Archive Archives - Page 353 of 591

August 28, 2002July 10, 2018

How to Capitalize on Competencies

Imagine: a Camelot-type place to work, where the strength and strategy of theorganization is the sum total of the individual talents of the employees. Theorganization far surpasses any other in its class in terms of performance andcustomer satisfaction.

Is this a fantasy? No, says William J. Rothwell, an author, consultant,professor of human resources development at Penn State University, and formertraining director in both the private and public sectors. He says that if youtake the best employee performance you’ve got, capture it, and replicate it,you’ll get high performance company-wide and better results for the business.

Competencies are individual
For years, Rothwell says, theorists have talked about “core competencies”of organizations. Core competencies have been thought of as characteristics thatset an organization apart from its competitors and that the organizationtherefore dare not outsource.

What a competency really is, he says, is an inherent characteristic thatpredisposes an individual (not a company) toward certain skills and behaviorsthat achieve exemplary performance. “It is anything that leads to results,”notes Rothwell.

This isn’t to say that organizations don’t matter. What makes anindividual better than his or her peers is partially determined by the corporateculture. According to Rothwell, what is exemplary for one organization may notnecessarily be exemplary for another organization. The key is to develop andimplement models of ideal performance based on the specific organization.

Competency modeling enables organizations to shift from job-based topeople-based structures in which exemplary employees are identified andinterviewed to discover their secrets to success. Rothwell recommends that theorganization’s decision-makers begin the process by stating exactly what theywant from the effort—such as a corporate culture that values customer service.This data is then compiled, compared, analyzed, and synthesized into pictures ofcompetency for the organization. Competency models spotlight stellar individualperformance and use it as the yardstick against which all performance isevaluated.

In the early 1990s, Jaguar North America had to change the way it didbusiness—and change it fast. As competition heated up in the luxury carbusiness, Jaguar was burdened with a culture that did not value customerservice.

For the company to remain competitive, it was essential to make fundamentalchanges. Employees were organized into new work teams that could respond todealer questions and problems quickly. When work teams had a “victory,” thebehaviors that most affected those successes quickly became evident. And whenthe behaviors became evident, so did the individuals who demonstrated them.These outstanding performers were queried about how they did their work, and theresulting information was compiled into descriptions of the characteristics andbehaviors most likely to lead to success.

Interview stars to capture their successes
To create your own competency models, Rothwell recommends using “behavorialevent interviewing” (BEI), a technique developed in 1978 by Harvard researcherDavid McClelland, who founded McBer and Company, now part of Hay.

An organization selects its superstars and interviews them with a moderatelystructured session of open-ended and probing questions. The goal is to spotlighttwo career turning points and capture the unique behaviors, feelings, andthoughts underlying each of the incidents for the individuals. Following areeight sample interview questions:

1. Think of two events that had the most influence on your career developmentand describe them.

2. Why did these events have such a significant impact on your development?

3. When did they take place?

4. How did the events come about?

5. Describe the events in sequence.

6. Describe, specifically, how you developed or changed as a leader as aresult of these events.

7. Is there any other information that is important relative to the contextof this event?

8. How would you frame a work situation to provide someone else with asimilar outcome and/or experience?

The results of the interview are recorded, transcribed, and analyzed, andfrom this emerge competency models that align with the organization’sstrategic objectives. In the Jaguar case, providing outstanding customer servicewas identified as a corporate strategy; those individual behaviors that achievedcustomer-service results were then quantified and described.

Here’s how: Jaguar identified “customer-service orientation” as a keyindividual competency; after interviewing its star performers, the companydivided the competency into six levels of behavior.

Level 1 reads: “Follows through on customer inquiries, requests,complaints. Keeps customer up-to-date about progress of projects (but does notprobe customer’s underlying issue or problems).” In contrast, Level 6 reads:“Works with a long-term perspective in addressing customer’s problems. Maytrade off immediate costs for the sake of long-term relationship. Looks forlong-term benefits to the customer. Acts as a trusted advisor, becomes involvedin customer’s decision-making process.” (from Compensation & BenefitsReview, 1996).

We posed some questions to Dr. Rothwell about how to move forward with acompetency-based structure in your organization:

Q. How can HR practitioners justify the costs involved with identifyingcompetency, establishing competency models, and implementing these models?

Rothwell: Competency identification is based on the view that exemplaryperformers who exist in each job category can be as much as 20 times moreproductive than the average performer in the same category. If it were possibleto get all the employees up to the level of the exemplars (the so-calledbest-in-class workers), then an organization might be able to get the same workout with a factor of 20 fewer people. Or it might be able to realize an increasein productivity of perhaps as much as 20 times what the organization iscurrently realizing. (The latter would make the organization an industry leader,no matter what the industry!)

Of course, the reality is that some competencies must be hired or selectedfor. Only some can be developed.

Q. How is the notion of competency modeling different from jobs and jobdescriptions?

Rothwell: The notion of jobs is becoming outdated. While jobs are going away,though, work never does. Competencies are more enduring than “jobs,” thoughit is important to remember that a competency is inherent to a person and notresident in the work that they do. In other words, you—as a person—havecompetencies. It is up to the company/employer to figure out how best to harnessthose talents within the context of the corporate culture.

Additionally, job descriptions speak only to the activities or duties thatpeople carry out—not to the results they are intended to get. Researchcontinually shows that bosses and subordinates differ on what results should beobtained by the worker. But competency models do speak to results, workingbackward to the qualities that people need to obtain them. Moreover, in an agewhen people have grown to appreciate the value of emotional intelligence,competency models do a better job than job descriptions at helping to describeimportant yet intangible elements that are essential to job success.

For instance, would you like a doctor who is technically proficient but whotreats you like a piece of meat? Well, the intangible part of a doctor’s jobis to treat you like a human being, and that’s exactly the sort of thing I’mtalking about. As work involves more relationships—that is, with customers andcoworkers or teammates—the intangible emotional-intelligence issue only growsmore important.

Q. What methodologies should practitioners use to link competency models tothe organization’s core competencies and strategic strengths?

Rothwell: The big challenge in this line of work is that everyone wants quickfixes. But there is a trade-off between rigor and speed. There are thousands ofcompetency models that you can get for free on the Web. And some organizationssell published competency models. But their value is suspect because (1) to bemost useful, a competency model must be based on the corporate culture in whichthe performer carries out his or her work; and (2) competencies are based on theperson, not the work. Perhaps the best approach is something calledbehavioral-events interviewing (as discussed earlier).

Q. What does a competency-based organization look like?

Rothwell: All aspects of the traditional HR function are based on workanalysis, which has “job descriptions” as its chief output. But acompetency-based organization substitutes competency models for jobdescriptions. All aspects of HR—from recruitment through selection throughtraining through performance appraisal through reward systems—are based oncompetencies. That is what my new book (Competency-Based Human ResourcesManagement, Davies-Black Publishing) will examine: reinventing HR to usecompetencies, not job descriptions, as the foundation for the whole HR functionand for all those activities such as HR planning, recruitment, selection,training, reward systems/compensation, performance management, and all others bywhich HR practitioners help their organizations employ people to best effect.

Q. Do you have any other advice for practitioners about identifyingcompetency, establishing competency models, and implementing these models?

Rothwell: That was the point of The CompetencyToolkit. It is competencyidentification, modeling, and assessment for those who have no clue where tostart and limited resources for doing it.

Workforce Online, September 2002 — Register Now!

August 26, 2002July 10, 2018

Best Practices of Mergers and Acquisitions

This checklist of best-practices solutions provides a sampling of proven and practical approaches used by leading companies to address critical issues and challenges in the area of mergers & acquisitions. As you read the list, you may want to place a checkmark next to the best-practice solutions that you could adopt or modify to add value to your company’s unique situation.

1. Over communicate all aspects of the merger or acquisition with employees. This is a stressful time and people often need to receive information several times and by several different means before they truly “hear” it. Be creative with your communications: hold group meetings, utilize the corporate intranet, write submissions to company newsletters, and send information home.

2. Establish integration task groups made up of key individuals from each of the combining organizations. Not only are these your best and brightest choices for those actually working within the process and helping make decisions, but they will play a pivotal role in gaining buy-in from the rest of the ranks when they take informed, positive information back to their workgroups.

3. When restaffing, evaluate and then select the best candidates for new positions. It is a mistake to assume that the best candidate will necessarily be from the acquiring firm or even the larger firm. Take time to determine who has the best fit with the new organization’s culture and goals.

4. Begin planning integration immediately, even before due diligence has begun. Waiting to act until the close of the deal will undoubtedly be too late. When you identify a target company to acquire, develop a vision of how much integration is desired.

5. Remember that no merger or acquisition is perfect and obstacles are inevitable. Stay focused on the outcome and if mistakes happen (and they will!), own them, be honest with employees, and move on.

6. Make it a family affair. Do not ignore the influence family members can have on employee attitudes and readiness for a merger. Make certain to include spouses and significant others among those receiving information about the deal.

7. Pick up the pace. Moving through the deal quickly will mitigate instances where too much time allows uncertainties to brew. Don’t be afraid to sacrifice some precision in the process in order to achieve critical speed of decision making.

8. Involve HR in the entire process. If HR gets involved too late, it will be playing catch up and correcting problems rather than participating in the development of a strategy that will avoid problems from the start. HR’s participation is essential at all stages of the merger or acquisition process.

9. Retain the services of a consulting firm with a well-established background in mergers and acquisitions. Consultants provide valuable help, as well as an objective viewpoint, at all of the various stages of the process.

10. Heavily emphasize due diligence and do not hesitate to “Just say no!” Don’t forget cultural due diligence. Sometimes even the greatest integration efforts will not be able to meld two disparate organizations. Not all potential mergers are meant to be. Increase the odds for success by knowing just what you are getting into.

11. Answer “Me” questions immediately. Once employees know how their jobs, pay, benefits, and work environment are likely to be effected, they will be able to focus on their work and on their activities that will further integration.

12. Do not sacrifice core business or customer service during transition. Merger and acquisition processes are time and energy consuming.

13. Design the features of the merger or acquisition process with the cultures of the participating organizations in mind. Consider culture in all communication efforts, especially. Culture dictates how people process information and how well they adapt to changes, both sudden and planned.

14. Identify each organization’s best practices. Then, determine what from each organization should be carried forward. Do not automatically continue only the practices of the acquiring company, larger company, older company, or even the most profitable company.

15. Accept the fact that sometimes neither organization’s process, system, manager, etc., is right for the new, combined organization. Be open to developing something new to service needs strategically, since all parameters have likely changed with the merger.

16. Be certain to conduct “external” benchmarking of competitors and non-competitors, alike, to enhance your own best practices. “Raising the bar” can increase the success of transition processes and the newly combined organization.

17. Ensure that communication efforts support unification and alignment of the two cultures. The wrong messages, or even the right messages by the wrong messenger, can sabotage the best-intentioned program.

18. Include training in the list of post-merger activities. This will serve to facilitate integration and cultural alignment on top of the other, more traditional benefits of training. Training topics should include: benefits and retirement, administrative procedures and information technology, career development, corporate vision, product and services, customer make-up, and communication skills.

19. Remember that change is the only constant. Employees need help understanding the changes taking place. They also need assistance anticipating changes yet to come. Educate your workforce in the change-management process.

20. Focus attention on career opportunities. Many times concerns about the negative career impacts of a merger overshadow the many great opportunities it presents. Get information out there about career growth, training, and advancement opportunities.

21. Be willing to listen to employees. It is normal, and even productive, for a certain amount of anxiety and uncertainty to surface for employees during the process. Face it, discuss it, and be honest with your advice. Keep business as usual as much as possible for the sake of reassurance and be sure to offer praise and positive feedback wherever warranted.

22. Present clear opportunities for employees to participate in the process and be rewarded for the success of the new business. This will serve a dual purpose: to motivate employees and to encourage their “ownership” of corporate growth.

23. Keep managers and HR representatives abreast of all information. These are the people to whom employees, in general, will turn when they have questions. If buy-in is secured from these individuals, they will be able to positively represent issues when asked.

SOURCE: Reprinted with permission from “Best Practices in Mergers and Acquisitions,” Watson Wyatt Data Services. For more information, visit www.wwdssurveys.com or call 201/843-1177.

Workforce Online, August 2002 — Register Now!

August 13, 2002June 29, 2023

Mine Company Data with Decision-Support Tools

How much do you know — really know — about your workforce? Sure, you probably can generate a report or create a spreadsheet indicating job titles, salaries, and the like. But do you know where the skills gaps are? How does your company’s turnover compare to industry benchmarks? How can you boost productivity in R & D?

If your company had implemented a decision-support/workforce-analytic system — that is, software that gathers, analyzes, and manipulates data to assist in planning and decision-making — you could answer all of those questions (and many more) in seconds.

For example: You could create what-if scenarios to test plans before implementing them and set goals and determine how well you reached them. You could measure productivity in a particular department or throughout the company and model various approaches for improving it. You could forecast staffing requirements for a future project. You could compare your company’s compensation plans with others in your industry; analyze your workforce by skills, demographics, or performance; and establish the cost and effectiveness of your training or recruiting methods. You could examine your workforce today, see how it has changed over time, analyze trends, and make long-range predictions.

“One of the largest voids in corporate America is lack of information about a company’s workforce,” says Larry Hutchison, president of DoubleStar, a consulting firm headquartered in West Chester, Pennsylvania, that specializes in HR technology. “If you go to Ford and walk onto the factory floor, the supervisor can tell you everything about the robots that build the cars — their downtime, their productivity, their error rates. Decision-support tools can provide the same kind of information on employees.”

Better information, faster
SunTrust, a regional bank in the southeast and mid-Atlantic regions of the United States, is now implementing PeopleSoft’s Workforce Rewards application to improve compensation planning and job pricing. According to Richard Cherry, human resources systems manager, the tool will help the bank become more competitive in recruiting and retaining talent.

“For example, if we experience high turnover in a certain area, we can analyze why that is the case by assessing factors like training, location, and compensation,” he says.

Fixing salaries to jobs had been a tedious, slow, manual process at SunTrust, Cherry says. “We had to gather job-market survey data from various vendors, price the job in each geographic area, and dump the information on a bunch of spreadsheets. This tool will automate the process, make the analyses accessible to managers, and provide better and more accurate information. It will also let managers look deep into issues such as salary actions and turnover head counts.

Integrating HR with the enterprise
That kind of ongoing planning, forecasting, and evaluating provides valuable insight into business performance and practices. “Companies that are best positioned to avoid being battered by sudden reverses or external factors are those that treat planning as a continuous exercise in operational decision-making, resource allocation, and performance management. [They] make consistent use of their Web architecture and business-intelligence tools,” says Richard T. Roth, a managing director of the benchmarking firm Hackett Best Practices, which tracks the trends and performance of organizations throughout the world.

Sophisticated decision-support systems offered by major vendors don’t just focus on a particular HR responsibility, but analyze the enterprise as a whole, says Fumi Kondo, managing director of the IT consulting firm Intellilink Solutions. “They integrate business developments, sales, and other drivers of the business with HR, so HR becomes more than just a support area,” she says. “HR becomes more strategic.”

A data warehouse is the foundation of such an integrated enterprise-wide decision-support system. It serves as a central repository for the raw data from your company’s financial, customer-relationship management, and other systems, combined with external market information, such as salary surveys, for benchmarking. The system’s analytic tools then enable you to slice and dice and sort the data to create multidimensional what-if scenarios and hypotheses. In other words, it turns raw data into knowledge.

That kind of powerful system can cost anywhere from a half-million dollars to more than a million dollars a year to build, implement, and maintain. The price tag is the primary reason it’s still relatively rare in HR. According to a survey by META Group, a research and consulting firm, senior management does not yet appreciate the positive impact that strong workforce management can have on an organization’s bottom line.

“HR organizations need to do a better job of articulating — and measuring — the connection between good workforce management and business performance,” says David Lindheimer, the report’s lead analyst.

Bottom-line benefits
DoubleStar’s Hutchison tells the story of a client company that implemented a decision-support system and discovered it could have saved more than a million dollars in hiring and recruiting costs. “In the past, every manager would go out and contract with any recruiting firm they wanted,” Hutchison says. “With a drop-down menu and click of a button, the decision-support tool showed which advertising source found the highest-quality employees and which recruiting methods provided the best value.”

Here’s another example of how decision-support/analytic software can help control costs throughout the enterprise. The Toronto Police Service recently implemented Workbrain ERM 3.0 to automate and manage scheduling, overtime spending, equipment and employee deployment, and special-event management.

“The program allows human resources to understand how resources are being deployed across the organization,” says Bill Gibson, HR director.

A decision-support/analytic system monitors relationships between metrics, says Richard Howey, a senior consultant with the consulting firm Watson Wyatt. “It synthesizes HR metrics with the enterprise — the supply side, CRM, operations, financials — so you can see the whole chain and measure how factors such as retention or productivity affect the bottom line.”

Some decision-support applications are narrower in focus, applying analytic technology to a specific HR function. For instance, Hire.Analytics by Hire.com monitors and measures how well recruiting and staffing initiatives support an organization’s business goals and provides insight into performance and candidate quality. It measures cost per hire, expenses by division, and candidate diversity. It maps, in real-time, which people are needed, when, and where at any given moment. Another application, Visionware by Kronos, focuses on labor costs. It synthesizes information from billing, payroll, revenue, and time and attendance, and then captures, analyzes, and reports on labor-mix efficiency and staffing levels. As a result, managers can make better decisions on the type, quantity, and mix of labor they need.

Fieldglass, a human-capital management technology company, makes software to help businesses compare and rank temporary workers and evaluate the performance of suppliers and staff. The software integrates with payment and invoicing systems and corporate purchasing-card programs.

Other software, such as products made by DxCG and Parallax by Ingenix, focuses on reducing an employer’s health care costs.

Stop administering; start analyzing
According to the META study, “Workforce Management: Technology Trends and the Employee Life Cycle,” more companies are likely to invest in workforce analytic programs over the next three to five years. But while such leading-edge applications may be the next big HR wave, for now they are more widely discussed than deployed.

Most HR systems now in use — such as those focused on benefits, recruiting, or payroll — are transactional. That is, they are focused on accomplishing or automating a specific task but provide no means for measuring how the business is performing as a whole. You can generate reports or create spreadsheets from such systems, but the data is based on transactions that have already occurred. Another downside is that the various systems are typically not integrated. So there is no easy way to merge data from one system into another.

“I am amazed how many people have implemented solutions that didn’t give them what they need for recruiting, leadership, or training,” Hutchinson says. “They end up with eight systems, none of which talk to each other. This is the primary chasm that exists within HR.”While decision-support/analytic technology is becoming more commonplace in areas such as customer relationship and finance, it’s still rare in HR, says Howey, the Watson Wyatt consultant. “HR people have always been information-poor,” he says. “But now they need to rethink their roles and move away from the administrative mind-set of enforcing rules and processing transactions to the mind-set of becoming a strategic business partner. These systems represent an opportunity for them to become more analytical.”

Workforce, June 2002, pp. 50-54 — Subscribe Now!

August 13, 2002June 29, 2023

Think Twice- Disabling Some Old Stereotypes

If you and your CFO had a baby—maybe not an appealing thought, but anyhow—this is what the child, with her HR-Finance DNA, would dream about: Millions of dollars in tax credits. Retention rates that are exponentially higher than they are now. Millions of dollars of savings in lower turnover costs.

Actually, this dream came true. Pizza Hut has employed thousands of individuals with disabilities over the last decade and a half, and turnover among them is approximately 100 percent less than turnover among other new hires. Pizza Hut has saved millions of dollars from this lower turnover. On top of that, it has received millions of dollars in federal tax credits for hiring job candidates with disabilities, in this case often mental retardation.

There are about 54 million Americans with disabilities. Most don’t have jobs. Most want jobs. Most deserve them.

Many employers unintentionally discriminate against applicants with disabilities when interviewing. They’re worried they’ll be less productive and less reliable. They’ll use more health care, which will cost you more.

These are legitimate concerns for a business trying to keep costs down and make a nice profit. The problem is that they usually aren’t true.

DuPont found that employees with disabilities have above-average records in job performance, attendance, and safety.

The Job Accommodation Network is a group of consultants in West Virginia, funded by the government, who work for free to advise employers and employees about disabilities. The consultants at JAN say that about 20 percent of accommodations for employees with disabilities cost nothing. The median accommodation—like buying a comfortable stool for a grocery checkout person with a back injury, so he doesn’t have to stand—costs $250. That’s not a lot of money when your return on investment is like Pizza Hut’s. In addition, there are tax credits that can help you defray these costs.

There’s more data. In a 30-year study, DuPont found that employees with disabilities have above-average records in job performance, attendance, and safety. IT&T found that its workers who had disabilities had fewer absences than those who did not.

There are many examples of employees with disabilities who are more productive than others. Six years ago, Burlington Coat Factory in Brown Deer, Wisconsin, hired Anne Rindfleisch to run the computer room. The company projected that the job would require a full-time operator to manage incoming merchandise, print contracts, and deal with transfers.

Burlington hired Rindfleisch, who did the job, and still does the job, in only 20 hours a week. She has no arms or legs.

A Harris poll found that 82 percent of managers surveyed said that employees with disabilities were no harder to manage than anyone else. John Dziewa agrees. He’s spent more than 14 years programming, and managing programmers, at Fiserv, a financial company in Milwaukee. “People with disabilities tend to be more dependable,” he says. “They’re concerned about the disability being seen as a liability.” Dziewa is paralyzed from the chest down.

On the question of health-care costs, The Hartford, a leading disability insurer in Connecticut, says that once an employee has acquired a disability, there’s no difference in medical utilization between those who have disabilities and those who don’t.

If you want to hire someone with a disability, here are four ways to either find these candidates or get information that can help you work effectively with an employee who has a disability:

1) Contact the Job Accommodation Network— www.jan.wvu.edu. I’ve talked to them several times over the last eight years and they’re not a hard-to-get-hold-of bureaucracy, but rather a group of people who legitimately want to help. JAN can give you advice about hiring and accommodating employees who are disabled and has on its Web site a long list of suggestions on how to accommodate specific disabilities. It also can tell you where to get tax-credit information.

2) Call the Labor Department’s new toll-free number, (888) 695-8289. They’ll tell you where in your area you can find applicants with disabilities.

3) Contact Goodwill Industries International—www.goodwill.org or (800) 664-6577. Goodwill trains and places candidates with disabilities, including Anne Rindfleisch, and does a good job.

4) Ask a rehabilitation center in your state. You’ll find a list of them at www.jan.wvu.edu/sbses/vocrehab.htm.

If your results are half as good as Pizza Hut’s, hiring these candidates will help you beat the competition. The chain is one of America’s largest employers of people with disabilities. It takes a lot of ability to serve 1.7 million pizzas every day.

Workforce, August 2002, p. 88 — Subscribe Now

Other columns by Todd:

August 12, 2002July 10, 2018

Manage Up!

When It’s Time to Manage the Boss

“This time things will be different,” thought Mike Noel, now the retired CFO of a large utility company. Presentation in hand, he strode toward the meeting room.

His presentations to the Board of Directors had become a monthly routine. And each month, he packed his slides with information. But no matter how much data he gathered, his boss, a member of the Board, never seemed quite satisfied. Month after month, Mike left the meeting feeling like somehow, he’d missed the mark. Then he discovered the problem.

During a meeting with a consultant, Mike realized that he and his boss were polar opposites when it came to decision-making styles. Mike wanted to review charts, graphs and stacks of data before making decisions. His boss wanted bullet points – the fewer the better.

Armed with this knowledge, Mike overhauled his routine. As the Board members took their seats, he extracted the summary slide from his presentation. The lights dimmed. He set the slide on the overhead projector.

“This briefly outlines my conclusions and recommendations,” he told the group. “I have eleven other slides that detail my research, if you care to see them.”

The room fell silent. Mike got anxious. Then his boss leaned forward. “Mike,” he said, “that’s the best presentation you’ve ever given us.”

Mike’s story illustrates an effective, yet underutilized strategy employees can use to improve their relationship with a supervisor. Step one: Identify the boss’s strongest preferences. Step two: Use that information to manage the boss.

Ultimately, this strategy raises people’s awareness of the various ways personal preferences color daily interactions. And for HR leaders, this awareness can serve as an excellent starting point to help smooth a variety of supervisor/subordinate troubles.

What makes the boss tick?

Everyone has a set of preferences that is unique to them—which is why employees often find the nature of their job changes when a new boss takes over. Simply put, different supervisors like to manage things differently. Understanding what a particular supervisor prefers when it comes to feedback, teaming, decisions and communication is critical to employees’ success. Yet bosses rarely discuss their personal preferences.

“This type of information just isn’t discussed in daily interactions,” said Brad Harper, president of Trigon Executive Assessment Center in Phoenix. “On some level, supervisors just expect employees to figure it all out.”

But for employees who can’t “figure it out,” a clash of preferences can seriously impede performance and morale. In many cases, HR can help the employee understand how their boss’s preferences may be influencing a situation. Usually, a few preferences stand out above all others, Harper explained. For example, how does the boss prefer to receive feedback, make decisions and team with others? (See sidebar)

Gathering the information isn’t rocket science, but it does take effort. Methods vary from simple observation to using a formal diagnostic tool.

Observation

Employees can actively observe their supervisors, keeping an eye out for specific clues. For example, how does their boss present information to the team during meetings? Are the presentations short and targeted, or long and detailed? Does she prefer to multi-task or concentrate on one project at a time?

Asking questions

In many cases, employees can ask questions that clarify preferences. For example, does the boss prefer weekly or monthly status reports? Would he rather review work at every stage or just the final stage? Does he want brief recommendations or a binder of data?

Using formal tools

Many companies bridge the information gap with targeted consulting sessions, complete with diagnostic tests, reports and debriefs. Ideally, employees leave these facilitated meetings with a better sense of their own work style and how it relates to their boss.

But, cautioned Harper, formal diagnostic tests are not a cure-all.

“The inventories can provide great data,” he said, “but it’s what people do with the data that makes a difference.”

Once an employee defines their supervisor’s key preferences, they need to tailor their behavior accordingly. This may mean altering the way they track and measure progress, present material and conduct meetings.

“In some cases, this may go against a person’s natural inclination,” said Harper. “But the point is for the employee to create a more successful working relationship with their boss, which, ultimately, will improve their own job satisfaction.”

The burden of tailoring behavior falls to the employee because the boss usually has several direct reports, whereas the employee just has one boss. But supervisors aren’t totally off the hook. Savvy managers realize they create healthier, more productive environments when they openly communicate their preferences. For proof, look no further than SCAN Healthcare and the University of Southern California.

Support from the top

It’s been twelve years since Sam Ervin, now retired Chairman and CEO of $400 million SCAN Healthcare in Long Beach, California, began using a formal tool to improve the teamwork of his executives.

At least every two years, Ervin’s executive team fills out the Personal Preference Inventory distributed by Personal Code, Inc. based in Manhattan Beach, California. The team then meets with consultants to discuss their strongest preferences.

“The process not only strengthens the leadership team, it improves working relationships between the executives and their own direct reports,” said Ervin. “The executive team has a common language to share their preferences with others, which definitely helps.”

Martha Harris, Senior Vice President of University Relations for University of Southern California, also encourages her leadership team to recognize and communicate their preferences.

Her team leaders regularly take their work styles into account when they establish expectations for their staff, she said. “I’ve seen firsthand how the ability to communicate preferences stabilizes work teams,” said Harris. “It’s a very constructive process.”

But for some, sharing preferences can be difficult, regardless of how it’s done.

“Some people don’t want their preferences communicated to subordinates because they think it will highlight their weaknesses,” said Mark Gross, President of Leadership Services Limited, an executive consulting firm in Santa Barbara. “But with some facilitation, they begin to understand that preferences are not good or bad, they just are.”

No matter how companies approach this issue, simply raising awareness of preferences is an important step, said Harper.

“It’s common to think, ‘If I satisfy my client, I will be successful,’” he said. “But, fair or not, sometimes that’s not enough. Employees who take proactive steps to understand their boss’s preferences will create a more successful, satisfying environment for themselves.”

Workforce Online, July 2002 — Register Now!

August 9, 2002June 29, 2023

On The Contrary: The Remodel Role Model

Excuse me if I seem a little, um, unfocused. I’ve spent the last two months ensnared in the great American drama known as kitchen remodeling. Thanks. I appreciate that. But it hasn’t been that bad. Really. I like eating salad on my bed.

More than 25 people have been involved in the design and installation of my new kitchen. This includes a designer, general contractor, two carpenters, a plumber, a small army of electricians with matching yellow wire-cutters, two concrete people, a roofer and his wife, two floor refinishers, a painter, a tiler, and three masons who’d spend 40 minutes putting a single brick in place, 20 minutes standing back and admiring the brick’s placement, and two hours at lunch, where, presumably, they celebrated their exquisite first-brick handiwork. Additionally, there were countless people who helped me acquire windows, light fixtures, appliances, Valium, sinks, door handles, and faucets. And Valium. And countertops. And Valium. Did I mention Valium?

Watching these people work over the last nine weeks has provided valuable insight into the workings of effective teams. To begin with, my remodeling crew had two clearly defined objectives. The first was to remodel my kitchen according to a set of highly detailed plans. The second was to complete the project sometime before we colonize the Red Planet. As all the team books will tell you, objectives are necessary to give teams focus and direction.

Secondly, each subcontractor on the team had a distinct responsibility. Never once did I hear an electrician argue with the plumber about who should position the waste lines. The painter did not think it would be fun, just this once, to install a window. The masons didn’t, well, do much of anything. But at least they weren’t in anyone’s way. Having distinct responsibilities allowed the crew to avoid turf battles, competition, jealousy, and back-stabbing. The guy who poured the concrete knew he was better at concrete than the guys who installed the cabinets, who knew they were better at carpentry than the guy who shingled the roof. And so it went. No overlaps. No conflict.

Team rah-rah is great, but let’s face it: we’re all more willing to contribute when our contributions are acknowledged.

Watching the workers in action, I also realized there’s something the teamwork guides fail to reinforce, and that is how important it is to recognize individual talents and make each person feel like an indispensable part of the team. Team rah-rah is great, but let’s face it: we’re all more willing to contribute when our contributions are acknowledged.

For example, at the start of my project there was some concern about whether we would be able to raise the kitchen ceiling. See, I live in a 1970s home similar to the one inhabited by Beaver Cleaver. At the time the house was built, it was fashionable to drop the kitchen ceiling a foot lower than the ceilings in the rest of the house, leading to a feeling of cooking inside a hobbit’s kitchen. (Frodo! Pass the butter!)

The only way we could successfully raise the ceiling in our kitchen would be if the plumber could tuck the existing plumbing from the upstairs bathroom into the bay between the upstairs floor joists. Let me say that again: joists. I love the sound of that. It’s one of my new remodeling words. Other additions to my vocabulary are load-bearing, soffit, caissons, oops!, conduit, backorder, and delay.

But I digress. I warned you that I’m unfocused.

So the plumber comes over to my house, looks at the newly exposed pipes in the ceiling, and says: “No way.”

“No way?” ask the carpenters.

“No way,” the plumber says, crossing his arms. “There are too many pipes to tuck them any higher. You can’t raise this ceiling.”

“But you were able to hide the pipes in that house in Castle Rock.”

“That’s true.”

“And that house in Englewood.”

“True again.” The plumber uncrosses his arms and squints sideways at the ceiling.

The carpenters switch tactics. “If anyone can tuck those pipes up, it will be you,” they tell him.

“It won’t be easy,” the plumber insists.

“We know. We can call anybody for easy. We call you when we have more sophisticated challenges.”

“Oookaaaay,” the plumber finally says. “But it won’t be easy.”

And it wasn’t. But thanks to the plumber’s extraordinary effort, our ceiling was raised, and now that I can stand fully upright in my kitchen, I’ll be forever grateful.

And really, my being grateful was all that anyone on the remodeling team wanted. The carpenters wanted me to appreciate their problem-solving abilities and finesse with a table saw. The general contractor wanted me to recognize his talent for hiring the best subs and keeping them on schedule. The tiler wanted us to appreciate the fact that the kitchen wouldn’t be finished until the tile backsplash was put in and that if we failed to show proper deference, he might not show up at all. “You don’t want to upset the tile guy,” the carpenters told me.

None of these expectations were spoken, of course. But whenever I complimented a contractor on his work, you could sense the change in his demeanor. Suddenly, instead of merely informing me that a job was finished, he’d want to tell me, in great detail, how he’d finished the job, what challenges were involved, and why it took until 12:30 on Saturday night to finish laying the tile, but “gosh, it sure looks great, doesn’t it?”

A team of 25 people working in lockstep was needed to bring my kitchen into the new century. But the team was effective because of 25 sets of individual talents. To reward the team without recognizing the individuals would be just plain wrong, and I’d probably still be waiting for the masons to get back from lunch. Simply put, when people aren’t being recognized for their contributions, they’ll find a way to let you know how important those contributions really are.

Other columns by Shari:

Workforce, August 2002, pp. 22-24 — Subscribe Now!

August 9, 2002June 29, 2023

Why Job Applicants Hate HR

Craig Goudy is a software developer in Denver who, like many other ITprofessionals, was recently laid off. He’s 45, articulate, and passionateabout his work, and he has over 20 years of broad business experience thatincludes stints in finance, marketing, and public relations. You’d think thatfinding a job would be a snap for someone with his experience and enthusiasm,right? It probably would be if he could get HR professionals to listen to him.But during a three-week period in April, Goudy made five cold calls a day to HRpeople in companies he knows are hiring. “I call them not only to give them asense of who I am and what my experience is, but also to find out the best wayto approach their company from an employment perspective.”

To date, he’s made about 80 calls, and well over half the HR people hetalked to seemed desperate to get off the phone, and only two took the time tomeet with him in person. “I’m amazed at how short they can be,” heexplains. “It’s almost as if a job-seeker like myself is a detriment to whatthey are trying to accomplish.”

How times have changed. Two years ago, HR professionals were on their kneeslike beggars at the Vatican, tugging at the pant legs of any qualified jobcandidates. With unemployment at record lows, companies were so humbled by theneed for workers that they were willing to do whatever it took to entice worthyapplicants. Now that the labor market has opened up, the power has shifted, andHR is acting like an arrogant prince stepping around the unwashed masses.Job-seekers are a burden, the flood of résumés a distraction, and cold callsfrom candidates are viewed with as much eagerness as a telemarketer atdinnertime — at least, that’s the perspective of today’s job-seekers.

“Most HR people know the economy is bad and there are lots of peoplelooking,” says Lisa Crispin, the newly hired quality assurance manager atKBkids.com. “Because of this, they feel it’s okay to jerk people around.”

This isn’t as much of an overstatement as it may sound. Talk to job-seekerstoday — especially in heavily downsized industries such as high-tech andtelecommunications — and you’ll discover they are so fed up with theperceived arrogance, disrespect, and ineffectiveness of HR that they are doingeverything they can to avoid the function altogether. As Bill Stegen, an ERPmanager who lost his job a year ago, explains: “If you want to get work, thetrick is getting around HR.”

A recent post on Vault.com’s job-search message board reveals the depths ofthe job-seeker’s despair. “I’m sending résumés out to companies andtrying to avoid sending them into the HR black hole,” writes a person lookingfor advice. At last count, the post had drawn 60 passionate responses frompeople who referred to HR professionals as “clueless pinheads who areoverwhelmed,” “on power trips,” and who “only pass along cookie-cutterrésumés to the hiring manager.” One person summarized it this way: “Jobapplicants will always have a better chance of being hired by avoiding HR.”

These anonymous message-board complaints are supported by such well-knownconsultants as Peter Drucker, who believes that hiring is one of the leasteffective corporate functions. “By and large, executives make poor promotionand staffing decisions,” he writes in The EssentialDrucker, (Harper Business,2001). “By all accounts, their batting average is no better than .333; atmost, one-third of such decisions turn out right, a third are minimallyeffective, and one-third are outright failures.”

Lloyd Gottman, CEO of Synergetic Systems, a Littleton, Colorado, company thatdistributes the Profiles International employee assessment, believes the battingaverage is even worse. “A large, well-known, highly respected national companywith many salespeople told me they lose over 80 percent of all new salespeoplewithin the first three years of employment.”

To be fair, it’s not that easy to be a recruiter today. Because of thedepressed economy, HR departments are under enormous pressure, and many HRstaffs have been downsized. Thus, at the same time that more people are lookingfor work, there are fewer HR professionals to field résumés and focus on thebest candidates.

Job candidates aren’t making the process any easier, adds Jane Paradiso,recruiting solutions practice leader in the Washington, D.C., office of WatsonWyatt Worldwide, a global HR consultancy. “In the Silicon Valley, whereunemployment is high, a well-known company announced it was hiring and wasoverwhelmed with résumés, 95 percent of which were from people who clearlyweren’t qualified.”

Despite these challenges, an HR person who is seeking to become morestrategic would be well advised to understand the job-seeker’s complaints.Why? Because the labor pool, although abundant now, is going to tighten up againin the very near future. In fact, according to research by Watson Wyatt, if theeconomy rebounds with even half the momentum of previous recoveries, the UnitedStates could be looking at full employment again within a year. Simply put, thepeople you scorn today may be the ones you covet tomorrow.

Furthermore, adds Don Weintraub, president and CEO of Boston-based RainmakerAssociates, a job candidate you treat poorly now might eventually become acustomer or a competitor. “If you disrespect people today during the hiringprocess, there is no reason to believe they wouldn’t look for an opportunityto return the favor,” he says.

By looking at what’s broken and understanding how to fix it, HR can beginto reinvent the hiring process and, in turn, polish the function’s image.After all, if HR professionals are ever going to be taken seriously as keepersof the corporate culture, they have to begin by getting the right people in thedoor without alienating them in the process.

A plethora of complaints
To find out what life is really like for today’s job-seekers, Workforcespent several days at CareerLab, a Denver-based outplacement and careerconsulting firm, interviewing job-seekers, attending networking events, andeavesdropping on career-counseling sessions. What became clear immediately ishow widespread complaints about the hiring process really are. They come frompeople in a range of industries and employment levels, and run the gamut fromthe ineffectiveness of résumés to a lack of follow-up.

One of the chief complaints is that HR professionals don’t alwaysunderstand the requirements of open positions. “My greatest frustration withHR is that they don’t have a complete understanding of what a successfulcandidate looks like,” Weintraub says. “People who do the recruiting forcompanies have never done the job, so it’s an abstraction to them, especiallyin the technology areas.”

Weintraub’s view is supported by Stegen, who has been applying forpositions as an IT director for several months. At his last job, Stegen led theimplementation of an ERP software package known as EPCS from start to finish andbrought it in on time, within budget, and got a performance bonus for hisefforts. But when applying for jobs, he has found that companies want peopleexperienced in the implementation of J.D. Edwards software as opposed to EPCSsoftware, even though the programs do essentially the same thing. “Three timesI’ve been told in interviews that since I don’t have the exact experience, Idon’t qualify for the job,” he says. “But the functionality of thesoftware is exactly the same, which leads me to believe that HR people don’tknow what they are talking about.”

Ron Cutadean, vice president of HR for BoldTech Systems, Inc., a Denver-basedsoftware consulting firm, defends HR professionals, saying that because the jobmarket is so tight, companies can hold out for the exact requirements. “Withloads of people and competition out there, a candidate has to have exactly whatthe company needs or we’re not interested,” he says. However, he doesn’tdisagree that many HR people may not understand the positions they’re hiringfor. “This is especially true when HR doesn’t have the internal respect ofhiring managers.”

So how can HR improve its understanding of job requirements? Weintraubrecommends a dual screening process in which a technical person evaluates acandidate’s technical background and competence, and an HR person screens forsoft skills and cultural fit. “It’s not a good use of HR to look atbuzzwords on a résumé,” he says. “Technical employees who understand whatthose words mean should be doing the first assessment of candidates.”

Paradiso adds that HR people should also be working much more closely withline managers to carefully and specifically develop the requirements of eachjob. “When candidates are many and positions are scarce, job descriptions haveto be much more tightly written,” she says. “The requirements should be veryspecific, and the job posting should indicate if certain certifications ordegrees are essential.”

A second major complaint among job-seekers is the ineffectiveness ofrésumés as a screening tool. Paul Wyman, formerly with CareerLab and now anindependent career and executive coach, says bluntly: “Résumés suck as aselection tool. As a job blueprint, they ignore a candidate’s most significantcharacteristic, and that is what they can do for the company. But HR believes aperson’s past is their future. This makes it very difficult for people who areburnt out in one job to make a shift to a new career.”

Job-searchers unanimously agree that the over-reliance on résumés oftenleads to tunnel vision about a person’s capabilities. “Résumés are ascreening-out tool,” says a lawyer who wants to make a shift into corporatemanagement. “They put people into little boxes and give companies reasons notto hire you.”

Jeanne Long has 30 years of experience in the telecommunications industry,most recently as a technical-support engineer for a company involved with fiberoptics. She was laid off last October and has been looking for work ever since.Two obstacles stand in the way. First, she doesn’t have a college degree. “IfHR is looking at the résumé, that’s what they look at,” she says, “notthe fact that I’ve held several management positions. Although the lack of adegree never hindered my ability to do a job and be promoted, it gets in the wayduring a job search because HR people are not trained to look at the wholeperson.”

“There are some excellent tools HR people can purchase and use on their career Web sites.”

Second, all her experience has been in telecommunications, and she believesit’s difficult for HR people outside that industry to understand how she mightfit into another kind of organization. “I put in sophisticated data networksfor all kinds of companies,” she says. “While I do have a telecommunicationsbackground, I’m not limited to working with phone companies.” Because ofthese frustrations, Long has been working hard to get around HR. “I dowhatever I have to do to get an introduction to a director at a company,” shesays. “HR will not let you get past them if they can help it.”

Instead of relying so heavily on résumés, Paradiso suggests that companiesuse more profiling and screening tools. “There are some excellent tools HRpeople can purchase and use on their career Web sites,” she says. These toolsgive recruiters a much broader picture of a person’s capabilities.

Roadway Express, a national trucking firm, uses a questionnaire on its Website, www.roadway.com, that not only queries candidates about their jobexperiences, but also asks them to rate their competencies in such things asanalytical skills, assertiveness, and ability to work independently.

Bank One uses a similar tool on its site, www.bankone.com, to ask job-seekersabout their education, salary requirements, and openness to relocation. Wyman,who would like to see a move away from résumés altogether, suggests thatcompanies consider accepting “job proposals,” which are, in essence, pitchletters wherein candidates tell employers what they are passionate about andwhat they can do for them. “Wouldn’t it be better to hire people based onhow excited they are about working for you in the future, rather than on whatthey did in the past?” he asks.

The frustration doesn’t stop at the interview stage
Once a candidate makes it through the initial job-screening and snags aninterview, you’d think the frustrations with HR would end. Sadly, that’s notthe case. If anything, from a job-seeker’s point of view, the angst onlyincreases. Their chief complaints? A lack of internal coordination andfollow-up.

Lisa Crispin was laid off from a job in February. The next morning, thanks toprofessional contacts, she had an interview with a line manager at Qwest. Twoweeks later, she interviewed with two of the company’s senior vice presidents,who wanted her for the job but said they would have to finalize things throughHR. While waiting to hear from Qwest’s HR people, Crispin continued to pursueother leads, including one at KBkids.com, which eventually offered her aposition.

“I called the hiring manager at Qwest, where I really wanted to work, andtold him I had another job offer. He said he was still waiting to hear back fromHR. Because I couldn’t put off my decision any longer, I accepted the job atKBkids.” A week and a half later, Qwest’s HR person called Crispin,apologized for the lack of follow-up, admitted he’d screwed up, and asked whathe could do to entice her back. “I told them ‘nothing,’ ” she relates.”There was obviously a severe lack of internal communication.”

Jim Grenfell, former CFO with ICG Communications, has experienced similarfrustration with HR in his job search. “About six weeks ago, I had a voicemail from an HRprofessional whom I’d already spoken to a couple of times whowanted me to come in the next week to, I assume, talk about a position. Thecompany was hiring, and I’d already spoken to the CFO and auditors about myexperience. I called the HR woman back that afternoon, left a message, and I’venever heard from her.” Grenfell says the situation is not unusual. “Dealingwith HR has typically been a dreadful experience.”

Weintraub views the lack of follow-up as disrespectful, an attitude that isbrought on by HR’s low status in organizations. “Typically, the higher upyou go in a company, the better you are treated. I’ve never been disrespectedby a CEO; I’ve often been disrespected by someone in HR. It’s apower-and-control issue. People who feel unempowered in their own companiesoften take it out on those who are lower than they are — i.e., those attemptingto get a job.”

Regardless of where the disrespect comes from, the fact remains that it cando a lot of damage — both internally and externally. “As an externally facingfunction, HR needs to be well-versed in how to treat the public,” Goudy says.”They are spokespeople for the company, and they set the tone for what kind ofcompany it is.”

So how are candidates getting work?
Given these frustrations, it’s no wonder that job candidates are doingeverything they can to avoid HR. Primarily, they’re getting around thefunction by networking with colleagues to learn who is hiring and then callinghiring managers directly, which isn’t a bad thing from an HR point of view. Ifyou really want to hire the best people, and those people are trying to findjobs by networking with employees, why not provide incentives for employees tomake those referrals? By training managers to conduct interviews withcandidates, HR can minimize its negative impact on the hiring process.

The point is that HR must do whatever it can, within the constraints oflimited resources, to improve the hiring function — and fast. In the nearfuture, the tables will turn and HR will once again be in the beggar’s shoes,and may remain there for a long, long time. In less than eight years, there willbe 33 percent more people over the age of 55 in the workplace, and 19 percentfewer people between the ages of 35 and 44. Without enough bodies to go around,the most qualified candidates will be attracted to companies that treat themwell from the very first point of contact.

Workforce, June 2002, pp. 36-44 — Subscribe Now!

August 8, 2002June 29, 2023

Training That Keeps Liability at Bay

Training has been thought of as HR’s great protector. It is commonly believed that if you train your employees, the company is safe from lawsuits. But if training is ineffective, the company may find itself in trouble. Even correct training doesn’t completely safeguard a company from legal peril. Paul Salvatore, an employment-law attorney at the New York City office of Proskauer Rose, tells HR how to best protect against lawsuits in the training arena.

First of all, does training help a company avoid liability for accidents and mistakes on the part of an employee?: The general rule is that employers are better off and better able to insulate themselves from liability if they provide proper training to employees in a whole variety of areas. For example: A bus driver who went through a training course made an error, and the question is whether an employer is liable. The fact that the company offered training is only going to be a positive factor — as long as the training is appropriate.

What if it turns out that the training wasn’t proper?: It’s a negligence issue. It’s going to fall in the doctrine of negligent hiring, or negligent retention, or negligent supervision. It’s a negligence theory that’s going to be brought against the employer. It will be based on the actions of the employee, and whether the employer contributed to the injury by failing to properly train in a way that would have prevented the accident.

So the training will be well scrutinized for correctness?: Yes, to determine to what degree the training was the cause of the accident or injury in question.

And if the employer is found guilty of negligence?: These are jury cases, so the jury could award damages. The more improper or incomplete the training is determined to be, the higher the degree of the employer’s negligence.

Does it matter if the training is provided by an outside vendor versus being conducted internally by the company?: It matters to some degree, but the company will probably still be liable. In the end, the company is the one providing the training. It’s delegating the task of training to an agent, which is representing it by doing the training. So it’s very important that employers are careful about the vendors they choose.

How much culpability will the company have if a vendor’s training is ineffective?: It will be very fact-specific. It’s going to depend on exactly what is being alleged. So there may be a situation in which the person who’s injured is suing both the employer and the trainer together. The jury would then have to apportion liability between the two of them. In some cases, the injured person may just sue the employer, and the employer, if it feels that the training company was negligent, may bring them in as a third-party defendant.

What if the company can prove it did its best to find a good vendor? Does it have an advantage over a company that just hired the first vendor it found?: Absolutely. The level of care you exercise and are able to show that you exercised in all aspects of training employees is very important, and that includes the selection of the vendor.

Does that go for training on sexual harassment, an area that’s more interpretive than how to drive a bus?: There are actual court cases where some trainer has gone crazy and has people calling each other racial epithets or has women imitating men’s private parts — in the training. There have been cases that have found actionable claims from such training. Or someone got terminated and they claim the training indicates a sexually charged, hostile environment that existed at the company. In this area particularly, you have to be very careful about who you hire and who your vendors are. It’s a lot more subjective and touchy-feely, and there are a lot more sensitivities than in how you operate the clutch on your vehicle.

Back to basic training: How often does a company have to train?: It’s often alleged by a plaintiff that the training wasn’t frequent enough. How often you do it depends on the type of training. Some training is regulated by OSHA or mandated by the Department of Transportation. So certainly you want to do the minimum that’s prescribed by any regulatory body, or is viewed as best practices in your industry.

What if there is no norm governing the frequency of training?: In areas where there are no norms, you want to make sure everyone is trained on a relatively consistent and periodic basis — so that anytime someone is involved in an incident, they will have received the training. Training needs to be part of a routine that begins with orientation and continues on a relatively periodic basis. Many times, training isn’t done often enough because it’s a hassle. You need to get a lot of people together at the same time, you need to get them all coffee, stuff like that. One of the great things employers can do today is utilize online learning. That enables employers to reach a whole bunch of people without them having to leave home or desktop. You don’t have to worry about scheduling — and they can provide their own coffee.

How does HR know for sure that its training works?: You test, and you record the results. That way, if there’s trouble, you can say, we trained them — and they passed! It’s like: What’s a mother to do? But you’ve done the right thing. In the employment-law area, there’s a growing trend in the courts that protects employers that have done the right thing.

Workforce, February 2002, pp. 70-71 — Subscribe Now!

August 8, 2002June 29, 2023

A Simple, Proven Way to Design Any Type of Training

There are as many instructional-design models as there are package deals to Europe. For my taste, many are too basic (e.g., the three-step models), while others are much too elaborate (e.g., the 20-step models with arrows going every which way). If you happen to agree, you may find the approach I use and recommend to be the happy medium you’ve been looking for.

It works for all major categories of training, including executive/management, marketing/sales, and technical. It’s applicable to virtually all modes of delivery, including online, traditional classroom, on-the-job training, and blended learning (a combination of modes). And it can get you from point A to point B in the safest, most efficient manner I’m aware of.

Unlike most other models, which display major steps as cryptically labeled tasks, this model consists of a set of important questions. Since discussion around key questions is ultimately the way an instructional-design team explores learning needs and scopes out solutions, the rationale for a question-driven model should be apparent.

A close-up look
Each step of the recommended approach is elaborated upon below. The steps are strategically sequenced, enabling the design team to: 1) focus on one task at a time, 2) use the output of each step to facilitate the completion of the next one, and 3) apply checks and balances to safely stay on track throughout the process.

1. Is training really the answer?: The training director of a financial-services company told me about a department that had received, in one year, extensive training in team-building from two qualified consulting firms. Less than four months after the second consulting firm delivered its program, the department manager approached the training director for the name of another firm he could try.; After a brief discussion, the training director asked: “If the lives of your employees depended on it, do you think they could effectively apply what they’ve learned about team-building?” His reply, “Well, yes. They definitely know what to do and how to do it. The trouble is, they don’t do it consistently.”; Performance gaps can result from any combination of factors (e.g., lack of know-how, confusion over priorities, no accountability, insufficient incentives and rewards, etc.). One quick way to determine whether training is warranted is to get an answer to the kind of question the training director asked. Only if it is decided that target audience members couldn’t perform properly “if they had to” should you proceed to step two.
2. What background information do we need to collect and from whom should we get it?: Questions must be asked to fully understand target-audience characteristics: what participants should come away with as a result of instruction; any anticipated constraints on the design, development, production, delivery, evaluation, and maintenance of the training; and a host of other matters. People in a position to answer such questions (e.g., managers of the target audience, a sampling of target audience members, subject-matter experts, etc.) should be identified and interviewed by the design team, using a comprehensive set of pertinent questions.
3. Based on the data collected, what exactly does our audience need to know, do, and feel as a result of the training?: By answering the question “Upon completing the training, what exactly do we want our audience to know, do, and feel?” a list of specific outcomes (i.e., learning objectives) results. The objectives (formally drafted by the design team) are passed to project stakeholders, who review them for clarity, accuracy, and comprehensiveness. Only after the learning objectives are approved should the design team proceed to the next step.
4. In order for our audience to come away with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes specified, what content should be addressed?: For each of the approved learning objectives, this question is asked: “In order for the audience to be able to attain this particular objective, what content must be covered?”; The output — after the question has been answered for all of the learning objectives — is a detailed list of topics, subtopics, and components of subtopics analogous to a textbook’s table of contents.; The items listed should be sequenced in accordance with how they would actually be presented in training. Finally, an “Introduction” unit (including a listing of its subtopics/components) is added to the front of the content outline and a “Conclusion” unit (including a listing of its subtopics/components) is added to the end of the content outline. The accuracy of the content outline should then be confirmed by a subject-matter expert(s).
5. What’s the best way to get each item of content noted across to our audience?: Appropriate learning activities are chosen for each item of content (i.e., topic, subtopic, or component of subtopic) based on what’s known about the mode or modes of delivery to be used, the audience’s likes and dislikes of various learning activities, and anticipated constraints (all data gleaned from step one).; For each element of content, this question is asked: “What’s the best way to put this across to our audience?” Each learning activity is noted next to each element of content (as listed in the previous step), along with the estimated time required to complete the activity. When completing this step, it’s important to be keenly aware that some learning activities that seem perfectly appropriate may in fact be perfectly unsuitable.; For example, several years ago the national director of a major accounting firm asked me to drop all references to role-playing in a design document I was preparing for his firm’s managing-partner curriculum. I was surprised by the request and asked him why. His reply: “They don’t take role-playing seriously. We’ve tried it a couple of times. It bombed each time. Now they’ll have no part of it.” The lesson: Each target audience must be viewed as unique. What works beautifully with audience members in one firm may fail miserably with their counterparts in another.
6. Looking at our “snapshot” of what is to be covered and how it is to be covered, how can we encourage the transfer of learning from the place of study to the place of work?: At this point, having produced a “Content/Learning Activities Outline,” the design team should be well positioned to determine how the manager of a participant can encourage his/her on-the-job application of the information outlined. Prior to training, the manager could, for example, review the course’s learning objectives with the participant and discuss their relevance to his/her particular developmental needs.; After training, the manager and participant might discuss, fine-tune, and commit to implementing an action plan drafted by the participant during training. Additionally, a second look at the “Content/Learning Activities Outline” — from the standpoint of ensuring learning transfer — might reveal additional opportunities for skills practice and the distribution of quick-reference tools (e.g., checklists, templates, and memory-joggers) for on-the-job use. The transfer of learning strategies should include methods beyond those referred to above. For example, it might be linked to a person’s compensation. Note: Though these learning-transfer steps are crucial, they are missing from many models. Unless learning is successfully transferred from the place of learning to the place of work, there can be no return on investment.
7. How can we determine the effectiveness of the training?: Formative and summative evaluation strategies are described next. Formative evaluations have to do with checking the quality of training before it’s finalized, using dry runs and pilots, for example. Summative evaluations have to do with checking the quality of the training after it’s been rolled out. This can include everything from doing an assessment after class to gauge the amount of training that sank in to determining the impact of the training on the corporate bottom line. In this step, the specific strategies to be used are briefly described under the headings “Formative” and “Summative.”; Because so many instructional-design models indicate that evaluation strategies should be determined promptly after writing learning objectives, it’s important to explain why the recommended model addresses evaluation after the specification of training content, learning activities, and transfer of learning strategies.; By virtue of outlining the training from start to finish, design teams become familiar with the body of knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be ultimately assessed. This familiarity, in turn, facilitates their identification of the full range of opportunities for evaluation. For example, the outline for a course on presentation skills that indicates participants would be videotaped making a presentation at the beginning of training and again toward its end, reveals an excellent evaluation opportunity in the form of a before-and-after comparison of performance.; Further rationale for addressing evaluation strategies late in the instructional-design process can be found in answering this question: “Should testing strategies determine what goes into a course (i.e., “teach for the test”), or should learning objectives (i.e., the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be acquired) be the determinant?”
8. When it comes time to create learning materials, how can we avoid reinventing the wheel?: In addition to providing a snapshot of the training to be later developed, the “Content/ Learning Activities Outline” represents a sort of shopping list for directly relevant materials that may already exist in one’s organization or elsewhere. Here the design team searches for pertinent reports, articles, books, videos, CDs, and training programs that can potentially save time, money, and effort. Prepackaged e-learning lessons related to any number of the training’s components may also be available and can be searched via the Internet. The result of this step is a listing of what’s available and what’s lacking.; Whenever delivering training to corporate human resources and training professionals at Fordham University, I ask this question concerning the search for existing learning materials: “Why is this the last step, instead of one of the very first steps in the design process?”; The correct response holds the answer to why a lot of training fails to live up to expectations. It’s simply this: Unless you know who your target audience truly is, what specifically participants need to come away with, the types of learning activities most likely to resonate with them, and the answers to a host of other vital design questions, any selection of existing learning materials is likely to prove a waste of time, money, and effort.

How to document your design
The design process should ultimately result in a document or blueprint that neatly organizes the various outputs. The document is crucial for the accurate, efficient presentation of the training design to stakeholders who will approve it. Further, the approved document is later used to guide the creation and/or adaptation of all materials needed to implement the training. Major sections of the instructional design document include:

Course Title
Purpose Statement
Audience Description
Duration
Prerequisites (if any)
Learning Objectives
Constraints *
Content/Learning Activities Outline (Note: This section is the longest, providing a blow-by-blow description of the training from start to finish.)
Transfer of Learning Strategy
Evaluation Strategy
Content Sourcing (What We Have vs. What We Need)

* In the design document, the Constraints section should precede the “Content/Learning Activities Outline.” By being aware of constraints — before reviewing the outline — stakeholders are better able to recognize why certain learning activities, time frames, etc., indicated may be less than ideal.

Any other sections that are needed to clearly and comprehensively communicate one’s design, including project-management documentation, should be added.

Why this model can work for you
Whether you’re designing a curriculum, course, one-on-one coaching session, or any other type of learning experience, the recommended model can provide a proven-effective framework for instructional design.

Even if you plan to use outside consultants to help design and develop the training you have in mind, work independently through the model’s eight steps. By doing so, you can better understand the true scope and requirements of your project from the get-go, communicate what you have in mind efficiently and effectively to all internal stakeholders and outside consultants, select the right outside help (if need be) to take your design to “the next level,” and be in a far better position to confidently lead and manage your entire project team to a successful implementation.

My own lessons that were learned designing training in a variety of corporate settings have given rise to the model described above. It strikes just the right balance between the overly simplistic three-step models and those that are needlessly complex.

Workforce Online, May 2002 — Register Now!