Archive for the ‘Resources – L&D Management’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Building the Perfect Vision

Thursday, April 12th, 2012

In my previous post, I outlined the components of a good quality Vision, together with examples of good and not so good offerings. In this post I will explain how to create a meaningful Vision.

For a Vision to be effective, not only does it need to meet the suggested criteria listed in the previous post, it also needs to be owned by the company or departmental staff, and both understood and valued by the customer base. The following process will enable you to achieve all this.

  1. Brainstorm or board-blast words and short phrases that describe what your organisation or department is to be about. This activity can be undertaken both internally and with customers, although the sessions should be run separately.
  2. Having undertaken this with one or more groups, look at all the words and phrases you have generated. You will see some themes and overlaps. Some words will have similar meanings. Group the words and phrases together where possible – using one colour for customer comments and another colour for staff comments.  This will give you an indication of which themes are numerically most important to the people you have consulted with, together with a check of the weighting from each of the two groups.
  3. Now prioritise your themes. Which are shared by both staff and customers? As the leader of the company or Department, which ones meet with your long term view? Which are most important to the success of your venture?
  4. Within each theme, is there a word that encapsulates, as far as possible, what the theme is about? If so, make a note of it. If not, is there a two-word phrase that sums it up? This step of the process is all about simplifying the theme and looking to take it forward as succinctly yet as accurately as possible.  You will never fit all the comments people have made into a sentence of a few words – so you will have to be prepared to accept inclusion by implication – and this is what you should be seeking to achieve with this step.
  5. Put your prioritised words together in a phrase. As I have mentioned previously, the phrase needs to be memorable, and as many people as possible need to be able to understand how their contribution has helped form and been included within the sentence.

If you get to this point, well done! It isn’t easy to get to this position, and it is time consuming – but it is well worthwhile.

The last time that I undertook this process was when I was leading a large Learning and Development function within an organisation. The Vision that I settled on was “Partners in Developing Performance”. This reflected the requirement to work with other parts of the organisation in an Adult and objective manner, together with the recognition that we existed to develop people, and that our Department needed to make a positive impact on organisational performance.

I found it very helpful in articulating what we were all about, and ensuring that all our activities fitted with this Vision or value. The most pleasing impact was when one of the trainers – on his own initiative – had delegate desk name plates (i.e. a folded card where the delegate wrote their name as a part of their introduction) printed with the Vision on. Proof that it was owned and valued by staff!

Furthermore, due to its positive impact, the HR Department adopted an amended version of it – “Partners in Managing our People”– for their own use.

So if it can be so effective, why don’t more organisations and departments do it? There are many potential reasons – here are some of them:

  • Looking for instant results – if that’s what you want, you probably will not invest the time in a Vision
  • Bureaucratic – it can be viewed as such where people don’t understand its value
  • Fear or embarrassment – it can be seen as a bit different if people haven’t been involved in such a process before
  • Inadequacy – some people tell themselves that they couldn’t lead such a process. Remember, there are facilitators who would be able to assist you with the process
  • Fatigue – there will be many other things on your plate, and it can be an easy one to push off the side.

But try it – clear these potential blockages and set out your Vision.  Be clear on where you and your team are going.

Once you have your Vision, you can develop your Mission – which will be your over-arching objective or overall aim. This could be your objective for where you will be in 5 years’ time. You can then work backwards setting objectives as to what needs to be in place or happen to get you to that point. Your path will have clarity for your staff and stakeholders.

Which takes me back to where this all started – the writing of a Strategy. The Vision can make this easier, and in my next post I will outline a template for creating a meaningful Learning and Development Strategy.

Paul

Tags: ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Topic – Change Management, Topic – L & D Strategy , Topic – Leadership and Management, Topic – Performance Improvement | No Comments »

I have a Vision – do you?

Tuesday, April 10th, 2012

Recently I have received a surge in emails requesting assistance on writing Learning and Development Strategies. It seems like everyone is at it. It encourages me that so many people are keen to define their strategic goals, however, it does also concern me that often people may be doing it to tick a box – and the document is created, and then forgotten about.  For a strategy to work, it needs to become a living document, to move from the 2-dimensional to the 3-dimensional.

I believe that there is a key step that should take place before writing the strategy – a step that can make the difference between the resulting product being a living document and a paper exercise. But very few people or organisations undertake it.

It’s the creation of a Vision. The creation of a Vision can conjure up ideas, enable ownership of a shared dream of the future, motivate people and focus everyone’s thinking.  It can be undertaken by whole organisations, or key departments within organisations.

What is your company or Department’s Vision? If it has one, can you remember it? Do you have ownership of it? Does it motivate you?

Think of some of the Visions that other organisations have.  Two of the best ones that I am aware of are John Lewis’ “Never Knowingly Undersold” and Ikea’s “Affordable solutions for better living”. So what makes these so good?

Well, a Vision needs to be:

  • Achievable
  • Communicable
  • Memorable
  • Sustainable
  • Probably not longer than 7 words
  • Use terms that everyone can recognise, relate to
    and remember
  • Describe what you see
  • Inspirational

And it should avoid being:

  • An intention
  • Like an objective
  • Bureaucratic
  • Committee-speak
  • Measurable

Both my previous examples fit with these requirements, as does my personal favourite – FedEx’s “The world on time”.  Those four words give such clarity as to what FedEx wants to be, yet so simply and memorably.

But not all are this good. Nike’s, “To bring inspiration and innovation to every athlete in the world”, and Amazon’s, “To be earth’s most customer centric company”, are reasonable, but the use of the word ‘To’ at the start making them sound too much like objectives.

Moving down my leader board, we arrive at Virgin Atlantic’s, “The success of our three year strategy requires us to build on these foundations by focusing on the business and leisure markets and driving efficiency and effectiveness”. Memorable? Inspirational? I don’t think so.

And, in my opinion, the worst of all belongs to Heinz. Their 73-word offering is, “Our Vision, quite simply, is to be ‘The world’s premier food company, offering nutritious, superior tasting foods to people everywhere.’ Being the premier food company does not mean being the biggest but it does mean being the best in terms of consumer value, customer service, employee talent, and consistent and predictable growth. We are well on our way to realizing this Vision but there is more we must do to fully achieve it.”

If they had left it as the ‘quite simply’ part, then it would be good – but someone felt the need to, “Yes, but …” it, and the moment was lost. And with it went any inspirational, communicable or motivational qualities it may have had. But perhaps it’s more difficult when you need to include 57 varieties!

If your company or Department has a Vision, how good do you think it is? If it doesn’t have a Vision, would you benefit from having one? In my next post I will give suggestions as to how to create a FedEx quality Vision.

Paul

Tags: , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Topic – Change Management, Topic – Communication Skills, Topic – L & D Strategy , Topic – Leadership and Management, Topic – Performance Improvement | No Comments »

6D Fun From Facilitators!

Thursday, March 22nd, 2012

Much of the talk these days as to whether entertainment is impactive is whether it is 2D, 3D or even 4D. Well, a 4D facilitator is reasonable, but the very best are 6D! Are you?

If 6CIA is good for coaches, then the 6 Dimensions of Facilitator Style (6DFS, or sometimes 18DFS) is great for trainers and facilitators! This model was developed by John Heron to complement 6CIA, and create a helping tool for people working with groups as opposed to individuals.

Whereas 6CIA has just the 6 Categories, 6DFS has 6 Dimensions (you will see some similarities with the 6CIA Categories) together with 3 Modes.

Heron used the Modes to describe the exercise of power in the running of the group by the facilitator – moving from Hierarchical, where all the power is with the trainer, through to Autonomous where the group has the freedom to finds its own way. As each Mode can be combined with each Dimension, this gives eighteen possible combinations (hence why it is sometimes called 18DFS).

As I explained in a previous post, I find that one of the best ways of explaining this model is to imagine, as a trainer, you have a ‘mixer’ – as a producer would use when recording music. On the producer’s mixer there are 6 controls managing the loudness or softness of each instrument making up the track, which they can change as they see fit – thus enabling them to create the perfect sound. As a trainer, change the instruments to Dimensions, and the loudness / softness control to the Modes. You then use your mixer to set the Dimensions and Modes at their appropriate level for the needs of the group, amending them as you see fit.

Here’s an explanation of the Modes and Dimensions:

Modes

Hierarchical: Power resides with the facilitator who directs and acts on behalf of the group – leading from the front on behalf of the group. The facilitator makes decisions, interprets, gives meaning, challenges, etc for the group and takes on responsibility for all the dimensions described below (“does it for the group”).

Co-operative: Shared responsibility and power with the facilitator ollaborating with the group in the management of the different dimensions. All views are valid and the facilitator’s view is not final. It is part of an agreed or negotiated outcome (“does it with the group”). The facilitator prompts and helps the group when dealing with the different dimensions.

Autonomous: Here the group has the freedom to find its own way with little or no intervention from the facilitator – as the facilitator is respecting the autonomy of the group. This doesn’t mean that the facilitator has a purely passive role, but works to create an environment and conditions whereby he group is self-directing (“gives it to the group”). The facilitator has created an environment and the space for self-directed learning.

Dimensions

Planning: The aims and plans of the group and what should happen to achieve these. It involves the consideration of objectives, methods, resources, times, assessment and evaluation.

Meaning: How the group acquires understanding and makes sense of the learning. This includes the assessment process. Covers different sort of learning – e.g. ideas, theories, experiential. Knowledge, understanding, skills, attitudes and behaviours.

Confronting: Dealing with resistance in the group that can hamper the learning. This can come about through habit, anxiety, inexperience, wanting to take an easier route, etc.

Feeling: The management of feelings and emotions within the group and enabling catharsis. The emotions can be positive and/or negative, but need managing so that they create learning and growth and, where necessary energy is redirected.

Structuring: The implementation of decisions regarding the design and methods used. How best to carry out and structure the learning activities that the group will be involved in.

Valuing: Creating the appropriate environment in which the learning will take place. An environment where people feel valued, can be authentic, can shares concerns openly, can disclose their needs and interests, increase their self-respect and are therefore able to thrive.

I find a great way to use this model is when training trainers or when reflecting on a day’s facilitation. I have a grid with Modes along one Axis and Dimensions along the other – let me know if you would like a copy – and then make a note of where the facilitator or trainer is (or was if it is my reflections) at different times of the day. Was I in the right Mode? Did I spend too long in one Dimension? Were there any Dimensions I didn’t operate in, and if so, is that a problem? Where do I need to be operating from tomorrow / the next time I run such a session?

Try it – I’m sure you‘ll find it valuable. Find out if you are 6D!

Paul

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Trainers, Topic – 6CIA / 6DFS [Heron] , Topic – Facilitation, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Myers Briggs explained

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

In my last post, I explained – and enthused – about how I had undertaken my Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI©) Step I and II Practitioner training in Florida.

As I concluded the post, I realised that the it would make sense to readers who knew a little about MBTI, but not a lot of sense to others. So I said I would elaborate.

People’s behaviour and actions may often seem random or varied to us as observers, but according to Carl Jung (1875-1961), the Swiss psychiatrist, people follow patterns. Jung (see photo) labelled these patterns as ‘psychological types’. Katherine Briggs found Jung’s work whilst she was also grappling with similar thoughts – and then she and her daughter, Isabel Briggs Myers, brought the theory into the mainstream by creating the MBTI instrument. This tool helps a person work out and understand their psychological type. The first MBTI instrument was published in 1962. It is currently the world’s widest used personality assessment.

Jung’s, Briggs’ and Myers’ typological model views psychological type as being similar to writing with our left or right hand – we are either born with, or develop, certain preferred ways of thinking and acting. The MBTI sorts these psychological (and naturally occurring) differences into four dichotomies – opposite pairs – which results in 16 possible psychological types. None of the types are better or worse, however, the theory suggests that individuals naturally prefer one overall combination of  type differences. The dichotomies are:

  • Extraversion (E) or Introversion (I)
  • Sensing (S) or Intuition (N)
  • Thinking (T) or Feeling (F)
  • Judging (J) or Perceiving (P)

A person’s ‘type’ is summarised by four letters – so a person preferring Introversion, Sensing, Thinking and Judging would have an ISTJ type.

The Step I questionnaire comprises 93 questions, the answers to which help enable a person identify the above type. I say ‘help’ because whilst the MBTI has been shown to be very reliable, it is accepted that it will not be correct every time. Consequently, a person having their results interpreted should be taken through a process which enables them to self-assess their type prior to receiving their full report. If there are any differences these can be discussed and the MBTI Practitioner will give the person further coaching to assist them to decide on their type.

The Step II questionnaire comprises 144 questions – the 93 from the Step I together with an additional 51 questions. The Step II recognises that it is not possible to ‘box’ every person in the world into 16 types – one ISTJ may well be different in type to another ISTJ.

Within the Step II each of the dichotomies is broken down into 5 ‘facets’. You could also call these ‘sub dichotomies’ . As an example, The Extraversion and Introversion dichotomy has the following facets:

  • Initiating or Receiving
  • Expressive or Contained
  • Gregarious or Intimate
  • Active or Reflective
  • Enthusiastic or Quiet

The left hand end of the above facets are generally where people with an Extraverted preference will find themselves, whilst the right hand words are associated with Introversion. Having said that, a person with an Introverted preference may find themselves as having a facet preference for ‘Initiating’ which can then help the individual understand why they may not concur  ompletely with their four letter type.

Undertaking the MBTI should always be voluntary, and it should never be used as a recruitment tool. Furthermore, it does not measure intelligence or competence.

It does, however, allow a person to understand themselves more clearly, and then look at how to develop the less preferred aspects of their type. Once a person understands their type, they can then move on to how their type potentially impacts on how they manage conflict, make decisions or work within a team.

It can also be used with teams to help them understand each other and work more effectively together. The Step II is particularly useful when working with a person in a one to one coaching relationship. It is a powerful tool.

If you have any other specific questions about it I am, of course, happy to answer them.

Paul

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Resources – Students, Topic – MBTI [Myers Briggs], Topic – Performance Improvement, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

The art of measurement

Tuesday, August 30th, 2011

I have recently questioned the number of networking events that I have the opportunity to attend – and more specifically the benefit of many of them. There are some beneficial ones that I attend – where I learn and develop – and there are others that appear to be run for the benefit of the few organisers, and are marketing events thinly veiled as networking events. Unfortunately, in my view, too many of them are leaning towards the latter.

Consequently, at the suggestion of another self-employed colleague, she and I loosely organised – ‘set up’ sounds too grandiose a term – a ‘Walk and Talk’ event. The intention was that there would be 6 or 7 mile walks in areas of outstanding beauty where we could chat, theorise, contemplate, problem solve, reflect, and seek the counsel of other like-minded individuals. I am pleased to say that these have really taken off now – as we walk, smaller groups of 2 or 3 will chat for a while, and then, perhaps where a gate is opened or a stile is negotiated, the groups will seamlessly change and other discussions will develop. If the surface is suitable, sometimes a model is drawn and discussed (sandy, slightly damp conditions appear most suited to this aspect!). They happen about every six weeks, there are different people every time, and we have fun, develop ideas and keep fit as we go!

On the last walk, I was listening to two fellow walkers discussing coaching. One of the threads of their conversation led to them discussing a definition of coaching, which was “… the art of facilitating the performance, learning and development of another’. The provider explained that the quote is by Myles Downey and that he likes it because it implies an intuitive art to the process, as well as the mechanical deployment of skills and techniques. He added that the most important word to him within the definition is ‘art’.

This set me thinking. As some of you are aware, I don’t generally have a lot of time for qualifications relating to the acquisition of people skills. There is too much measurement of outputs, and insufficient valuing of outcomes. As a prospective employer, I really don’t care whether you have a trainer’s qualification or not – what I care about is whether you can demonstrate that you have used sound learning and development principles to bring about or contribute to improved and quantifiable organisational performance.

Coaching is the same. So you’ve got a qualification. That’s positive in that it demonstrates a commitment to learning and a desire to improve oneself, but it may not tell me whether you have assisted in improving a person’s performance through your coaching skills. And so do they really help a customer who is seeking a
competent coach?

If coaching is an art, can a qualification measure what is an art? Mozart, Lennon, Dali, Rodin, Rowling – did they have qualifications relevant to their arts?

Perhaps there is a place for qualifications at a basic level within an art, but surely there comes a point where the skills are beyond the realms of being broken down into competencies?

Benjamin Bloom presented us with his Taxonomy of learning within the Cognitive Domain many years ago. As you may well be aware, a taxonomy is an ‘ordered list’, and Bloom identified 6 stages we have to pass through in developing our knowledge of a subject or field of expertise. These levels are Knowledge, Comprehension, Application, Analysis, Synthesis and Evaluation.

A coaching qualification can, I accept, measure a person’s ability to the Application level, but can it measure it beyond this level? The top quality coaches who I have had the pleasure and fortune to witness exhibiting their skills are beyond this level. They use their feelings, their sixth sense, their intuition – that’s why they are the best. They are true artists.

As for the Walk and Talk, I was so involved in these personal reflections, I was only walking and contemplating at that time. But that’s fine – and that’s what makes it so good. Everyone has the space to do what they want, when they want to do it and how they want to do it.

And, even better, people bring their walking boots rather than their business cards.

Paul

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Resources – Trainers, Topic – Coaching, Topic – Performance Improvement, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Foundations of team success – whatever the scale

Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

I saw last week that Croatia is now going to be able to join the EU, probably in July 2013. Assuming it goes ahead, they will be the twenty-eighth state to join. It is of particular interest to me as I spent eight years working with their Interior Ministry and Ministry of Justice assisting with their preparations for this eventuality. Croatia is an incredibly beautiful country which I have visited many times. When I visited during the late 1990’s, however, I saw a more serious side.

I visited Vukovar – a Croat city on the border with Serbia – where there were mass murders based on ethnicity, together with a huge amount of physical damage. At the same time I also visited Bosnia. Sarajevo and Srebrenica, both of which I found terribly depressing, were awful places which appeared to have no hope at that time.

Balkan history is complicated, however, what happened in Yugoslavia in the last quarter of the last century is reasonably straightforward. The Yugoslav President, Josip Broz Tito died in 1980. He had ruled post-WW2 Yugoslavia in a hard line manner. In doing so, he managed to retain a bond between the very different parts that made up Yugoslavia. Once he was gone, no one could carry on his style of leadership. As the economic decline took a stronger hold during the 1980’s, the disparate states within Yugoslavia increasingly focused on their differences. The areas that are now Slovenia and Croatia knew that they generated the majority of the country’s income, much of which subsidised the other areas – and so they decided that they wanted out. Slovenia decided it had had enough in 1991 and declared itself an independent country – and got away with it. Croatia, which is closer to Serbia, decided to follow suit, but by this time Belgrade – the current capitol of Serbia and the former capitol of Yugoslavia – was wise to it and decided to halt it. Their devastating war began.

Fast forward to Europe in June 2011, and we find a similar situation – substitute the EU for Yugoslavia. There is a harsh economic climate, a number of states are close to financial melt-down and there are mutterings that the richer states don’t want to support them any longer. There is no prospect of war, but there is the prospect of the downfall of the Euro. The question is being asked as to whether it is possible for a currency to function effectively across a number of countries without one ‘corporate’ shared financial strategy.

These moments in history are played out every day all over the world. What happens on these world stages occurs in far smaller teams in organisations. What they illustrate so well are the foundations that must be in place for any team, country or continent to function effectively:

  • Effective senior leadership – a leader who is prepared to listen, and who has true followers.
  • Strong and valued relationships – ones that have been built over time where there is strong rapport, not ones that will splinter when under pressure.
  • A shared vision and strategy – which is bought into by all parties through open dialogue.
  • An ability to handle conflict – a willingness to talk, negotiate and accept responsibility.
  • People or states have problems – they are not problem people or problem states, and they need to be viewed in that way.
  • Valuing diversity – an acceptance that we all bring different abilities to the table which will be recognised in different situations.

Effective leadership means thinking forward to these difficult times during the relatively easy times – and everyone needs to demonstrate this as we all have that responsibility.

As a team member, team manager or team leader, what are you contributing to ensure your team is truly effective in challenging times?

Paul

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Resources – Practitioners, Resources – Students, Topic – Current Affairs, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Make the complicated simple

Sunday, June 19th, 2011

Many years ago I went to the Emmanuel College, Cambridge University May Ball. I had been invited by a friend from school who took a degree course there. I hasten to add it was only the May Ball I went to – that’s as close as I got to Cambridge University!

I hadn’t done particularly well at the Grammar School we were both at, and so I went with the view that I would meet with lots of people who I would struggle to engage with, and that I would know far less than them in all meaningful areas.

Nevertheless, I had agreed to meet my friend Steve a couple of days before the May Ball in order to spend some time with him, see a little of Cambridge and meet his friends – including my partner for the event as I not met her previously. When I arrived, he duly took me to meet one of his friends. I can’t remember the friend’s name, or much else about the meeting, other than when we went into his room he was there with his bicycle. The bicycle was upside down and the friend was scratching his head. He greeted us and then outlined his problem by saying, “I’ve got a slow puncture and need to mend it, but I can’t find out how to get the rest of the air out of the inner-tube.” I was amazed. One of the greatest young brains in the UK and he didn’t know how to get the air out.

I often think back to that experience. I think it was the point when I realised that there was a difference between knowledge and skills, and it was a reminder of how dangerous and unproductive it is to assume what people might know.

I was reminded of it again last week. I was working with some senior leaders and we were discussing leader ship theories, models and practices. I decided to use John Adair’s Action Centred Leadership Model and asked who had heard of it and could explain it to me and the others present. None of the three people present had heard of it. I was astonished.  I (wrongly) thought that it was the sort of ‘foundation’ leadership theory that every leader knows about. And the reason why I haven’t blogged about it previously is because I assumed that it was too well known to be worth it. Perhaps I was wrong?

Some people also refer to it as the “I, We, It” theory, and others as the “Team, Task, Individual” theory. This is because of the naming of the three overlapping or interlocking circles (see the diagram above):

  •  It / Task – the completion of the task, achieving the task
  • We / Team – the creation, sustaining and motivating of the team to ensure it works effectively
  • I / Individual – the individual development of members of the team

Adair’s view was that all three of these aspects are required to successfully lead (and manage) given situations. They are overlapping circles as each supports the others.

I personally see it as a foundation theory as it’s one of those that can be used in any situation – and if something isn’t going quite right, or things aren’t running as smoothly as perhaps the leader thinks they should be, it’s a great one to check against as to how they are leading. When doing this, it’s often possible to recognise that a leader is directing, conducting or encouraging more activity in one or two of the circles, to the exclusion of the other(s) – and there can lie the reason for things not being on track. In visual terms, one or two of the circles become disproportionately large in comparison to the other(s).

Whilst the theory is relatively new – having been developed and publicised in the 1960s – some people now see it as being too simplistic. This is not a view that I share – I think that there lies its strength and power. Leadership shouldn’t be seen as complicated as it really isn’t – if leaders make it overcomplicated, people will not follow. Simplicity is the beauty of this model, which then makes me wonder why it took until the 1960s for someone to come up with it!  Perhaps Charles Mingus had the answer when he said, “Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that’s creative”.

If you want more detail on the theory, there’s some useful guidance and assistance at Businessballs.

What the best Leadership Theory or Model that you have been introduced to, and what makes it so effective?

Paul

Many years ago I went to the Emmanuel College, Cambridge University May Ball. I had been invited by a friend from school who took a degree course there. I hasten to add it was only the May Ball I went to – that’s as close as I got to Cambridge University!

I hadn’t done particularly well at the Grammar School we were both at, and so I went with the view that I would meet with lots of people who I would struggle to engage with, and that I would know far less than them in all meaningful areas.

Nevertheless, I had agreed to meet my friend Steve a couple of days before the May Ball in order to spend some time with him, see a little of Cambridge and meet his friends – including my partner for the event as I not met her previously. When I arrived, he duly took me to meet one of his friends. I can’t remember the friend’s name, or much else about the meeting, other than when we went into his room he was there with his bicycle. The bicycle was upside down and the friend was scratching his head. He greeted us and then outlined his problem by saying, “I’ve got a slow puncture and need to mend it, but I can’t find out how to get the rest of the air out of the inner-tube.” I was amazed. One of the greatest young brains in the UK and he didn’t know how to get the air out.

I often think back to that experience. I think it was the point when I realised that there was a difference between knowledge and skills, and it was a reminder of how dangerous and unproductive it is to assume what people might know.

I was reminded of it again last week. I was working with some senior leaders and we were discussing leader ship theories, models and practices. I decided to use John Adair’s Action Centred Leadership Model and asked who had heard of it and could explain it to me and the others present. None of the three people present had heard of it. I was astonished.  I (wrongly) thought that it was the sort of ‘foundation’ leadership theory that every leader knows about. And the reason why I haven’t blogged about it previously is because I assumed that it was too well known to be worth it. Perhaps I was wrong?

Some people also refer to it as the “I, We, It” theory, and others as the “Team, Task, Individual” theory. This is because of the naming of the three overlapping or interlocking circles (see the diagram above):

  •  It / Task – the completion of the task, achieving the task
  • We / Team – the creation, sustaining and motivating of the team to ensure it works effectively
  • I / Individual – the individual development of members of the team

Adair’s view was that all three of these aspects are required to successfully lead (and manage) given situations. They are overlapping circles as each supports the others.

I personally see it as a foundation theory as it’s one of those that can be used in any situation – and if something isn’t going quite right, or things aren’t running as smoothly as perhaps the leader thinks they should be, it’s a great one to check against as to how they are leading. When doing this, it’s often possible to recognise that a leader is directing, conducting or encouraging more activity in one or two of the circles, to the exclusion of the other(s) – and there can lie the reason for things not being on track. In visual terms, one or two of the circles become disproportionately large in comparison to the other(s).

Whilst the theory is relatively new – having been developed and publicised in the 1960s – some people now see it as being too simplistic. This is not a view that I share – I think that there lies its strength and power. Leadership shouldn’t be seen as complicated as it really isn’t – if leaders make it overcomplicated, people will not follow. Simplicity is the beauty of this model, which then makes me wonder why it took until the 1960s for someone to come up with it!  Perhaps Charles Mingus had the answer when he said, “Making the simple complicated is commonplace; making the complicated simple, awesomely simple, that’s creative”.

If you want more detail on the theory, there’s some useful guidance and assistance at Businessballs.

What the best Leadership Theory or Model that you have been introduced to, and what makes it so effective?

Paul

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Resources – Trainers, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

Songs in the key of life

Saturday, June 11th, 2011

I have been doing a lot of coaching recently. In fact, I have done very little over the past year, and then about 15 coachees have all come along at once (whilst the content of the last sentence is accurate, my dad – if he’s still reading – will think it an exceedingly good joke! I suspect others may not …)

The coachees are all senior leaders and chief executives from both public and private sectors, and from across four different organisations. Having a number of coachees like this has enabled me to look at some of the themes and discriminators across the group as a whole. They are predominantly my own personal musings as it would be wrong to talk about the majority of my thoughts and conclusions here. One aspect that I do feel comfortable mentioning, however, is that of Emotional Intelligence (EI). I have been reminded of how effective people can be when they use it. 

I have seen EI explained in a number of ways, however, the one that works best for me is that contained in The Emotional Intelligence Quick Book by Travis Bradberry and Jean Greaves. They use a four-box model which I have always found easy to understand and explain.

The first two boxes relate to Personal Competence:

  • Self-Awareness – Do you understand your emotions, do you understand your tendencies in given situations and are you able to stay on top of your usual reactions?
  • Self-Management – Can you use the awareness of your emotions to stay flexible and deal positively with situations, are you able to explore your emotions to understand yourself better? (this also links to my last blog post on the Adult Learning Cycle).

The other boxes relate to Social Competence:

  • Social Awareness – Can you accurately pick up on the emotions of others, understand what’s happening for them and interpret others’ feeling even when you are experiencing different ones?
  • Relationship Management – Do you listen, do you use your emotions and those of others to manage interactions and do you value your relationships? 

One aspect of my musings was as to how I personally achieved the Self-Awareness aspect. It was prompted by one of those times when someone compliments you on something and asks you how you do it and you don’t really know that well. Does it happen to everyone, or is it just me? Anyway, it got me thinking.

And I spent a lot of time thinking about the songs I sing and hum to myself. I have worked out that they fall into four categories. 

  1. I think of a song I like, and sing it to myself
  2. It was the last song I heard on the radio, in the supermarket, on my MP3, etc.
  3. I sing a song because something non-emotions based has prompted it (i.e. when I turn the engine off in my Ford Ka having left the lights on, the car makes a warning noise exactly like the first note of the Beach Boys ‘Sloop John B’, and off I go! …)
  4. I am singing the song as my emotions have chosen to tell me to sing the song, and if I listen to it, it helps me understand where I’m at or what I’m feeling.

Regarding Point 4, for example, I know that when I find myself singing or humming Pink Floyd’s ‘Comfortably Numb’, there is some situation that has been going on for a while and has sapped my energy – so much so that I have become almost oblivious to the situation. The song reminds me of this, I identify the situation and do something about it. The song reminds me of my responsibility. On my recent birthday, I heard myself singing the Robbie Williams lyrics, “I hope I’m old before I die” – not a song I can recall singing at other times – and when I came out of a recent coaching session where the person was doing everything too fast, I found myself singing the Simon and Garfunkel lyrics, “slow down, you move too fast”, over and over.

I believe it’s one part of me giving another part of me messages, through my emotions – and listening to and interpreting them increases my self-awareness.

I am, however, left with a question. Is Point 1 really a grouping, or should it be part of Group 4 – and it’s just that I haven’t found the meaning for anything that I put in Point 1?

Does this happen for you, or is it just me? What do you think?

Paul

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Practitioners, Resources – Students, Topic – Personal Development | No Comments »

7 Steps to L&D Heaven

Saturday, May 14th, 2011

In my last post I outlined seven questions that I always use when determining exactly what a client’s needs are. I said in this post I would explain why I use – and document – these questions, and why I think they are important.

The basis for them is that in my experience a little time spent at this stage pays dividends later in the process. This is because sometimes clients:

  • Spend too little time critically thinking about their true learning requirements.
  • Do not appreciate the true cost of the investment in people’s development that they are asking for.
  • Have no ownership of the rest of the process if not involved from the start and – importantly for the L&D provider – no accountability if it doesn’t achieve what it was supposed to achieve.

What is the identified performance need? Too often clients only want to talk in terms of a solution, and that solution is often a course. This is understandable to some degree as they are busy people and it will often seem relatively straight forward to them. This question, and any subsequent clarification questions, are intended to take us back to basics. This will help me to build a product or solution based on a firm foundation of a properly identified need.

Why is a solution required (how will it add value, and what would happen if it did not exist)? By asking this, I am ensuring that the learning is required – in other words, once completed, the person will be able to add additional value to the organisation. They will have new skills. It helps us start to identify what the intended return on investment (ROI) will be. If the client is unable to specify how it will add value, is it really a development need that the organisation should support?

How will the solution improve the organisation’s performance against its identified goals? Not only do we need to ensure that the person will be able to add value after completing their learning, we must ensure that this value is what the organisation currently values – is it a company priority? The majority of L&D functions receive more requests than they can handle – identifying which will support current organisational priorities is one way of prioritising them.

Which organisational competencies does the solution aim to address and to what level? This enables the solution to be linked to any relevant competency frameworks or appraisal process. In ascertaining the correct level, it enables the L&D professional who takes responsibility for designed the solution to be able to pitch it at the appropriate level.  If the eventual solution is publicised more widely, it also assists other clients to understand the level of the event.

What are the target staff groups /  teams / Departments for this solution? We have to ensure that the target audience is the correct audience to deliver this business improvement. As we all know, there are some people who try to get on courses for the sake of going on a course (and others who we can never get near one!). This question is intended to help me critically examine exactly who should be receiving it – thus offering it to all who have the need, yet not making it available to those who will not be able to use it to add organisational value.

How will the effectiveness of the solution be measured in the workplace? This links back to the return on investment (ROI) seed which we planted earlier in the conversation.  We need to clearly specify this so that anyone involved in the delivery and receipt of the solution is clear as to how they will add value. Also, so that the evaluator can check the effectiveness of the solution in the future. For example, let’s say the solution is in the contact centre environment, and it is intended to reduce a team of advisors’ Average Handling Times (AHT) and their Transfer Rates for calls to the contact centre. We need to measure these in terms of the average length of calls and percentage transfer rate prior to the interventions so that we have the base data. At a given time after the delivery of the solution, we can then measure again and quantify whether the required improvements have been made, and if so by how much – which can then be converted to a monetary value relatively easily. If this measurement, or the decision on how to measure, is not undertaken at the start of the process, we cannot quantify the success of the intervention.

What are the clearly stated, measurable objectives for the solution? This will usually  need to be completed by the L&D specialist as our clients are unlikely to be familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomies of learning, and in particular the levels.  Objectives need to be measurable so we need to ensure we use words that can be evaluated against. This means that when we say, “By the end of the session delegates will be able to …”, we should avoid words like ‘understand’ or ‘comprend’. Instead, we should use words such as ‘outline’ (Knowledge), ‘explain’ (Comprehension) and ‘apply’ (Application). 

Finally, we need our sponsor to sign off a documentary record of what we have agreed. It can sometimes feel a little onerous to do this, and sponsors may be reluctant to engage in this process – if this happens I start to be a little concerned. Having them sign off the process is all about them agreeing that the answers to the questions are correct, and that the description of the need, the way it will be measured and the proposed learning objectives are all recorded accurately. If there are disagreements, then amendments can be made. If not, it can be agreed, signed and then passed to L&D professionals in order for them to suggest and develop appropriate solutions.

And the potential for significant added value will be greatly increased!

Paul

In my last post I outlined seven questions that I always use when determining exactly what a client’s needs are. I said in this post I would explain why I use – and document – these questions, and why I think they are important.

The basis for them is that in my experience a little time spent at this stage pays dividends later in the process. This is because sometimes clients:

  • Spend too little time critically thinking about their true learning requirements.
  • Do not appreciate the true cost of the investment in people’s development that they are asking for.
  • Have no ownership of the rest of the process if not involved from the start and – importantly for the L&D provider – no accountability if it doesn’t achieve what it was supposed to achieve.

What is the identified performance need? Too often clients only want to talk in terms of a solution, and that solution is often a course. This is understandable to some degree as they are busy people and it will often seem relatively straight forward to them. This question, and any subsequent clarification questions, are intended to take us back to basics. This will help me to build a product or solution based on a firm foundation of a properly identified need.

Why is a solution required (how will it add value, and what would happen if it did not exist)? By asking this, I am ensuring that the learning is required – in other words, once completed, the person will be able to add additional value to the organisation. They will have new skills. It helps us start to identify what the intended return on investment (ROI) will be. If the client is unable to specify how it will add value, is it really a development need that the organisation should support?

How will the solution improve the organisation’s performance against its identified goals? Not only do we need to ensure that the person will be able to add value after completing their learning, we must ensure that this value is what the organisation currently values – is it a company priority? The majority of L&D functions receive more requests than they can handle – identifying which will support current organisational priorities is one way of prioritising them.

Which organisational competencies does the solution aim to address and to what level? This enables the solution to be linked to any relevant competency frameworks or appraisal process. In ascertaining the correct level, it enables the L&D professional who takes responsibility for designed the solution to be able to pitch it at the appropriate level.  If the eventual solution is publicised more widely, it also assists other clients to understand the level of the event.

What are the target staff groups /  teams / Departments for this solution? We have to ensure that the target audience is the correct audience to deliver this business improvement. As we all know, there are some people who try to get on courses for the sake of going on a course (and others who we can never get near one!). This question is intended to help me critically examine exactly who should be receiving it – thus offering it to all who have the need, yet not making it available to those who will not be able to use it to add organisational value.

How will the effectiveness of the solution be measured in the workplace? This links back to the return on investment (ROI) seed which we planted earlier in the conversation.  We need to clearly specify this so that anyone involved in the delivery and receipt of the solution is clear as to how they will add value. Also, so that the evaluator can check the effectiveness of the solution in the future. For example, let’s say the solution is in the contact centre environment, and it is intended to reduce a team of advisors’ Average Handling Times (AHT) and their Transfer Rates for calls to the contact centre. We need to measure these in terms of the average length of calls and percentage transfer rate prior to the interventions so that we have the base data. At a given time after the delivery of the solution, we can then measure again and quantify whether the required improvements have been made, and if so by how much – which can then be converted to a monetary value relatively easily. If this measurement, or the decision on how to measure, is not undertaken at the start of the process, we cannot quantify the success of the intervention.

What are the clearly stated, measurable objectives for the solution? This will usually  need to be completed by the L&D specialist as our clients are unlikely to be familiar with Bloom’s Taxonomies of learning, and in particular the levels.  Objectives need to be measurable so we need to ensure we use words that can be evaluated against. This means that when we say, “By the end of the session delegates will be able to …”, we should avoid words like ‘understand’ or ‘comprend’. Instead, we should use words such as ‘outline’ (Knowledge), ‘explain’ (Comprehension) and ‘apply’ (Application). 

Finally, we need our sponsor to sign off a documentary record of what we have agreed. It can sometimes feel a little onerous to do this, and sponsors may be reluctant to engage in this process – if this happens I start to be a little concerned. Having them sign off the process is all about them agreeing that the answers to the questions are correct, and that the description of the need, the way it will be measured and the proposed learning objectives are all recorded accurately. If there are disagreements, then amendments can be made. If not, it can be agreed, signed and then passed to L&D professionals in order for them to suggest and develop appropriate solutions.

And the potential for significant added value will be greatly increased!

Paul

Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Trainers | No Comments »

So tell me what you need, what you really, really need

Monday, April 25th, 2011

I’m all for the phrase “Make it happen”, but we always have to be clear on the ‘it’. Sometimes organisations are so keen to make ‘it’ happen, the priority can become “Make something happen” which can often be one step forward and two steps back. It can also damage relationships and cause waves in previously tranquil waters. And it can waste serious amounts of money.

The area of learning and development is one of the best – or worst, dependent upon how you look at it – examples of this.

I can think of several occasions where training interventions have been delivered and they have not delivered the required results in the workplace. In several of those instances the claim has been that it was “Training’s fault because they didn’t train the right things”. Hmmm. Perhaps it was, or perhaps it wasn’t. It is, however, relatively simple to introduce a process that minimises this potential and maximises the value from an organisation’s investment in learning. As with so many successful projects, the primary requirement is for the relevant people to take the required responsibility and accountability.

Learning and development professionals (the contractors) need to slow down the commissioning process. The commissioning process is the stage where the internal or external client identifies what needs to change. And this will only work if the responsibility is in the right place.

The client has to take responsibility for job descriptions, core skills and identifying individuals’ learning and development needs. The contractor’s role is to analyse the client’s needs and develop appropriate and cost-effective interventions, deliver the interventions, assess the competence of delegates and check the intervention met its stated objectives. Finally, we arrive at the evaluation of the changes in the workplace as a result of the intervention – which is the client’s responsibility.

The start of this cycle used to be called the Training Needs Analysis (TNA). However, it is increasing being broken down into two activities called the Performance Needs Analysis (PNA) and the Learning Needs Analysis (LNA). Whilst it is the responsibility of the client, the contractor needs to assist them in this process. When we are closely involved in matters, we often lose our objectivity and sometimes make assumptions – this is what can happen for a client and so we need to help them avoid this by taking them through a structure process.

This process can be as detailed as everyone wants to make it. Having said that, if learning and development professionals use too complex a process, they will lose credibility with the client. The complexity of the process should also be driven by the size of the audience – in other words, if 20 people need to improve their performance in a particular area, the process should be less arduous than if 2,000 people require it – but both require a process to ensure we make the right thing happen.

As a start, I use seven questions. These are:

  1. What is the identified performance need?
  2. Why is a solution required (how will it add value, and what would happen if it did not exist)?
  3. How will the solution improve the organisation’s performance against its identified goals?
  4. Which organisational competencies does the solution aim to address and to what level?
  5. What are the target staff groups /  teams / Departments for this solution?
  6. How will the effectiveness of the solution be measured in the workplace?
  7. What are the clearly stated, measurable objectives for the solution?

From experience, I know that these questions can come across as threatening to clients. This is particularly the case in immature organisations – in other words, organisations where discussions around learning and development activities are often packaged in terms of the client stating they want a course on a particular aspect, rather than rational, objective and meaningful discussions between the client and contractor on what they need to achieve together.  Consequently, my preferred approach is to let the client have the questions prior to us meeting face to face or us having a further phone conversation. This gives them the opportunity to identify what they need – what they really need.

When learning and development professionals get this process right, they are well on their way to making a meaningful impact for the organisation. They will be able to demonstrate their value in improving performance.

In my next post, I will explain a little more about each of these seven star questions – and why, when you have completed the process, you need to get your sponsor’s sign-off.  

Paul

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Resources – Trainers | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »