Category: Workplace Culture

Posted on

Dear Workforce How Do We Keep People Motivated Following Layoffs?

Dear Gloom and Doom:

The most significant challenges faced by an organization following layoffs are managing a distracted workforce, coping with increased stress caused by expanding workloads, and turnover among top talent, who have options regardless of economic conditions.

Your primary goal should be to get the workforce focused and united behind the premise that their productivity and innovation are the key drivers of organizational stability. Do some quick interviews or a survey of workers to identify their issues and concerns.

Next, focus on improving communications and transparency. If they don’t get fast, frequent and accurate information from management, employees will rely on rumors or assume the worst.

Third, solicit their help in prioritizing the work. If you don’t identify low-priority things that employees can stop doing, your remaining workers will likely be overburdened.

Next, ask each worker and team to help you make a list of the “barriers to increasing productivity,” and then commit your time and resources to eliminating those barriers.

Finally, talk individually to top performers and key employees and work with their managers to minimize any issues that may cause them to consider leaving during this critical time.

SOURCE: Dr. John Sullivan, San Francisco State University

LEARN MORE: HR professionals find themselves on edge as layoffs mount.

Workforce Management Online — Register Now!

The information contained in this article is intended to provide useful information on the topic covered, but should not be construed as legal advice or a legal opinion. Also remember that state laws may differ from the federal law.

Ask a Question
 Dear Workforce Newsletter
Posted on

France’s Approach to Workplace ‘Bullying’

Americans may not be surprised to learn that the recent wave of employee suicides at iconic companies like France Télécom and Renault has generated widespread soul searching. The French government has generated reports on “workplace stress” and unions and management have agreed to fight the problem. Finally, in October 2009, the French Cabinet decreed that large companies must make stress a mandatory topic in the ongoing negotiations between workers and managers that define the French workplace.


But more exotic—and probably more significant for U.S. managers in the long run—is the growing recognition of workplace bullying as a problem worthy of redress by the courts. (The behavior is called “mobbing” in some parts of Europe.) France is in the vanguard today in taking a stance against bullying, but the European Union supports the movement and other national regimes are close behind. It might be argued that the concept can never take root in the tough soil of America’s employment-at-will workplace, but as more companies go global, human resources and other executives should at least become aware of the phenomenon in Europe. If you have employees in France, it will become hard to avoid. And unlike the sudden concern over stress, workplace bullying did not arise with the recession and will not subside with economic recovery.


The idea of workplace bullying began being discussed in Europe in the 1980s and was given academic heft when Heinz Leymann, a German psycho-sociologist of working conditions teaching in Sweden, published research in 1994 describing psychologically violent behaviors in the workplace, which he termed “mobbing.” The Council of Europe then took up the issue and defined workplace bullying as actions that are “unacceptable or explicitly hostile and offensive directed on a repeated basis against any employee at the workplace,” deemed an injury to an employee’s dignity under the European Employment Charter of May 3, 1996. Subsequently, several EU directives have outlawed “moral” or workplace bullying as a form of discrimination, especially in relations between men and women.


Legal recognition of workplace bullying began later in France than in the English-speaking and Nordic countries in Europe. The French term for bullying is harcèlement moral, and it became the subject of a debate in the media in the late 1990s and first entered the law books in 2002, but with an important Gallic twist: While European courts then defined workplace bullying in terms of discrimination, France perceived it as an injury to an employee’s mental health.


Subsequent legal actions and court decisions have fleshed out the concept. Under the current French Labor Code, workplace bullying consists of repeated actions—including indirect negative communications, denigration and slights, isolation, threats, abusive use of authority and contradictions—that “have as their purpose or effect” a deterioration or degradation of an employee’s working conditions that “could” violate their rights and dignity, alter their physical or mental health or compromise their professional future. As a practical matter, workplace bullying is defined by its consequences.


Three facts are required to prove workplace bullying in a French court: repeated acts, deterioration or degradation of working conditions and consequences for an employee’s rights, dignity, health or career. The Cour de cassation, France’s highest court, has decreed that employers are responsible for justifying alleged acts of bullying as legitimate.


Workplace bullying typically must be shown to take place in a series of actions over time, but there is one exception: a single act against a person for reasons of discrimination related to sex, religion, sexual orientation or age. France added this alternative in deference to EU directives against discrimination. The law dated May 27, 2008, expands the definition of discrimination to include any action involving a “discriminating motivation” that “has as its purpose or effect to injure or adversely affect the dignity or any person and create an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment.”


Aside from bullying motivated by discrimination, the case law is very clear that a repetitive pattern of actions must be shown. For instance, the French high court held in December 2009 that a demotion, even illegitimate, was an isolated action and therefore could not be characterized as workplace bullying. The analysis of the repetitive character is left to the discretion of the courts.


As an instructive example of French courts’ current thinking, consider the real case of a maintenance technician responsible for a mechanical workshop who charged his employer with workplace bullying. He had worked for 12 years without criticism until, in a space of six months, he received two letters informing him that his responsibilities were not being met in a normal manner. He then received a third letter confirming the second. The employer commenced a disciplinary procedure against him but never concluded it. Finally, the employee noticed a company ad that, according to the employee, was clearly seeking to recruit his replacement.


But the conduct that came in for review did not consist just of these actions but also of behavior by omission: refusing to speak to the employee in question, ignoring him and refusing to assign him work.


The Court of Appeal held that management had indeed engaged in a pattern of repetitive psychological violence constituting workplace bullying, and France’s highest court affirmed that ruling.


Such a broad definition presents obvious challenges to employers. If an employee does not perform as well as others, and the employer avoids giving him the difficult tasks, is that workplace bullying? Managers may avoid speaking to the employee, for fear that it will interpreted as unacceptable psychological violence.


In fact, the law does not require a showing that the person doing the harassing intended to downgrade the victim’s working conditions, according to high court, writing on November 10, 2009. All that is necessary is that the conduct have the effect of producing such deterioration or downgrading. Accordingly, merely inadvertent or clumsy actions may be characterized as workplace bullying.


Nor does the law even require proof of actual injury. It is enough that the series of actions be “likely” to injure an employee’s rights or dignity. And these “rights,” it should be pointed out, often relate to treatment of an employee who is already on the way out. For instance, employees have a right to a proper dismissal procedure and appropriate severance pay, rather than being forced to resign by constant pressure. Where “dignity” is concerned, the notion is vaguer, with each person arguing it on the basis of his or her own personal situation.


French law treats workplace bullying like other aspects of employee physical and mental health. Employers are responsible for it—not just for good-faith efforts or making resources available but in terms of results. The mental health of employees must not deteriorate at work, so employers are responsible for acts of workplace bullying, even though they may have taken steps to prevent or end them. Employees who are victims have a right to recover damages for their injury.


Although class actions are not an option for plaintiffs, France’s highest court recently ruled that a “perverse” management style can constitute workplace bullying, putting an end to disagreements among the lower courts. If several employees claim to be affected by such management methods, each one would have to go to court individually.


While Belgium, Sweden and England have also passed anti-bullying legislation, the concept is most widespread and legally developed in France. For better or worse, the world’s employers would do well to stay tuned.


Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on

Employers and the Prevention of Workplace Violence

It’s no coincidence that reports of workplace violence went up as the country’s economy sank. Indeed, as job seekers have multiplied and jobs have become scarce, the struggle for dwindling resources has become fierce and frustration is high.


During the first half of 2009, two workplace shooting rampages, at around the same time but on opposite sides of the country, resulted in the deaths of more than a dozen people and injuries and trauma to many more.


In late March 2009, a bus mechanic in San Diego shot one co-worker to death and injured another before police killed him. Less than two weeks later, in Binghamton, New York, a recently unemployed man took the lives of 12 people before shooting himself at the American Civic Association, an immigration services center.


In January 2010, an employee and one-time supervisor at the ABB Power factory in St. Louis killed three co-workers, injured five more and terrorized countless others before dying of an apparently self-inflicted wound. During this terrifying episode, some workers retreated to the factory roof, risking injury or death by exposure to freezing temperatures. Prior to this unexplained killing spree, the man’s only known source of dissatisfaction with the company was an alleged over-inflation of pension fees. And he had already taken this dispute to a legitimate venue as one of four named plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit.


And in February, police arrested a University of Alabama professor after she allegedly shot colleagues in a faculty meeting, killing three people and injuring three more. According to some media reports, she was upset about not receiving tenure.


Employers are entrusted with a duty to provide a safe work environment for their employees. This duty raises unique issues in places the public are invited to frequent, such as inns, restaurants or public transportation. An employer must watch not only the relationships among employees, but also their interaction with customers and patrons.


For every headline-grabbing workplace attack, hundreds more—less dramatic in scale—go unreported each year. Although employers are not responsible for unknowable risk, victims or their families can hold employers accountable for those that they should have anticipated. But what preventive actions can companies really take to address the unpredictable results of human emotion and interaction?


Threats derive from a complex number of sources that may trigger violence. These may include policies that some employees find objectionable, such as a bad performance review or constructively intended criticism; rivalry or disagreement between employees; failed or drama-filled romance with a co-worker; and stressful or discourteous interactions with customers (who may themselves be sources of violence). Most commonly, the violent act is undertaken by a terminated employee who becomes disgruntled and feels there is nothing to lose.


Prior to making any new hires, an employer would be wise to assess the risks and set up relevant policies that at least address the most common threats. This evaluation might begin with an assessment of the premises. Sometimes the most serious threat is external. Depending on the type of business they conduct, employees may routinely expect to handle contentious or emotionally distraught customers. Other workers, perhaps those who handle large cash transactions or valuable merchandise, may be targets of robbery.


Short of creating a high-security compound, employers can take some precautionary measures in these cases. Mitigating features can include alarm systems, security cameras or guards, an employee-controlled buzzer on the entrance door and even bulletproof glass.


Another approach that may be less obvious, yet is effective, is for employers to train employees on how to avert bad situations. For instance, employees have benefited from stress-reduction classes or lessons in tactics to diplomatically handle difficult people.


Sometimes the danger is an internal one. Every business runs the risk of problems with employees who simply don’t get along well with others. For the most part, employers conduct background checks that may spot prior bad behavior in the workplace. However, the past is only one indicator of potential problems in the future. It is at least as important to set clear ground rules and to institute ongoing monitoring for all employees and workplaces.


Employers must also be sensitive to clashing cultures and be prepared to educate employees on the values of cultural competence. Whether from varying ethnicities, belief systems, disability, age or other factors, employees must be taught that professionalism demands that they adjust to working together toward mutual goals of productivity. And, of course, discrimination in any form must not be tolerated. Similarly, employers may need to make some adjustments in their own style of communication to maintain mutual respect within an increasingly diverse workforce.


While “zero tolerance” is a phrase that’s often bandied about, everyone in the workplace should be clear from the start on exactly what behavior falls under such a policy. And, for any disciplinary action, maximum effectiveness requires consistency. For lesser offenses that are not clearly within the zero-tolerance policy, a step system of discipline could include a write-up in the employee’s file, suspension and possible termination.


In between, it may be necessary to mediate tension between employees who have ongoing clashes, such as by drawing up agreements for future behavior and scheduling progress updates. Employers would also be wise to document all reports and actions taken in response to a report or incident in order to create a paper trail to support further disciplinary actions or termination. It’s just as important to take allegations seriously as it is to fully investigate the matter and examine the accused’s version of events.


Despite best-laid plans, employers cannot consistently rely on employees to always do the right thing in reporting incidents and concerns. Employers must find space within busy workdays to check in with employees in order to detect problems early on. Sometimes just listening to employees and addressing their problems can alleviate stress that otherwise could result in uncontrollable harm.


Employers should never hesitate to call on the resources at their disposal. Lawyers, human resource professionals or management consultants can help in drawing up guidelines such as employee handbooks and policies to maintain a harmonious workforce. Ongoing monitoring and sensitive communication with employees is key.


And although it’s not a pleasant thought, it may be necessary to seek a restraining order against an ex-employee who continues to pose a problem or against a customer who has threatened employees. Don’t hesitate to summon the police at the onset of a volatile situation: better too early than too late.


Nobody knows how long a bad economy will contribute to workplace frustration and violence. By the same token, no one knows when a disgruntled employee will snap and visit violence upon a workplace. But with common sense and proactive measures, employers can know that they are helping to provide the safest workplaces possible for their employees and customers.


Workforce Management Online, March 2010 — Register Now!

Posted on

SFN Group Employee Confidence Index Dips

The SFN Group Inc. employee confidence index fell 1.2 points in February to a reading of 48.9. Workers were less confident in the strength of the economy and job availability, but were more optimistic about their job security.


“Although our report shows a decline in overall confidence from the previous month, it is still 6.2 points higher than the low point of 40.1 it registered at one year ago,” said SFN president and CEO Roy Krause.


In February, 23 percent of workers said they believed the economy was getting stronger, down five percentage points from January, according to the index’s survey. And 67 percent said they believed fewer jobs were available in February, up five percentage points from January.


However, 70 percent of workers said they were unlikely to lose their jobs in the next year, down 3 percentage points from January.


The index’s survey questioned 1,286 employed adults in the U.S.


Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on

Work-Site Clinics Gain Favor as Retail Sites Lag

Last fall in New York, as employers sought to inoculate workers against swine flu, employees of Bloomberg, Random House and Sony Corp. who were at risk could simply walk down the hall, roll their sleeves up and get a shot.

While these companies each had a medical clinic in the workplace, they also shared a common health clinic provider: Take Care Health Systems, a subsidiary of Deerfield, Illinois-based Walgreens.

According to records from the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, nearly 50 employer-based medical clinics received the swine flu vaccine from the city. Take Care operated at least 20 of those clinics at employers that included Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and the state-run Metro North Railroad.

The wide presence of Take Care’s clinics among employers in New York shows how Walgreens has aggressively tapped into the growing market for work-site medical clinics as part of its effort to rebrand itself as a health and wellness company. Analysts say the move makes sense.

Walgreens can steer employers to its mail-order pharmacy while patients can access its chain of 7,000 retail drugstores. More than 350 Walgreens stores contain a Take Care Health retail clinic that offers care for minor medical conditions such as earaches, sinus problems and the flu.

Walgreens further solidified its New York presence by acquiring the city’s largest drugstore chain in a $1.075 billion deal announced February 17. The deal will expand the network of pharmacies available to clients of Take Care clinics. There are 257 Duane Reade pharmacies in the city, compared with 70 Walgreens in the entire metropolitan area.

What is puzzling, says Tom Charland, CEO of Merchant Medicine, a research and consulting firm in Shoreview, Minnesota, is why Walgreens rival CVS Caremark has not followed Walgreens into the work-site medical clinic market.

“That has surprised some people in the financial analysis community given their large [pharmacy benefit manager] business, which caters to large self-insured employers,” Charland says of CVS Caremark, which merged in 2007. “It surprises me that there aren’t more MinuteClinics at work sites.”

After lagging behind its rival, CVS says it plans to change its approach to work-site wellness.

“We are committed to developing clinics in corporate settings and have some new sites we are working on,” wrote Andrew Sussman, president of MinuteClinic and senior vice president of CVS Caremark, in an e-mail. “Our main focus in the past has been on retail, but we are interested in corporate opportunities that are a good fit for our model of providing excellent, convenient and low-cost care. We also think these sites are an appropriate place for us to work with corporations on disease prevention and wellness.”

Several years ago, pharmacies embraced retail clinics over work-site clinics with the thinking that as more employers used high-deductible health plans, more employees would be interested in low-cost alternatives for basic health care such as flu shots.

That belief led pharmacies, in particular CVS and Walgreens, on an acquisition spree of retail-based health clinics at the expense of work-site clinics. CVS acquired MinuteClinic, the largest retail clinic, in 2006. Since being acquired, MinuteClinic has opened only three work-site-based clinics, including one at CVS headquarters in Woonsocket, Rhode Island.

Subsequently, supermarket chain Kroger Co. made a major investment in The Little Clinic. And Rediclinic, which began as a work-site clinic called Interfit and had AOL founder Steve Case as an investor, abandoned that approach for retail.

“Generally across the country, the work-site clinic is of more interest to employers [than retail clinics] as a way to bring costs down,” Charland says.

Retail clinics and work-site medical clinics are thought to be complementary, offering different services for different populations. Retail pharmacies are convenient for parents whose children are sick when doctors’ offices are closed.

But growth in retail clinics has stagnated. MinuteClinic closed 122 clinics last year, according to Charland, who tracks the industry. Wal-Mart, after cutting back, doubled its in-store clinics to 54 in the past year, though they are not owned or operated by the retail giant.

Walgreens, meanwhile, has been quick to focus on work-site clinics. In 2007, Walgreens bought Take Care Health Systems, then a retail-based clinic, and the next year acquired two of the largest work-site clinic companies in the country, CHD Meridian Healthcare and Whole Health Management.

Today, there are more than 375 Take Care Health clinics, though not all are branded as Take Care clinics, says company spokesman Gabriel Weissman.

“Both of those [acquisitions] were part of an overarching strategy to make an entrance into the health and wellness space,” Weissman says.

For now, Take Care remains the largest company in the fast-growing market for work-site medical clinics. The percentage of employers providing on-site health clinics increased tenfold from 1 percent in 2008 to 10 percent in 2009. Other providers include Charlotte, North Carolina-based HealthStat; Carehere in Brentwood, Tennessee; and clinics offered by some health plans.

Clinics make good business sense for diversified health care companies, says Brian Klepper, a health care analyst based in Atlantic Beach, Florida, and an advisor to WeCareTLC, an on-site clinic firm based in Lake Mary, Florida.

“Whoever owns primary care owns the rest of the continuum because you own the referral stream,” he says.

Clinics that own pharmacies or hospitals can translate this referral system into increased revenue. But Klepper says it can also present a conflict of interest. If an employer pays for each service provided, a clinic’s revenue comes at the cost of an employer. Klepper says clinics should simply charge their employer a management fee without marking up the cost of the services they provide.

Walgreens says it provides a $2 to $4 return on every dollar invested by an employer in a work-site clinic, though such numbers are not independently verified.

“The next evolution is going to be measuring the success of these things,” says Marne Bell, senior consultant in Atlanta with Towers Watson. “I think for the most part people have been very happy with their work-site clinics.”

Workforce Management Online, February 2010 — Subscribe!

Posted on

Employee Engagement Workers Want Feedback — Even if It’s Negative

employee engagement, managers

The best way to drive employee engagement is for managers to accentuate the positive in employee performance. The second best engagement approach is to focus performance discussions on employee weaknesses. Worst choice: Give no feedback at all.employee engagement

That is the synopsis of “The Relationship Between Engagement at Work and Organizational Outcomes,” by Gallup Inc. More than 1,000 U.S. employees were interviewed for the report. Gallup broke management styles into three categories, based on employee perceptions:

• Managers who focus mostly on employee strengths
• Managers who focus mostly on employee weaknesses
• Managers who focus on neither strengths nor weaknesses

Thirty-seven percent of employees say their bosses concentrate on strengths, while 11 percent say their managers focus solely on negative characteristics. Gallup says 25 percent of employees surveyed fall into an “ignored” category, in which their supervisors address neither strengths nor weaknesses. Twenty-seven percent of people did not express strong opinions about their managers either way.

The differing approaches reflect back varying levels of engagement. Sixty-one percent of employees in the “strengths” group report being engaged in their jobs. Still, 38 percent of those workers remain disengaged despite the positive feedback, perhaps because they believe the praise is not sincere, according to Gallup. About 1 percent of employees whose managers are focused on strengths are considered to be “actively disengaged,” meaning they may act out on their job frustration.

By contrast, engagement is considerably lower—just 45 percent—for employees whose managers focus primarily on negative characteristics. One-third of such workers are disengaged. Most alarming: 22 percent are deemed to be actively disengaged.

The worst engagement scores can be found in the “ignored” category, where only 2 percent of employees are highly engaged. Fifty-seven percent report being not engaged and 40 percent are actively disengaged.

So while emphasizing strengths gives the strongest boost to engagement, even negative feedback is better than no feedback at all, according to Gallup.

“We found that it is better for managers to dwell on some aspect of employee performance—even if it is a focus on negatives—than to avoid the matter altogether,” says Jim Harter, a Gallup research scientist and co-author of the report.

Harter says negative feedback “at least lets people know that they matter,” while neglecting them can be far worse.

Engagement—or lack of it—carries huge implications for how well companies achieve their business goals, especially amid recession, Harter says.

“The growth trajectory for companies with highly engaged workers, on average, looks really good when compared against their competitors. These types of companies are holding their own while their competitors are dropping off” on key variables, Harter says.

Organizations with high engagement scores exceed their peers in nine areas of business performance, including customer loyalty, profits, productivity, quality, turnover and absenteeism. For instance, organizations with the highest engagement scores in Gallup’s database have an 83 percent chance of achieving above-average business performance. By contrast, organizations at the lowest levels of engagement have a 17 percent chance.

The report is based on Gallup’s Q12 Index, which measures a dozen factors that are known to affect engagement.

Workforce Management, February 2010, p. 10-11 — Subscribe Now!

Posted on

Colorado Bill Would Limit Surveillance of Workers Comp Claimants


Legislation that would restrict video surveillance of employees who have filed a workers’ compensation claim by insurers and self-insured employers has been approved by a Colorado House committee.

Colorado’s House Judiciary Committee approved H.B. 10-1012, sponsored by Democratic state Rep. Sal Pace, on a 6-4 vote last week. The bill would prohibit insurers or employers from conducting surveillance of workers’ comp claimants unless they have “a reasonable basis to suspect that the employee has committed fraud or made a material misstatement concerning the claim.”

Claimants would be allowed to ask for an expedited hearing to learn why they are being investigated and individuals conducting the surveillance would be required to respond fully to questions.

The legislation, which now goes to the Colorado House Appropriations Committee, also sets up a $1,000-a-day penalty for violations. A similar bill is pending in the Colorado Senate.

Separately, Denver-based Pinnacol Assurance, a state-created workers’ comp insurer, said in a statement Tuesday, February 16, that it is prepared to give the state $200 million to remove it from state control and become a policyholder-owned workers’ comp insurer.



Filed by Roberto Ceniceros of Business Insurance, a sister publication of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.



Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers

Posted on

Labor Agency Cracks Down on Employee Misclassification

New federal legislation aimed at getting tough on independent contractor misclassification was introduced September 15 in Congress.


The Fair Playing Field Act of 2010 was introduced by Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, and Rep. Jim McDermott, D-Washington.


It aims to:

• End the moratorium on Internal Revenue Service guidance addressing worker classification.

• Requires the secretary of the Treasury to issue prospective guidance clarifying the employment status of workers for federal employment tax purposes.

• Requires those who use independent contractors to provide them with a written statement on their federal tax obligations, the labor and employment law protections that do not apply to them and their right to seek a determination from the IRS on their status.

• Raises penalties for misclassification.


“The legislation is timely, as misclassification is an increasing problem, one that puts employers who properly classify their workers at a disadvantage in the marketplace and costs the government billions of dollars in unpaid taxes,” Vice President Joe Biden said in a written statement.


A similar piece of legislation, the Employee Misclassification Prevention Act, was introduced in June.  


Filed by Staffing Industry Analysts, a sister company of Workforce Management. To comment, e-mail editors@workforce.com.


 


Stay informed and connected. Get human resources news and HR features via Workforce Management’s Twitter feed or RSS feeds for mobile devices and news readers.

Posted on

Creating Lasting Performance Improvement Through Behavior Change

In most companies there exists a training or learning organization. These organizations respond to perceived training needs by delivering training either by electronic means or through instructor-led sessions. Unfortunately in most circumstances, when the training event is over, the learning stops.


Even more unfortunately, the people involved in the training forget most of what they learned over the next 60 to 90 days if there is no reinforcement mechanism in place to ensure that the concepts are worked into the daily routine. This reality is unfortunately the case in the learning world today. Students are being taught very important and relevant skills that are critical to their success in the field. The courses go well, the material is well accepted by the students, and evaluations are positive. Then student and instructor part ways.


When we observe these same adult learners weeks or months later, participating in activities where they have the opportunity to demonstrate the skills that they “learned” only a short time ago, we find that they have not applied the skills from the learning that they were supposed to have gained. Regrettably, in the vast majority of the cases, few or none of the concepts that were imparted during the training intervention were being effectively used; the learners had simply gone back to the same practices with which they were comfortable prior to the training event.


Why did this happen so consistently? Well, because change is difficult, especially when we are talking about adult learners.


In the corporate world, learning can be seen as meaningless unless a change in behavior takes place. As organizations we invest resources in training in order to improve performance in some way—and for this to happen, behavior change must take place. So, how do we ensure our investments in training are resulting in real change?


In order to facilitate real and lasting behavior change and performance improvement in adult learners, the following five elements must be present.


1. Insight and intelligence into the person who is the target for the behavior change
 2. That person’s acknowledgement of the need to change 
3. Agreement to accept and work toward change
4. Skill- or knowledge-based learning interventions
5. Reinforcement of the learned concepts, and practice

1. Insight and intelligence into the person


The best training and reinforcement activities are designed to create behavior change, so it stands to reason that we first understand the individual.


If we simply take the approach that everyone needs everything with regard to skill training, then we will unnecessarily waste scarce resources and time that companies cannot afford, simply in an effort to put a check mark next to a group of employees.


This blanket approach to training is certainly prevalent today in businesses all over the world. However, training approaches are being increasingly scrutinized due to tight budgets and restrictions on travel, not to mention the fact that savvy executives are demanding more proof that their training dollars are being well spent—that is, that the training is resulting in performance improvement.


Consider the training of an athlete, such as professional golfer Phil Mickelson. If Mickelson begins to slice his tee shot, what would his coach do? Would the coach recommend that Mickelson change his approach, his stance, his grip, the way he swings the club and the club itself? Probably not.


The recommendation would most likely focus on one key area that is believed to be the cause of the slice—perhaps the way he is following through with his swing. The coach would likely study closely all the aspects of Mickelson’s approach, stance, grip and swing before making a recommendation for improvement. The training would be targeted and surely more effective than asking the golfer to make wholesale changes.


So rather than taking a blanket approach, companies should likewise seek to understand the individual before identifying the training and reinforcement intervention.


There are many ways to gather this information, including polling individuals as to their perceived needs (self-assessment); surveying the employee’s manager, peers and subordinates to identify potential areas for improvement (360- degree assessments); or using a behavioral or whole-person assessment tool.


Assessment tools give companies insight into where a given worker may need help or behavior change in order to improve performance. These tools can be very helpful in determining a person’s personality, behavioral traits, cognitive abilities, propensity to be honest and occupational interests, for example. There are numerous tools available to assess individuals. However, there are some pitfalls with certain assessments, and organizations need to be sure that the tool is both valid and reliable.


In order to be valid, an assessment must accurately measure the areas that it claims to be testing. For an assessment to be reliable, it must—when repeated—render the same or nearly the same result each time. This result is called the “reliability factor.” The Department of Labor reports that for an assessment to be a valid source of information about an individual, it should have a reliability score of 0.7 or greater (on a one-point scale) or it has “limited applicability.” Here is how the Department of Labor rates reliability scores for assessments:


• 0.9-1 = excellent


• 0.8-0.89 = good


• 0.7-0.79 = adequate


• Below 0.7 = limited applicability


So, assessments are useful and can shed light on areas for improvement within individual workers, but companies should take precautions as to which tool they choose and always check to be sure the tool’s vendor can supply them with the tests that were conducted that form the stated reliability rating for that tool.


Back to list

2. Acknowledgement of the need to change


Let’s continue with the golf analogy. If Mickelson does not acknowledge that he has a slice, or that the slice is a problem, chances are slim that he will work to change his game. A similar paradigm holds true for adult learners. If they do not believe they have a problem or are unwilling to admit that changing a behavior or improving in a skill area would be useful for them, they will not change.


Behavior change for adults is difficult. It has taken years for us to be shaped into the workers and people that we are, and in most cases we believe we are doing a fine job. However, when people truly reflect on their own strengths and weaknesses in a confidential, nonthreatening setting, they will most times identify areas where they would like to improve.


By combining this confidential and candid conversation with real insight and intelligence about the person, real progress toward behavior change and performance improvement can be made.


Back to list

3. Agreement to accept and work toward change


Once the worker has acknowledged that there are areas that she would like to improve upon, she must commit to taking the necessary steps to make this change real and lasting. Simply recognizing that an issue exists is not enough and is only the beginning. When this important acknowledgement step is reached, we can then gain agreement to take action in order to enact the desired change. If, for example, Mickelson fully acknowledges that he is slicing the ball, but is unwilling to put in the effort to change, change is unlikely to occur.


Gaining agreement and setting a plan is where companies should turn to a qualified external coach for help. Without such a resource, commitment reinforcement and direction are more difficult to achieve. A qualified and seasoned coach can help the person identify the action steps necessary, agree on timelines, gain commitment, provide feedback and assess progress. The coach should also be in place to brief the learner’s manager on the progress being made, which also helps to encourage the change and provide an additional feedback mechanism.


I personally have experience with both sides of this coin. I have been an internal company trainer and director and am an external provider of training and coaching now. Though it is certainly an option to offer this tailored approach with internal company resources, it can be less effective for a few reasons, most of which have to do with issues such as confidentiality, politics and trust. A qualified external coach or trainer can focus on the desired behavior change and performance improvement without raising fears in the individual or groups being coached that conversations will be looped back to management. In my experience, you can have much more frank discussions with employees when they trust that you will keep conversations confidential. This is not always realistic with an internal resource.


Back to list

4. Skill or knowledge-based learning interventions


After we have gained insight and intelligence into the person in need of change, obtained acknowledgement of the need for change and secured a commitment to change, we can design a set of learning interventions to enact the change we have agreed upon.


This set of training interventions should be designed specifically for the learner. This approach is very different from blanket training. It’s a waste of a worker’s time and company money to supply training that is general and typically “point to point,” meaning that it occurs at one point in time and then comes to an end, with no reinforcement or continued practice and feedback mechanisms in place to ensure lasting change occurs. Instead, it’s best to focus on exactly what the learner needs—no more and no less.


When designing the individualized training, schedule the set of learning interventions over time. This allows for deeper learning, and the learning is less likely to reach a point of diminishing returns due to issues of overload (the “fire-hose syndrome”) or attention span. As an example, Phil Mickelson’s slice coach would surely give him a set of instructions and expect him to practice this new approach over and over. This kind of change will certainly need to take place over time. This is true for the corporate learner as well. Stay away from one-time learning events and move toward a more holistic approach that puts time and repetition on the learner’s side.


Back to list

5. Reinforcement of the learned concepts and practice


Throughout the behavioral change process described to this point, there should be coaching and management interventions that are designed to provide reinforcement and feedback to the learner. These sessions help the learner stay focused on the agreed-upon change, the action plan or steps, and the implementation of the plan. Without a coach in place, the learner is unlikely to stick to the plan.


Many training organizations bow out after the training session is complete. Instructor and learner part ways, with the instructor left to hope that the members of the class retain at least one of the skills or concepts that were introduced. Real and lasting behavior change is unlikely to occur in this scenario.


What does bring about lasting change is practice, practice, practice. As Geoff Colvin points out so well in his book Talent Is Overrated, only practice enables people to improve. Furthermore, he points out that the practice must be deliberate and focused on the skill that the learner is intending to improve upon.


This is where coaching becomes critical. In order for the skills or concepts that were imparted to the learner during the training session to bring about real and lasting behavior change, they must be accompanied by reinforcement. Reinforcement must be driven by a coach and actively embraced by the individual. The coach should keep a timeline for actions, witness practice sessions, provide relevant feedback and report back to management on the progress that is realized. As such, good coaches should also be good trainers and understand the art of providing useful feedback. Feedback, when done properly, reinforces the practice and helps the learner understand where progress is being made and where continued work needs to be focused.


If Phil Mickelson’s coach simply instructs him in what to do and then departs without observing him implementing the suggested change, he may never know if Mickelson successfully implemented the change. Likewise, the coach must observe and provide feedback on an ongoing basis in order to ensure the change in the adult learner is successful and becomes permanent. This is a key component to behavior change in adult learners—just as it is for athletes in training.


When this five-step process is used, something impressive happens at both the individual and organizational levels. Learners reach a new level of satisfaction with themselves and their jobs when they experience real and lasting performance improvement through behavior change. As individual contribution increases, company performance rises, turnover drops and the bottom line improves. And it all happens one person at a time.


Back to list

Copyright © 2010 Peak Performance Business Consulting LLC, Colorado Springs, Colorado