David Baker cited this report in the October 2007 issue of his enewsletter, Customer Strategy Review, as evidence of a renewed business focus on a customer-centric strategy. This point is made in the Executive Summary of the NYSE report:

CEOs say they are focusing more on stakeholders, including employees, shareholders and customers. More than half say they will spend more money on customer-relationship management through 2008, and a third report that they are allotting more time to customer relations than they did three years ago. (p.2)

These CEOs also predict that success in the face of the challenges of fast-paced change and a global economy will depend on good management. They indicate that good management will be increasingly important to revenue growth and retention of employees.

It seems to me that customer service and good management will require continuous employee and management learning. These are not competencies that one develops in a single, two-day workshop. That might be part of the mix, but given the speed of change, learning must be constant. Senior leaders will need to continually learn about good management and all employees will need to continually learn about the customer (and partners, suppliers, and shareholders) and how to best serve them. The NYSE CEO Report 2008 is further evidence of the need for ongoing, results-focused, performance improvement programs in growing organizations worldwide.

Loyalty, Trust, and Training

A new study provides additional evidence of the link between employee training and development programs and employee loyalty. John Baldoni, in the blog he writes for Fast Company magazine, summarizes some of the findings from 2007 Walker Loyalty Report for Loyalty in the Workplace. This report presents findings from an online survey of 2,950 full and part-time employees working in business, government, and non-profit organizations of 50 or more employees. The Walker study found that 36% of employees are likely to leave their organizations within the next two years. This is an increase from the 31% found in 2005 (However, given the margin of error, it is probably not a significant increase.)

Baldoni’s analysis emphasizes the importance that trust plays in building employee loyalty. He describes how leaders must earn the trust of employees by actually doing what they say they will do, by putting their teams above their own accomplishments, and by accepting responsibility when things go wrong. I couldn’t agree more. To this I would add the critical importance of encouraging and supporting the development of employees. Respondents to the Walker survey ranked “development opportunity” high on their lists of loyalty drivers. This is what I have found in my interviews with hundreds of employees over the past few years. No matter what level in the organization, when bosses give employees opportunities to develop competencies that will help them perform better in their current jobs or position them for a promotion, those employees feel better about themselves and better about the organization. The explicit message is: we want you to develop your capabilities for your future with us. The implicit message is: we care about you; you are important to us.

Extreme Team Building

Sharing a physically and emotionally challenging experience together does not necessarily build an effective team. The October issue of Inc. Magazine has an article by Alison Stein Wellner that describes the experience of the senior management group of a small manufacturing company who went on a seven-day backpacking trip in the Wyoming wilderness. The CEO’s purpose for the trip was to jumpstart his executive team’s development, something they would not be able to do in the fast-paced pressure of their typical days in the office. The writer calls this “extreme team building.” Her description indicates that as a result of the experience participants felt closer to each other and had a better understanding of how to work together. This is one example among a plethora of team-building exercises that all put team members in challenging situations very different from their normal work situations, that don’t depend on status and hierarchy, but require members to depend on each other to accomplish a difficult task.

No doubt these kinds of experiences can be fun, energizing, and provide opportunities for insight regarding oneself and co-workers. But whether there is significant, lasting learning that contributes to business results depends on other factors. As with any learning experience, results depend on the clarity of goals, on standing back from the experience and reflecting on one’s own learning, and on being able to relate the experience directly to the work of the organization. Lasting value from this kind of investment in a leadership team depends on the team periodically reflecting on what members learned weeks and months later. They must take the time and put effort into integrating learning from the “extreme” experience with their team goals. Otherwise, the backpacking, or river rafting, or mountain climbing experience is just another shared adventure without long-term payoff for the organization.