The Performance Improvement Blog

Increasing the Impact of Management Training: A Manifesto

ChangeThis.com is trying to change the nature of discourse on the Web by posting downloadable manifestos. A ChangeThis "manifesto" is “…an argument, a reasoned, rational call to action, supported by logic and facts.” I have submitted the following abstract for a manifesto on increasing the impact of management training.

Companies are investing millions of dollars, as well considerable time, energy, and good will, in management training programs in hopes of creating the kinds of leaders who will help make their organizations successful now and in the future. However, 80% to 90% of that investment in people is being wasted. The reasons for this waste have less to do with the quality of these programs then with five key organizational factors: 1) alignment; 2) anticipation; 3) alliance; 4) application; and 5) accountability. Companies can increase the impact of their management training programs by wrapping each program, whether that is a workshop, seminar, online course, video, coaching or internship, in these five factors. We have much evidence that paying attention to these factors makes it much more likely managers will do things as a result that will have bottom-line effects on the organization, such as: cost savings; increased profits; larger market share; increased sales; and employee retention.

If you would like to read and download the full article, please go to my proposal on ChangeThis.com and click on the button that says, “Yes, write this manifesto.” If my proposal receives enough “votes”, ChangeThis will post the full article. Thanks for your support.

Employee Engagement Surveys

David Zinger’s humorous-but-true list of ten ways managers suppress employee engagement should be compulsory reading and reflection for all managers. I have seen many real-life examples of every item on his list, but one that particularly hits home for me is number nine:

And the survey says… Limit all employee engagement efforts to a yearly anonymous survey. If you don’t like the results do nothing about them and just repeat the survey again next year.

Many executives don’t realize that conducting a survey and then do nothing with the data is worse than not doing the survey in the first place. Employees will immediately make the assumption that management doesn’t care what employees think and they will refrain from investing their time and thought in future surveys. In some cases, employees might even sabotage future surveys by giving intentionally erroneous responses or refusing to participate.

And what is so sacrosanct about doing a survey annually? Depending on what is happening in the organization, such as a major change in management or an acquisition, you might need to know the level of employee engagement much sooner or much more often.

Most importantly, you should be asking yourself, “Is a survey the best way to collect the information that I need? Is there a better way to answer my questions about engagement?” Surveys are just one of many ways to measure employee engagement. If I want an estimate of how many people in an organization feel engaged, I’ll do a survey; it’s an efficient and sufficiently effective way to determine that number (assuming something close to a random sample of employees is used). However, if I want to know why employees feel engaged, how various organization interventions affect engagement, how engagement relates to performance, and what can be done in the future to enhance engagement, then I will use a different method. Usually, I interview employees who are highly engaged and ask them how engagement affects their work, what it is about the organization that makes them engaged, and what else the organization can do to keep them engaged. I interview them because it’s the only way to fully explore an employee’s thinking and experience. I find that ten to fifteen individual interviews of successful employees in an organization usually gives me the stories I need to draw reasonable conclusions about the links among the culture of a particular organization, engagement, and the performance of it's employees.

How To Do A Layoff Right

As American automobile makers contemplate whether to comply with the U.S. Congress’s requirements for a bailout package, we can be fairly certain that downsizing and layoffs throughout the car industry will continue. The ripple effect as well as the depressed global economy will cause many businesses to resort to layoffs as a way to balance revenue and costs. Hopefully, execs will consider all other alternatives first, but if more layoffs are absolutely necessary, then they should know that there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

Guy Kawasaki offers some excellent suggestions to CEOs who are in this situation. These are his headings. Each deserves a closer look.

1. Take responsibility.
2. Cut deep and cut once.
3. Move fast.
4. Clean house.
5. Whack Teddy.
6. Share the pain.
7. Show consistency.
8. Don’t ask for pity.
9. Provide support.
10. Don’t let people self-select.
11. Show people the door.
12. Move forward.

A few comments about this list. Kawasaki implies a #13: “Don’t hide.” He wrote that the worst thing a CEO can do after a layoff is avoid employees. The surviving employees need confidence that their leader is in control and that, together, they will survive the downturn.

I disagree with what Kawasaki says about Number 3, “Move fast.” He said that within an hour after a meeting to discuss possible layoffs, the word will have spread around the company. Actually, the word will spread within minutes after the meeting, given the iPhone/Blackberry age in which we work. And in the time between that meeting and any general announcement, employees will spread rumors that make the situation sound worse than it is.

“Clean house” means using layoffs as an opportunity to move out employees who are not doing a good job or won’t help you going forward. This is being strategic about layoffs and not simply making across-the-board cuts where you risk eliminating valuable, knowledgeable talent and keeping low performers.

“Whack Teddy” is about including in the layoffs employees who were hired because of who they know, not what they can do. If these employees are not included in layoffs, everyone else will assume that competence doesn’t count in the company and that will affect their engagement and performance.

What's a Boomer to Do?

Boomers, those post-war babies born between roughly 1946 and 1964, are beginning to hit retirement age in large numbers with potentially as much as 30 years of productive living still ahead of them. Tamara Erickson, author of Retire Retirement: Career Strategies for the Boomer Generation, and Marc Freedman, author of Encore: Finding Work That Matters in the Second Half of Life, would have us believe that all of us can find new, fulfilling work in those later years. I wish it were as easy as they make it sound.

I agree with them that many Boomers do not want to quit working and many want to contribute to their communities in some significant way . A few will find opportunities that fit both desires. However, I think there are at least three conditions that fly in the face of Erickson's and Freedman's very optimistic view of opportunities for Boomers, particularly those over 60. First of all, given the current economic conditions, the opportunities are constricting daily. Large companies in all sectors are laying off workers or not hiring, and small companies are not growing as fast as they had hoped. Companies and nonprifts are finding ways to do more with less; technology is making this possible. Second, because of the market, retirees and people near retirement either do not have the savings and investments or fear that they won't have the savings and investments to take the risk to make a change in their careers. They are doing whatever they can to hang on to their current sources of income. Third,starting a new career and, especially starting a business, takes tremendous internal strength, persistence, energy, and time, all of which are in short supply among Boomers. Not many at that age, or any age for that matter, have the fortitude to learn a totally new job or grow a new business. And even if they could start a business, the odds are against them that they will succeed.

I commend the individuals who, in their 60s, have found a new, meaningful job rather than retire, or have found a place as a needed volunteer in a nonprofit organization, or have taken a risk and started an exciting new business. I am in awe of these people. But most Boomers don't see these as options nor do they have the temperment and resources to make them happen.

Strategy and Innovation During Economic Meltdown

In the current global economic crisis many companies have turned to mass layoffs as a solution to their financial problems. While this might look good to Wall Street, it is likely to make their road to recovery much longer and harder than it needs to be. The American automobile industry, as an example, will not recover from near bankruptcy without major changes in business strategy and without innovation in what and how vehicles are produced. The industry needs what Elaine Dundon in her book, Seeds of Innovation, calls efficiency innovation, evolutionary innovation, and revolutionary innovation.

None of this change will happen without the people who have the knowledge, skills, and motivation to be innovative in that industry. We have to ask, “How does a company continue to encourage and support innovation when it is shedding thousands of employees?” Certainly, this doesn’t happen by sending the smartest people out the door and creating a culture that discourages risk taking and creativity just when these companies need it most.

Michael Porter makes the case that if companies must make cuts, they should do it strategically, with a focus on the future. He argues that it is easier to shift strategy during economic downturns than it is during times of rapid growth. A post on the Insead blog describes Porter’s position this way:

… Porter explains that if a company that is strategically focused on providing excellent products with excellent service suddenly cuts back on service and activities to cater to price-sensitive customers, they risk undermining their longer-term success and become just like their competitors who are all cutting prices as well. “When you cut and shrink, don’t do it across the board; cut to a strategy, don’t just cut. Don’t just take 10 per cent off every department – that’s a disaster.

In addition to changing strategy, companies might find great opportunities for product and process innovation in these dark days. In her column titled, “It’s No Time to Forget About Innovation,” Janet Rae-Dupree makes a case for continuing to focus on innovation even in an economic downturn. She says that some of the best ideas and new products have come about during poor economic times.

Companies must try to stop the bleeding. At the same time, however, they should be thinking about fundamental changes in their business; that is, new strategies and innovative products and processes. They should be keeping and nurturing the innovators they have and they should be making sure that these innovators are aligned with a strategy that is different from the one that got them here in the first place.

Learning Leadership from Barak Obama

Regardless of your political persuasion, you have to admit that Barak Obama's campaign to become the next U.S. President was an example of exceptional leadership. One Harvard Business Review blogger said he "built a new kind of political organization for the 21st century." Even McCain-supporters Jack and Suzy Welch, in their BusinessWeek column, said that business leaders can learn from Obama's "decisive victory." They wrote:

...Obama's message was simple and aspirational...He talked about change and hope and health care for all. Over and over, he painted a picture of the future that excited people. He also set a perfect example for business leaders: Stick to a limited number of points, repeat them relentlessly, and turn people on.

Sean Murray, in his blog RealTime Leadership, said that Obama's leadership style was one of the factors in his "emergence as a national and global leader." Murray wrote that Obama articulated a clear and compelling vision for the future to which people could connect.

Stew Friedman, professor of management at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, wrote that Obama is an effective leader because he is authentic. Friedman argues that Obama's history is consistent with his current aspirations and his hope for the future. People perceive this link and, therefore, perceive Obama to be authentic.

I think President-Elect Obama has exhibited at least eight characteristics that make him an outstanding leader. As has already been mentioned, he has (1) a simple message that everyone can understand, (2) he communicates that message clearly, (3) he repeats that message over and over again to everyone who will listen, and (4) he is authentic in the sense of behaving in a way that is consitent with his professed values. In addition, (5) he is passionate about his vision for the future and how to achieve that vision, (6) he puts "the right people on the bus", (7) he builds a well-funcioning team around him, (8) he helps each person see how he/she is connected to a cause greater than self.

Barak Obama has four years to prove himself as President. But he has already proven himself as a leader, In doing so, he has given us much to emulate if we want to be successful leaders in our organizations.

Performance Review: For and Against

Performance reviews, that annual, compulsory meeting between supervisor and supervisee to discuss the individual's accomplishments during the past year , are the bane of all employees. Sam Culbert wrote in the Wall Street Journal that performance reviews are so bad that we should stop doing them altogether. He wrote:

Instead of stimulating corporate effectiveness, they lead to just-in-case and cover-your-behind activities that reduce the amount of time that could be put to productive use. Instead of promoting directness, honesty and candor, they stimulate inauthentic conversations in which people cast self-interested pursuits as essential company activities.

Culbert makes some legitimate points about the failings of performance reviews. However, I don't think the problem is performance reviews, per se; it is that they are often done poorly and in a negative context. Rather than throw out the performance review, we should change the way it is typically done. Sean Murray, in his blog post, Performance Review vs. Performance Preview, offers some good alternatives. Taking the cue from Culbert, Murray highlights two ways to improve the process: 1) supervisor and supervisee should enter the meeting with the same expectations for what will be discussed; and 2) the emphasis should be on setting supervisee goals and deciding what each of them will contribute towards achieving those goals.

When supervisor and supervisee do not have shared expectations and do not set mutually agreed to goals for the following year, all of the problems described by Culbert can occur. But much of that is because supervisors/managers have not learned how to give feedback effectively. Nobody teaches supervisors/managers how to do an effective performance review. They learn from their supervisors, including all of the painful ways in which those supervisors conducted or avoided conducting performance reviews.

Performance feedback is a process, not an event. Supervisors should use every opportunity to give feedback to their supervisees. This feedback should be both positive and negative, although the ratio should be much more positive than negative. This feedback should be given early and often, with the formal performance review meeting occuring as one element of that ongoing process.

One of the major reasons for requiring performance reviews at all is because it ensures that at least once a year supervisors and supervisees talk about performance. Otherwise, many employees would never receive any performance feedback and wouldn't know how they are viewed by their bosses and what they need to do to improve and be successful in the organization. We need to do more to make sure that giving and receiving feedback (and reflecting on that feedback) is a continuous process for everyone.

Diversity Training...Does It Work?

The record for diversity training programs is not good. In a T+D article titled, “Why Diversity Training Doesn’t Work…Right Now,” Aparna Nancherla concludes:

Various studies have shown that diversity training is ineffective. It’s not always just the training itself that is flawed. Sometimes it’s also the program’s context and delivery. Some of the major shortcomings include limited understanding of the scope of the issue, coverage of only legal and compliance aspects, and lack of buy-in from senior leadership.

However, before indicting all diversity training, we need to make distinctions among the different types of programs and their purposes. It’s one thing to spend two hours on explaining harassment to a group of managers; it’s quite another thing to spend three days trying to make employees more tolerant and accepting of each other. Both are considered diversity training but they are apples and oranges.

If the intent is creating teams of mutually trusting and highly engaged employees, we have evidence that this can be done. I had the opportunity to interview employees who had been through a three-day, diversity training workshop intended to achieve this goal. My interest was in the impact of the workshop on business results. I heard a story from a manager about how, prior to the workshop, he would fire any employee who showed the slightest bit of negativity in the workplace. One employee, in particular, was very close to being let go. After the workshop, he met with this employee and talked with her about her situation and what she needed to do to be more successful at work. She became one of his best workers. We can calculate the value of that learning to the company. It's substantial.

Another story I heard was from a manager who, prior to the workshop, was losing money on a contract he had with a partner company in another country. The partner company did not appear to be fulfilling its responsibilities in the agreement. The manager had just assumed that employees of the other company understood his expectations and assumptions about contracts. After the workshop, this manager decided to have a conversation with the partner and discovered that they viewed contracts differently due to culture and language. This resulted in a new working relationship and a new agreement that became profitable for both companies. We can calculate the value of that learning to the company. It's substantial.

We know how to make training work. To do so we need to be clear about intended outcomes, align the training with those outcomes, create a context in which that learning is supported and valued, and follow-up to measure impact. This is true of any training, but even more so when we are trying to influence deep seated values and prejudices.