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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

Caution – Risks around the corner?

Thursday, April 14th, 2011

I was travelling along one of the country lanes near where we live today and came across a couple of young hikers – perhaps in their late teens or early twenties. I came upon them fairly abruptly as I was negotiating a blind left hand bend and they were walking towards me at the side of the road (a right hand bend to them). The sort of reasonably gentle bend that I slow down a little for. Not only is it ‘blind’, but when walking on the side of the road that they were on, there is no verge for pedestrians to walk on. Yet there is a good wide verge on the opposite side of the road.

With a good knowledge of the Highway Code they might have used the opposite side of the road. It states, “If there is no pavement keep to the right-hand side of the road so that you can see oncoming traffic. You should take extra care and

  • be prepared to walk in single file, especially on narrow roads or in poor light
  • keep close to the side of the road

It may be safer to cross the road well before a sharp right-hand bend so that oncoming traffic has a better chance of seeing you. Cross back after the bend.”

However, most people only have a ‘headline’ knowledge of the Highway Code, which in this case would probably be, ‘Walk on the right-hand side of the road’- which is what they were doing.

But whatever the Highway Code says, or indeed whether they knew about what it says, why did they choose to walk this obviously dangerous line with no escape route?

I wonder whether it is linked to the way younger people have been and are being brought up in a very health and safety conscious age. These two young people, if they have been brought up in Britain, will have played on roundabouts in playgrounds with padding underneath for when they fall off. They will have played on computer games where every time a car crashes the driver walks away unharmed, or mysteriously comes back to life again.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t have issues with any of these developments – they are all helpful. But when taken as a whole, are these developments stopping younger people from really understanding what hazards and risks are? Are we creating a society made up of a small number of safety specialists who put so many control measures in place we have effectively stopped thinking about risks and a majority who don’t think about potential hazards and risks because of the safety specialists?

One of the benefits of taking our children on holiday to Eastern European locations in the early part of this century was that the Eastern European safety culture was not as well developed as ours. I can remember several times seeing attractions or walks that didn’t look safe, so we discussed why they were potentially unsafe and whether it was a risk worth taking. At the extreme end, perhaps, my wife still talks about the national park we walked through where there were allegedly still landmines – but by sticking to the concrete paths there was no risk.  

Sadly, and all too often, there are now stories on news programmes within our locality of young people drowning in rivers – some after having intentionally jumped in, others who have probably fallen in after having had some drinks. Does it happen more often than it did 10 or 20 years ago? – anecdotally I suspect so, but I don’t know for sure.  And has this been, or will this be, a trend on our roads and in other environments? I hope not, but I suspect it may be.

I have walked the country lane I referred to many times in the past, and I would never walk the path chosen by the two people above. And if they had thought about it objectively, they wouldn’t have either.   

Is this the way society is heading, and will it be a problem? If so, what can we do to turn the tide?

Paul

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

Misleading Matters

Saturday, April 2nd, 2011

I was having a lovely email exchange with a person yesterday who has recently moved into learning and development management. She was explaining how she now needed to be more strategic, she has real plans for her company and she was so passionate about what she wanted to achieve. It was an inspiring exchange!

It started me thinking about if I was in such a position again. If I wanted to develop a culture that was as performance focused as possible and able to demonstrate how it added quantifiable value to the organisation, what are the words or phrases that would most hinder that culture shift, and what would I seek to replace them with? How could I demonstrate clarity of direction? Here are my top five:

Training Manager – that would be the first one to go. For me, the title signifies that the post-holder is purely focussed on what happens whilst a delegate is attending a course or undertaking an e-learning package. I’d want to be the Learning and Development Manager – or even the Performance Improvement Manager – thus signifying that I have a proactive interest in engaging with the managers and delegates pre and post event, and ascertaining the value of our contribution.

Abstraction – So often I used to be told at meetings that training was an abstraction, and the person making the judgment argued they couldn’t afford such an abstraction (in some companies the word ‘overhead’ is also used). I would immediately retort – sometimes interrupting the person, especially if they didn’t get the message the first time – that the learning and development that I managed and delivered was an investment (not an abstraction). If people get used to referring to your activities as an abstraction, the activities have the potential to become so. Take the opportunity to change the culture and make people think differently about what you are doing.  Eventually others will call it an investment, and then you know the culture can change and you will be viewed very differently.

Time Management Course – Why advertise that you are going to do something that is clearly impossible? Sailors don’t claim to manage the tides, and weather reporters don’t claim to manage the weather – we may wonder what planet they were coming from if they did. So what reasons do trainers and training managers have for claiming they can help people manage time?  We know what the tides will do, and can see and feel (and predict to some degree) the weather, so we manage ourselves accordingly. The same goes for time. Call such events Task Management or Task Prioritisation Courses – you will be surprised how differently people think about the event from the outset, because you are being clear about what will be achieved. Have a look at all your offerings – do they really do what they say on the tin?

Problem Person – I have often been faced with someone seeking assistance as they have a ‘Problem Person’ to deal with.  I bet Carl Rogers turns in his grave every time he hears this. If people are viewed in this way, they will potentially always be a problem. Such an individual is a person. A person who has a problem – a problem which you may well be able to assist them with. Where the manager thinks they have a ‘Problem Person’ they will more than likely become one.

Can you organise a (whatever) skills course, please? – The answer to this is ‘No’ – well not on this information, anyway. Operational managers are busy people and also may not be aware of all the ways that development needs can be met. You need to find out more – a lot more … how was the need identified, how many people does it apply to, how do we know it applies to all of them, why do all of them need it, what opportunities will there be for all these people to use the new skill, and so on. Get to the heart of the matter. You will receive so many ill-defined needs – and asking these questions (and others) will help generate a performance improvement partnership between your function and the rest of the organisation. And if you don’t ask the questions, and the learning and development intervention doesn’t work, the operational manager will make it public as to whose fault they think it is – and that will not do your culture shift (or reputation) much good!

So those are my top five – are there any that you would add?

Paul

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Resources – Managers, Resources – Trainers, Topic – Evaluation , Topic – Performance Improvement, Topic – Return on Investment (ROI) | No Comments »

Can training ever be exceptional?

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

I saw a question on a forum yesterday that got me thinking. The question was, “I’m interested to know how folk define ‘exceptional training’ – what makes training outstanding, and sets it apart from an everyday training course?”

As a trainer, what have I delivered that has been exceptional? I can think of many sessions that I have been pleased with, and that have gone better than others that I have delivered. I can also think of ones that I have thought have been very powerful in the learning that has been generated for the delegates. But I don’t think any of that necessarily makes them ‘exceptional’.

Then I considered what training I had attended that had been exceptional. What came to mind was not training that had been exceptional, but exceptional learning that I had taken from sessions or courses – and the two, I think, are completely different.

For training to be exceptional (if, in fact, it can be) it will depend upon how the delegates respond to it – and not necessarily whilst they are experiencing it, but how they respond back in their workplaces and lives in the weeks, months and years to come.

For example, I was fortunate to be able to attend the Work Foundation’s Runge Effective Leadership Programme about 10 years ago. There was a session on how to create a Vision for a Company or Department. I cannot remember the name or much about the man who delivered the session. It wasn’t a particularly innovative or interactive session, and at the end of the one-week Programme it wasn’t in my ‘top three’ of the sessions I had attended. When I look back on it, however, I realise how valuable it was to me and how much I have used it since. It has been a foundation, a starting point, for many of my successes since then. But I really couldn’t class it as exceptional training.

Which supports my view that only delegates can really say whether such experiences are exceptional, and they can only really do that further down the line. Perhaps there can be ‘exceptional learning’?

So as a starting point in trying to answer the original question how about this – exceptional learning occurs when 100% of the full cost of the learning event is recovered within 12 months of the event – in other words, the person or company acquires a full return on its investment (ROI) within that time frame. I think that could then be classed as ‘exceptional’.

The first step in seeking to achieve this is for trainers to stop thinking of themselves as trainers, but to think of themselves as Performance Improvers – who can play their part in achieving such improvements by effective training methodologies. By reframing their role, their thought processes are likely to have a greater focus on how they create exceptional performance improvements – which then brings the realisation that it is as much about the part the delegates play as the trainer.

It includes getting the right people on the right events in the first place, and motivating and developing them once they get back to the workplace.

The trainer – or Performance Improver – plays their important part in such achievements, but others also have very important parts. And all must play their parts well to achieve exceptional learning.

Unless, of course, you think differently?

Paul

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

Who’s giving training a bad name?

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

I sometimes wonder how people are appointed to positions as trainers. Do some organisations see it as a position that people are moved if they might be good at it, and are then left to get on with it – without any training or support? Do businesses think training is such a waste of time that they just employ anyone in the position? Whatever the reason, there appear to be too many companies or trainers giving training a bad name.

I see requests for assistance from trainers on various forums, but I’m not sure how they expect people to be able to respond with targeted and focussed suggestions. I’m meaning where people are asking others to suggest methodologies. Here are a couple I have recently seen:

“I have a four-hour workshop to give on presentations skills. I see the same participants the following week and they have to give a five-minute using the information they’ve learned in just four hours. Any recommendations? No technology available for them except for one laptop. They do not have laptops themselves.”

“I work in a manufacturing facility and I am about to conduct management development training for supervisors/managers to teach them more about ‘HR in their jobs’.   Does anyone have any good icebreakers that will compliment this training?”

Do these same people (or organisations) say, “I’m going to buy a car, which one would you recommend?”, or “I’m going on holiday and need a coat – which do you think I should buy?” I think not. So why do it for training?

Trainers asking such questions cannot expect to receive any sort of meaningful advice or assistance. And if they do use what is offered, does the organisation realise how much money it is potentially wasting?  

Let’s say we have 12 people in our group, and each receives a salary of £100 per day. That means with salary on-costs they probably cost their organisation £120 per day. That’s £1,440 in wages for attending a day’s training. Add another £200 for the trainer’s delivery and preparation time, £100 for the administration of getting the people on to the course, £50 for room hire and £10 for photocopying costs – that gives us a total cost of £1,800 for the day. There may also be travel and meal costs, but we’ll leave it at this for the purpose of the exercise.

If we have 6.5 hours contact time, it means that each hour of delivery is costing our organisation approximately £277.00. Or £4.62 per minute.  So a half hour opening exercise comes in at £138.

And if it costs £138 it needs to be focussed – not focussed on the ideas of others who have no knowledge of the organisation, but focussed on operational effectiveness, focussed or organisational goals, focussed on delegate needs and focussed on extracting a return on the investment. Effective evaluation.

As effective trainers know, evaluation starts at the planning stage. An evaluation of the needs of the attendees and the organisation. Once a Training Needs Analysis of some sort has been undertaken, planning, validation, delivery and further evaluation follow. This evaluation can show the organisational and operational improvements that have been achieved as a result of the training. Very satisfying, and likely to lead to the increased credibility of the trainers and L&D function.

Training people effectively is costly. Training people ineffectively is even more costly as we reduce (or fail to get any) the return on the investment.

Or have I got it all wrong?

Paul

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

Sell your crunch, not your apples

Saturday, December 4th, 2010

Where does the L & D function fit within your organisation? The importance of this cultural fit cannot be underestimated when leading a L & D function. In my experience, too many L & D functions have existed to deliver training – that is what they have been seen to do, and that is what they have done – and this approach gives them little credence with operational managers.

I once had concerns about the impressions that my unit was giving to the remainder of the business. At a managers’ meeting I took the opportunity to ask a few (what I thought to be) fundamental questions to see whether they were espousing my stated aims for the unit. They all managed trainers, so firstly I asked what they saw to be the overall role of the trainer. The first answer was, “To deliver training”. This was closely followed by answers indicating that they needed to be able to write lesson plans and that they should be able to explain points clearly to delegates. Two more responses followed in a similar vein. The sixth response was, “They need to get the delegates to be more effective”. That’s what I was looking for – a link to improving performance.

After a few other responses, I then asked, “What are trainer shoes for?” The first response was, “to help people run faster”. Other verbal offerings built on this performance related theme.

I then asked what they thought was the overall role of a horse trainer. The first respondent indicated that her view was that they were there to enable horses to win races. A second added that perhaps it was to enable both horse and rider to win races.

“So”, I asked, in a John Humphreys sort of way, “Why is it that you view trainer shoes and horse trainers as being there to improve performance, yet you see that the primary purpose of our trainers is to deliver training?”. This was followed by a silence.

This short exchange had confirmed my concerns and highlighted a fundamental issue in leading a successful Learning and Development Unit. If its own staff see the focus as being delivering training, this will be apparent to others in everything they do – most of all to the already potentially sceptical operational managers.

I personally would consider changing the job title of “Trainer” to “Performance Improver”, however, – at least initially – I think this would cause problems for others to understand what the role is about. It is fundamental, however, that the trainer views their role in this way. They should not see themselves as people with training skills who use these skills to improve performance; they need to see themselves as performance improvers who achieve this by using sound training skills. This may appear to be a play on words, but I don’t believe this to be the case – it is a way of the person constantly being reminded of the primary purpose of their role.

When I used to train trainers, we engaged in some lengthy discussions which felt very important and fundamental to the role – in retrospect, I am now disappointed to admit that they were akin to navel gazing – they were all about the minutiae of training delivery which, on reflection, had little impact on delivering greater operational performance.

It is only be demonstrating this focus on improving performance that you will earn a credible and respect place around the table when the all important annual budget is being allocated – and then the more improvements you can show to have been involved in, the better your chance will be of improving your share of the budget.

All this can be achieved by a number of key activities. These include:

  • Engaging your internal customers in deciding learning priorities
  • Explicitly linking all learning to business objectives
  • Explicitly linking all learning to improving performance
  • Measuring your team’s performance in terms of operational performance improvements rather than / in addition to the quality of the training delivered
  • Clearly communicating your successes to the business
  • Where appropriate, measuring your impact by undertaking Return on Investment (ROI) evaluation activity to demonstrate the financial return for the business’s investment.

The overall culture of a unit is probably the most difficult aspect to change – but ultimately the most fundamental and rewarding. By implementing these processes, we can start to change the mindset of our team. We find out who wants to make the journey with us, and who perhaps does not.

Paul

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

Deliver Outcomes, not Outputs

Friday, November 12th, 2010

Where at all possible, I try and steer clear of discussing governmental politics. This is because I don’t really want to be perceived to have particular party allegiances. But rules, as with policies and directions from Sat-navs, are there to be broken where there is good reason – they exist to provide effective guidance for the majority of situations as opposed to the answer for all situations.

I am very interested by the Business Plans that the ruling coalition has published this week (I feel like a very sad person as I write that, but please bear with me …).  It’s the approach behind some of the Plans that I find particularly interesting.

When the coalition first came to power, they talked about financially rewarding private contractors for ‘housing’ prisoners and stopping them reoffending – whereas currently they are paid for merely ‘housing’ them for the duration of their sentences.  As someone who is very keen on the use of outcomes rather than outputs, I found this very refreshing.

More detail on this approach has now been published – it is within the Ministry of Justice Business Plan which was published last Monday. The first two objectives within that particular Business Plan are:

1.1 Develop an overall strategy for the ‘rehabilitation revolution’ for adults and youths, including paying local private and voluntary organisations by results.

1.2 Introduce payment by results schemes, working with local, voluntary and private sector organisations that specialise in the rehabilitation of offenders.

I am interested in this approach as I believe that society as a whole should move more towards an outcome focussed approach to business. This is particularly true of learning and development providers – and clients.

If a client seeks and purchases a course, event or programme to address a particular area or aspect of business, it is likely that it will be delivered and there may well be a short end of event questionnaire. It is rare, in my experience, that there is much further evaluation of the benefits of the event.

So, how about the client publicises the issues or skills they require addressing on the event and these are then quantified into measurable outcomes (not outputs).  The provider who then gains the contract only gets paid once these targets have been achieved – perhaps 6 months after the event. The probable consequences would include:

  • A greater focus on outcomes as opposed to outputs.
  • Only providers who have confidence in their abilities bidding for the contract.
  • Clients ensuring and demonstrating value for their money.
  • Far greater interest by clients, providers and delegates’ line managers as to how the learning is put into practice in the workplace.

Who wouldn’t want these consequences?

So why does this approach generally not happen at the moment?

Paul

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Resources – L&D Management, Topic – Current Affairs | No Comments »

Avoiding evaluation pitfalls

Sunday, October 24th, 2010

In my last post I said that I would use this one to explain how to avoid common pitfalls when undertaking evaluations. So here goes …

  1. Identify your sponsor. This is the person asking for the evaluation and has the authority to implement any recommendations. If the person you are working to is not the person who can implement your findings, you haven’t found your sponsor. What’s the point in carrying out work specified by a person who cannot do anything with it?
  2. The list of ‘10 key questions to ask’ that I published in my last post have to be discussed and agreed with your sponsor. Without clarity on these answers you will not be able to create an appropriate methodology. You may want to produce lots of statistical data, but if that’s not what he or she requires, it’s pointless creating it.  This helps you get your methodology spot on.
  3. When you are asked to evaluate something, remember that there will be a reason for it – and sometimes that reason will not be shared with you. Your sponsor may want the evaluation to prove something, they might want to use it to justify something or they may have already decided what your findings should be. So, what happens when your findings are different or you come up with the ‘wrong’ answers? What can happen is that the evaluator gets blamed for problem. You have used an inappropriate methodology or interpreted the data incorrectly or just not done what the sponsor asked. The focus is turned on the evaluator. So whenever you agree something with your sponsor get it signed – it is one of the many strands of life where having an insurance policy can be useful even though you don’t expect to need one. And this one costs nothing. And if the sponsor is reluctant to acknowledge his or her agreement to it, you perhaps need to be concerned at that early stage. Why are they reluctant? Do they actually know what they want?
  4. Once the evaluator has chosen an appropriate methodology, it can be very easy to stray off the planned route. At regular intervals check the methodology still fits with the agreement you have with the sponsor. This will help you stay on track, and to appropriately amend the methodology should it be warranted.
  5. Triangulation. Often you will find what appears to be a meaningful or important piece of data. If you are to publish it, I suggest that you triangulate it. That means you corroborate it from a different source. Using non-triangulated data can be problematic and may make your findings easier to challenge.
  6. Consider letting the sponsor and key stakeholders see copies of your report prior to publication – assuming your agreement with your sponsor allows this. This is particularly useful if you have some controversial data. You may get asked to remove it – which you can then do if you think it appropriate – however, you will already have made your point to those people who matter.

By following this guidance you should avoid the common pitfalls, keep on track, protect yourself and be able to produce a very effective evaluation report.

Good luck!

Paul

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

The key to productive evaluation

Monday, October 18th, 2010

When managing a project or delivering training it is important that we know what our manager, sponsor or client needs from us. Clarity is required. Without it we are unlikely to deliver a good quality product.

There is exactly the same requirement when undertaking an evaluation of a training or learning event. But for some reason evaluators often obtain the information they think is appropriate rather than what the sponsor requires.

Here are the 10 key questions to ask your sponsor in order to unlock their exact requirements and ensure you deliver what is required:

1. Do you require statistical or anecdotal data? A person requiring statistical information probably wants to be able to scientifically back up the findings ensuring it is provable and measurable. If the sponsor prefers anecdotal information they may well be looking for thoughts and impressions as to how it appears to others.

2. Do you want simple answers to simple questions or complex process issues to be addressed?

3. When obtaining data, do you want a large sample size of respondents to be used or a case study approach? With the former we would interview or question lots of people, with the latter we would follow individuals or ideas from start to finish, like a thread.

4. Is the report intended as a management tool or a practitioner’s tool? In other words, is it for the sponsor or another manager to use to improve a situation or is it for the providers to help them?

5. Am I, as the evaluator, required to make a judgement with sanctions, or am I non-judgemental in my approach?  With the former, I may be required to report on whether people are following a specific policy and name those who were not. With the latter, the sponsor does not want people to feel threatened and wants them to develop issues.

6. Are my findings to be specific or anonymous? This indicates whether the sponsor is more interested in who is doing (or not doing) what or more interested in what staff really think about the issues.

7. Is it a set agenda or a progressive agenda?  The former means the evaluator sticks to the initial remit, the latter gives permission to go with new or unexpected issues that arise.

8. Is the final report (assuming there will be one) to make recommendations or pose questions? The former gives the readers a clear idea of what is required whilst the latter involves everyone in how the goal or noteworthy practice can be achieved.

9. Is the information gathered to be closed or open? With the former, only the sponsor gets to know about the findings, whereas with the latter everyone knows tham as they become apparent

10. Is the feedback to be ‘official’ (summative) or ‘formative’? The former would usually be a full report with recommendations to act on whilst the latter would be a product enabling everyone to understand what is happening so that those involved are in the best position to decide where to go to next.

As you will have seen, all the questions contain alternatives. If your responses are all towards the first alternative within each question, you will be undertaking what can be called a ‘Bureacratic’ evaluation. If your sponsor’s preferences are more towards each of the second alternatives, your evaluation methodology will be more ‘Democratic’.

Get this right and you have sound foundations for your work. Get this wrong or omit to do it, you are almost guaranteed problems. In my next post I’ll explain why, and how, to avoid the potential pitfalls.

Paul

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

How do I ask that?

Wednesday, October 13th, 2010

On the community forums where I often post comments I spend a significant proportion of the time answering or offering thoughts on learning and development evaluation. This then leads to me receiving other personal emails regarding the subject. One of the key areas that appears to be problematic for a number of people relates to questionnaire writing.

I have formed this opinion both from the questions I have been asked and from seeing some of the questionnaires that people have asked me to complete or critique. I think this is because people often think (something like) “They are only questions – I ask questions all the time”. They can therefore assume it is straightforward and so don’t put sufficient thought and time into the process. Exactly what information are you looking for? What type or style of questions are most likely to elicit the information. How should they be worded?

It is a critical area. It can have a huge impact on the quality and quantity of the primary data you generate. Many years ago I was lucky to have had the opportunity to write and deliver an 11-week course on Training Evaluation. As you might gather from the duration of the course, it was very detailed! We spent a day of the Programme looking at how to write a covering letter to a questionnaire, and another 3 days on the actual formulation and writing of the questionnaire itself.

Are you thinking of writing a questionnaire? If so, the following 10 principles will assist you to maximise the quality of data and quantity of questionnaires returned to you.

1                     Avoid general or vague questions

2                     Avoid hypothetical questions

3                     Avoid leading questions

4                     Avoid double-barrelled questions

5                     Avoid jargon

6                     Avoid potentially embarrassing questions

7                     Keep your questions short

8                     Consider your terminology

9                     Open ended or prompted questions?

10                 Apply all the principles appropriately

If you go to the Discussions area of my Company Facebook Page you will find a document with more detail on each of these principles, together with examples of each. Or you can email me if you would like a version in MS Word.

On my next post I will look at two different models of evaluation.

Paul

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

Organisational maturity

Sunday, October 3rd, 2010

As we leave September and the nights grow longer here in the UK, many organisations are awaiting the Spending Review due to be published on 20 October. I was at a Business Link event last week and this was one of the main topics of conversations. There is understandably much concern and trepidation around due to the potential impact of the spending cuts.

As you will have seen from the news, many public sector organisations are already starting to make cuts in spending and people resources due to their reduction in finances. Many private sector organisations have been undertaking this for some months already.

So what are you doing to start working more efficiently and effectively? We will need to do this in order to soften the blow of any cuts. I also believe that we all have a responsibility to do this. And don’t underestimate how much you can save. A 2007 survey by the Proudfoot Consulting (Guardian 22 October 2007) covering 2,500 businesses over four years and across 38 countries, demonstrated that the cost of wasted time to UK businesses is £80bn per year, equivalent to 7% of its Gross Domestic Product. The ‘worst offender’ causes of inefficiency were found to be:

  • Inadequate workforce supervision (31%)
  • Poor management planning (30%)
  • Poor communication (18%)
  • IT problems, low morale, and lack or mismatch of skills (21%)

Recently I delivered a Leadership and Management Programme within an organisation. It took place on a number of days over a period of 4 months. It was great fun and I was a little sad when it ended as I had developed some lovely relationships with many of the very keen and talented delegates.

At the end of the Programme, the delegates delivered presentations as to what they had learning and, most importantly, how it was making a difference in their workplaces. Where possible, I assisted them to convert their achievements into cash or efficiency savings.  

One person explained how they had stopped staff from coming to the line managers and asking questions (unless business critical) and as an alternative the managers held ‘surgeries’ for such questions three times a day. This saved on the time of all concerned and allowed for more uninterrupted work. A by-product of this was that staff then started to sort out their own minor problems, thus saving even more time. Over the period of a year, based on the finding of the first month, they were due to make over £15,000 of efficiency savings due to the time they were saving.

One saving I have always been keen to make is through not having ‘Any Other Business’ on meeting agendas. If you have 10 people attending a meeting, and all work for £16 per hour (including on-costs), every 15 minutes of the meeting costs the organisation 2.5 hours staff time or £40. By cutting the AOB section, it means that people have to plan more effectively for what they want in the meeting, other delegates can plan for the item and the Chair can make the meeting more focussed.

And all these activities have knock-on effects that can help to develop a more mature organisational culture. The surgeries example has led to staff sorting out their own issues and therefore thinking for themselves more effectively, which will create a more Adult and self-sufficient environment. Losing the AOB means that staff start to plan more effectively, and this skill will then be transferred elsewhere. So, the increased efficiency leads to increased effectiveness.

So, as I said earlier, what are you doing to work more efficiently and effectively? Or, more pointedly, what changes will you introduce this week?

Please let me know – I’d be really interested to hear other ideas.

Paul

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

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »