Linking In with Matt
Matthew Richter posts daily comments in LinkedIn—well, almost daily. You can follow him and join the conversation by going to http://linkedin.com/in/matthew-richter-0738b84.
For the benefit of our readers, we decide to compile and reprint some of his provocative pieces from the past. Let us know what you think.
Six Tips for Managing Change
When managing change, don’t call it a change. The word itself has baggage and unless the change originates from the person, most find it an imposition. Call it a new project. A new initiative. Call it a new opportunity. But never call it a change. It’ll take several “initiatives” for people to catch on that the new word is as bad as the former. Then shift to another new word. Many changes contain personnel reallocations or job shifts, or even people joining or leaving a team. These normal occurrences too often are absent adherence to any rational strategy. So, when inflicting them on others, have the respect to not sugar coat with the word change. Sugar coat with other words
As long as your context is work, stop trying to make more out of change than it is. Change is ever constant, and work is always in flux. Especially today. So, stop trying to overlay grieving processes, emotion consultants, and team meetings to process how we all feel. Develop a solid project plan, get everyone on board with the project—their roles and responsibilities-- and implement. Nothing more, nothing less.
If a change is significantly bad for a person or bad for a group (for example, layoffor restructurings), don’t expect them to take one for the team. I hate it when I see people about to be laid off forced to train replacements or other co-workers to do their functions. Not fair. Not kind. Not empathic. Don’t mask the impact to humans as simple change for the better. For the negatively affected, it just isn’t. If you need them to do something extra for the transition, pay them more.
Don’t lie. Don’t imply the change is no big deal. For some, it will be tragic to their well-being (in the case of layoffs). Be upfront. Tell them everything you are allowed to tell them legally. Full disclosure and transparency go a long way. Share the rationale. Share the big picture. Share the direction. Empathize. And manage the change like you would a project. With goals, clear expectations, and dialogue.
Managing change is about managing paradoxes. On one hand, it is simply about execution and implementation. On the other hand, it is about recognizing the human impact corporate decisions have. Empathy must go hand and hand with decisions that move the business along. Compassion must tagalong with achieving bottom-line results. Changes are made because they theoretically improve some folks' positions and opportunities. But invariably, those same changes make life worse for others.
Everyone experiences change differently. Some people will love the change. Some people will hate it. And some people won't even notice it is happening. It is essential to remember everyone experiences change-- they just perceive differently based on how it benefits or hurts them. No one prescription will work for everyone.
Why Evaluate Learning?
More importantly, why evaluate learning beyond user experience of the learning itself?
Well... let's use a metaphor to explore this question.
You order a shirt from your favorite online retailer. Let's think of you as the stakeholder in a learning engagement and the retailer as the learning provider.
The shirt arrives at your home. It is the wrong shirt. Wrong color or size. Or not even a shirt. Maybe a pair of pants showed up instead.
If the shirt is wrong, the retailer made a mistake or you made a mistake when ordering. You return the shirt, likely annoyed. You can think of this stage in the metaphor as the instructional design process. We absolutely need to evaluate whether the design of learning was done effectively.
But perhaps the shirt doesn't even arrive. Or it's very late or delayed. Or it does arrive, and the mail service mishandled it. The package and the shirt is damaged. Again, you likely cancel the order or return the shirt. Consider this part of the metaphor the delivery of learning. Quite essential to the overall process, and of course, an important piece to measure.
Now, let's assume the shirt does arrive perfectly safe and sound, and on time.
Why did you order the shirt in the first place?
Well, likely to wear it. Likely you had a purpose for the shirt. To wear at an event, to wear daily and keep you warm, to wear when exercising. Whatever. You had a purpose-a goal.
In the metaphor, this is synonymous with your program objectives
If the shirt sits in a closet, unworn, unused, was there a value in buying it in the first place?
In other words, if you do not wear the shirt, this is like attending a training workshop, returning to your job, and not applying what you learned.
Or you do wear the shirt, and you find it doesn't fit or look as expected. You just aren't happy with it in application. Nothing wrong with it, it is just meh. It fails to deliver what was promised.
In other words, this is like attending a program, trying to apply what you learned on the job, and there is no improvement or positive outcome.
So I am glad the right shirt arrived. I am glad the shirt arrived on time and in one piece, I also care if the shirt, once worn, provides the benefit I had hoped. If not, most of us would assume a waste of money.
When it comes to learning, we too often stop evaluating at product delivery (or user experience): smiley sheets. We are happy to invest thousands and thousands of dollars (much more than a shirt-I hope) into programs with no intent to determine whether there was true impact on the job or transfer of learning.
Our metaphor could be any kind of retail ordering experience. Books, restaurants, ordering medicine online, etc.
We need to hold our learning programs to the same standards we hold ourselves and merchants to when buying other products. Or we do our learners, our companies, and ourselves a major disservice.
Irreconcilable Thoughts About Modeling Competencies
Too many companies are buying competency models. It's a cottage industry. But it is also too often done in a vacuum, absent context. And the competencies defined are often too general to be effective predictors of performance. These models are also often implied as the only way to complete a set of tasks. They are prescriptions.
I don't like training competencies. I believe that when we train in business settings, we train with a purpose to develop people to solve problems within that business.
Focusing on competencies removes employees one step further away from directly targeting the issue. For example, if the problem is poor customer service and we identify one of the competencies as listening and then teach that, we are separating one ingredient from the total formula. In fact, the formula for good service will probably change context to context. A better approach is to encapsulate all the tools for good service into one toolbox and teach participants how to use said toolbox holistically. In other words, how to identify the specific situation and apply the right tools for the right problem in the right setting.
Sure, skill development is required but it needs to be flexible and contextual.
So teach people to solve problems. Use skill development as a part of the package without prescribing generally a set of behaviors that won't work in every situation. Also, by focusing on problems, it is much easier to use real life scenarios as the foundation for good simulations and scenarios.
On the flip side, I want to advocate for breaking a problem down and teaching people how to do each component of the solution.
In other words, teach competencies.
A competency, or a skill, is the building block of a behavioral tool. Without ensuring that participants have the individual skills that when combined, solve problems, they will be unable to apply these solutions on the job. For example, there are specific steps to listening well. Active listening techniques are skills that require both practice and feedback to get better. To learn active listening, one must first focus on those specific steps and then, after enough practice, apply to the larger situation.
Here's the reconciliation. The key is to not forget that training competencies without a bigger picture or a problem makes it difficult for participants to transfer back to the job. Relevance and contextual learning are essential.
Further, without an understanding of that context, it is impossible to know for sure if one is applying the skill properly or in the right way later on back on the job.
So... reconcile the paradox, focus on the problem and solution, and teach competencies as a way of doing so.