Picture: The Company
“P”icture: Look at the big picture; the context; the overarching objectives; the who’s who in the company, trainer, learner triumvirate
When you look at your organization, what do you see? Do you see a culture where the leaders not only talk high principles but also live them? Do you see people who make noises about their teams needing certain skill sets and leadership philosophies not drinking from the same cup? In short, do you see an organization that walks the talk? Having and demonstrating a learning culture means that organizational leaders walk the talk, clearly value their people, and demonstrate this through investing in them, and consequently in the future success of the organization.
Knowing the history of the organization is important also. Where the organization has come from and understanding the challenges that it has faced and overcome will help you to develop an appreciation for the culture that exists today. Are the company’s mission, vision, and values congruent with where the organization has been, where it is, and where it wants to go? As a developer of training, being clear about the organization’s raison d’être will be a key component of any program. The company’s cultural milieu should be integral to every training initiative developed internally (and should be customized into any external or off-the-shelf initiatives brought inside).
If these key pieces (mission, vision, values) are not readily apparent, or even if they are, being clear about who’s who in the organization is also necessary. Reviewing the org-chart will help any developer to identify the structure and resources available, and if necessary, to develop a picture of any constraints that you may be working with.
KISS your PARTNER
Ok, I’ll admit that it’s a little cheesy for a title to a posting, but it really does say something very fundamental: when implementing a training program of any sort, a model like PARTNER is meant to keep the process simple and easy to manage. So Keep it Simple, Silly (I don’t really want to call anyone stupid, so I’ve substituted the more politically acceptable term Silly).
Experiencing success in the application of a training program is wonderful, but can that success be easily duplicated? Is the program easily transferrable? Can other learners benefit from the hard work that went into designing the program, and can other trainers benefit from being able to easily deliver on that work? PARTNER isn’t a magic bullet, it’s simply a process to help ensure that the development, delivery, follow-up, and evaluation of a training program has a good chance of success by applying a simple, easy to follow process to create programs that are easily duplicated and easily transferrable.
Training’s PARTNERship model
Douglas Conant, President and CEO of the Campbell Soup Company, said, “you can’t win in the marketplace unless you are first winning in the workplace,” (2007). And that means doing the right things, right. And when it comes to training programs, doing things right means using a model to ensure that what needs to get done, gets done.
So what will a model do for you? First, and most important, it will set you up for success. By providing you with a checklist that you follow, a model helps to ensure that all the time and effort put into building your training program results in a positive return on investment. Now be aware that a positive return on investment can be measured many different ways, but knowing how you are going to measure your results before you begin developing you program will help to ensure that as you build, you always know what your objectives are, both for learners and for the organization. There’s nothing more unfortunate that having to justify training programs after they have been delivered by searching to find any redeeming outcomes.
This is of course where I want to introduce the PARTNER model; a plan to be used when developing training programs that deliver results because the results to be delivered are known before the program begins. PARTNER is an acronym that breaks down as follows:
“P”icture
Look at the big picture; the context; the overarching objectives; the who’s who in the company, trainer, learner triumvirate
“A”nalysis
Just what are the needs and wants of the different stakeholders? Identify the gaps and prepare to address them
“R”eady
Define your objectives and write them down; design your program(s); prepare for an effective delivery through facilitator preparation (e.g. train-the-trainer initiatives)
“T”rain
Deliver the training; know the context and required delivery method (classroom, e-learning, experiential, on-the-job, mentorship, coaching, etc.); always consider the needs of the learner
“N”urture
Coach the application of learning; have a before, during, and after training learner plan; use different tools as applicable and appropriate (e.g. learner contracts)
“E”valuate
Know you objectives before you begin; understand what ROI is and why it is the cornerstone of your entire training program; use a proven evaluation model and work it to fit your needs (e.g. Kirkpatrick, Phillips)
“R”evisit
It’s not over until it’s over; measuring success means using all of the feedback generated from all the stakeholders to further refine and modify your program as required; engrain the concept of learning as vital to the work culture
Future posts will look at each component of the PARTNERship model in more detail.
The Medium Really is the Message
Marshall McLuhan coined the phrase, “the medium is the message.” It’s as applicable in its original context (media) as it is in others, namely how we choose to communicate important events or concepts to others.
In the world of training and development, the kind of support offered to learners within an organization is frequently as important, if not more, that the actual training that is offered. And how that support is communicated will determine how learners will perceive it. Do it in an offhanded way and you can expect offhanded results; read: little to none. Do it in a respectful way intended to connect with the learner, and place value on the experience and outcome, and you can expect a much greater shot at success. In today’s world of scarce resources, every dollar invested in training must yield results at least equal, but preferably greater, than the dollars invested. Taking every opportunity to ensure that communication is effective and precise will ensure that outcomes are not skewed, and that results are quantifiable, accurate, and most definitely yield a positive return on investment. It’s more than just offering a course to your staff, it’s providing valuable learning opportunities, communicating effectively, and together, having the learner and the organization, benefit from the outcome.
What does organizational trust have to do with training?
Trust; it’s easy to lose, and once lost, difficult to regain. Credibility is much like trust, you work hard to gain it and maintain it, but if you do something to lose it, it can be very difficult to get it back. So how do trust and credibility relate to training initiatives in the corporate world? Offering the latest and greatest training fad program may be wonderful for morale … for a while, but once the luster has worn off, and the support provided by the organization begins to wane, learners begin asking questions. If the organization isn’t committed to following through with training by implementing changes internally that reflect the principles being trained, then trust can fall by the wayside. If you begin to hear phrases like, “we did that course last year … see, there’s the binder on my shelf”, you can be rest assured that trust and credibility may be an issue in the organization.
So how do you overcome this easy to fall into trap of allowing people to take training programs, fill their shelves with binders, and point to them as if they were hunting trophies? Well, if an organization is contemplating a training program, it comes down to walking the talk. And that may mean training from the top down, not the bottom up as is frequently the case with many organizations. If you can picture an organization that follows the bottom up training philosophy, you may well be looking at an organization that’s struggles with internal trust and credibility issues.
“This is the training that we need” ~ The Boss
Let me paint a scenario that is unfortunately all too familiar in organizations around the world. The department lead or organizational “boss” sits you down and pontificates about what he or she believes the organization needs. You hear statements like, “we need to do this … or that”, and you are expected to politely nod or contribute to the conversation by agreeing and expanding on the points mentioned. Frequently this type of unfocused meandering leads to the conclusion that certain training interventions should to take place. For example, the conversation might lead to the conclusion that all front line managers require a time management training session because they seem to be having such a difficult time handling all of their work and completing assignments when required. So the decision is made to arrange for a time management course to be delivered to all front line managers.
When the course is completed and all those front line managers that were told they had to attend return to work, the “boss” can’t understand why the training intervention was so ineffective. Additionally, he or she can’t understand why the management team seems to have resented the opportunity to improve their time management skills so they could better handle the demands of their job in a more efficient manner and actually be able to get more done in less time.
I’m not suggesting that time management shouldn’t have been considered, but did anyone actually consider talking with the front line managers? How about stepping back and critically looking at the situation by examining work flow and work load issues and how they play out across the organization? The statement “can’t see the forest for the trees” is one way to explain this apparent disconnect. A true organizational leader must be willing to let some control go before getting caught up in thinking that he or she knows what’s best for “my people”.
Value. Really?
Perceptions of value received from training programs are viewed differently by the different parties involved: learner, instructor, and organization. Whereas a learner may feel that exceptional value was received for the time invested, the instructor or organization may not agree. The question to ask is “what is value?” Was the learner entertained? Did the learner come away with new skills? Just how does the learner measure value?
How about the instructor? How does he or she measure value? Certainly a good smiley sheet goes a long way to potentially stroking the ego of the instructor, even if it only focuses on the surface elements of the delivery. But what about the more foundational elements of learning? Was a connection made? Did the instructor successfully deliver on the promised objectives? Did the learner “get it”?
And what of the organization? How do they measure value? Is it all about the money spent or is it about resources invested? What will the learners be taking back to the job?
Clearly all three parties at this dance we call training have different expectations and perceptions of value. So how do we align all of the expectations? How do we ensure that all parties achieve the results that they are looking for?
I know, I know, yet more questions being asked. And I’ll be asking a lot more. Please feel free to offer your own insight. Training is more than plopping people in a classroom, teaching them something, sending them back to work, and then congratulating all parties involved for a successful event. When I hear about training sessions where the learners couldn’t wait to leave so they could “beat the traffic”, it’s clear that something in the process has not connected. Our task is to identify those issues and explore ways to facilitate making those connections.
Attitudes toward learning
The value that an organization places on learning external to the workplace environment, typically reflects on the value placed on training options internal to the organization. Are employees encouraged to pursue learning or training opportunities through external sources? For example, is there a tuition reimbursement program that reimburses employees for a part if not all of tuition costs incurred when registering for and successfully completing night courses or certificate programs? Or does management frequently parrot the phrase that “that’s all fine and dandy, but life experience is what counts”? If training inside an organization is to be valued, employee professional development external to the organization must also be valued. One should necessarily encourage the other. Creating a well trained workforce, regardless of where that training was obtained, can only help to drive those things that are desirable in any organization: morale, profitability, flexibility, loyalty, etc.
Consider organizations that don’t value learning, either internally or externally. What does your anecdotal view of these types of organizations reveal to you? If you see inflexible, stagnant, uncaring organizations, you are probably correct. Now to be fair, not all organizations have the resources necessary to invest in learning initiatives on a large scale, but a healthy attitude toward learning and development doesn’t have to come with a monetary cost, and there are numerous creative ways that organizations can capitalize on their current store of value. Working closely with their own employees organizations can create opportunities for sharing and growth that will play out in creating a positive learning attitude.
Training gone bad
Misaligned learning objectives are frequently one of the key factors in company learning programs not being successful. Questions to ask include, “were the objectives miscommunicated?”, “was the wrong ‘course’ delivered?”, “did the learners tell you what they felt they needed?” And the list should go on. Frequently what the learner and what the facilitator, (or organization) intend to have happen are two different things. This can easily be the case if the needs of the learner are overlooked because someone in the organization felt that “what they need to learn is …”, and off they go to ensure that their vision of what’s required is what is indeed delivered.
Is there a way around this common problem? Of course there is. Listen to and match up the needs of learners with the needs of the organization. Ensure that there is congruence and a genuine desire on the part of both the organization and the learner to accomplish a clearly defined objective. Ok, I hear you asking, just how are you supposed to do that? Well, that discussion and many like it will be the focus of the PARTNER program. Shall we continue?
