Hey, here’s a brilliantly stupid idea:
Let’s put children in charge of their own meals. What we can do is issue surveys after every meal and ask for their agreement to the following five statements on a 5-point scale:
- This meal seemed nutritious.
- The chef appeared to know what s/he was doing.
- I feel full.
- I feel energized and ready to tackle my next activity.
- I would recommend this meal to a friend.
Then we could score each meal, and serve the highest scoring ones.
Until our kids are eating nothing but donuts.
Then, when kids complain that they have no energy and feel like a bunch of fat crapbags, we food strategists can wring our hands, crying, “But the feedback on donuts was great… and those vegetables scored horribly on the smile sheets… Oh, what to do!”
Now make these subsitutions:
employees for kids
training managers for food strategists
development programs for donuts
quality training for vegetables
You know what you get? You get corporate America’s standard operating procedure for designing training programs, that’s what you get.
Sure, I know many smart individuals who design training programs. But the group’s collective failure to stand up for what they know is right has created a mess where each individual thinks s/he is a Howard Roark-like oasis of goodness.
(Ahem.)
By they way, here’s what’s right:
- Development programs that result in actual performance improvements are right. Smile sheets, as used, are jokes. Sure, I prefer food that tastes good, but you know what I prefer even more? Stuff that makes me healthy. I get it that a spoonful of sugar really does make the medicine go down, but let’s not kid ourselves: taste should be a separate measure we take after we’ve measured the impact of the food… it should never be used as a proxy for the impact of the food. Not that you’ve ever assessed the impact of an entire training program based on smile sheet feedback… I hope?
- Building programs that people need as opposed to what they want is right. “Our managers say they don’t want this.” And? That’s your cue to push back. To say, “So let me understand… the business issue you’re trying to solve is…?” Your managers are not experts in soft-skills, they are experts in their jobs. They are going to tell you about a presenting problem that may or may not be a root cause. Use the data, your observations, and your professional judgment to steer them to the proper course of action. They make speak in absolute terms, but you’re the expert. Stand your ground.
- Training that puts managers at every level in the same room together is right. You know the difference between executive training and manager training? Nothing. That’s why muckity-mucks like having their own programs—to hide that fact. And if they balk at sitting with their underlings? Call their bluff. A strong executive should jump at the chance to spend a day with subordinates where s/he can see them in action. By the way, mixing your people up is the cheapest and easiest way to figure out who your high potentials, because they will tend to congregate together, irrespective of titles.
Expect people to push back on you. Don’t complain, don’t cry, and don’t give up on feeding them the vegetables you know they need. Grow a spine and make the case for what you know is right.
Think you can swing that?
Or should I order you a dozen chocolate glazed?
Jason Seiden is CEO of Ajax Workforce Marketing. Ajax amplifies brands by aligning employees' online messaging.
I'm Jason. I run a brand agency with a specialization in workforce marketing.
{ 2 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Yeah! Underscore 10Xs “grow a spine!” and “use the data, your observations, and your professional judgment to steer them to the proper course of action”! And I would add “less is more” – 3 day sessions are NOT a given and ongoing and systemic “performance support” is more powerful than smiley sheets and feel good training moments.
Based on my experience, I disagree with “You know the difference between executive training and manager training? Nothing.” The muckity-mucks insist that, since they make more money and have more profound ADHD than their lowly front line management, they receive an executive overview session that crams in the same content in 1/10th the time. Other than that, dead on. Sadly.
As with so much else, preparation and presentation are crucial factors. Even the pickiest kids will eat all kinds of veggies if you invest some imagination and skill in how they appear on the plate, and on how you package the experience (i.e., “broccoli” = yuck, “little trees” = yummy!). Season judiciously, serve with a tasty sauce, and you’re good to go.
On the other hand, if you’re spooning up bland, pre-packaged, gray/green mush from the steam tables, then even your hardcore vegans will resist — and rightly so. It takes more than insistence on nutritional content to get buy-in; you need to make the menu appetizing, and you need to deliver on the promise. That means fresh local ingredients cooked to order whenever possible, a willingness to try new techniques, and a passion for mastering the craft. All easier said than done. And you get what you pay for, to some extent (e.g., Velveeta vs. artisanal cheddar).
Level 1 smile sheets can be useful — but only to the training/presentation team, to refine their prezo chops and hone their skills in formatting materials. Level 2 (knowledge transfer) and level 3 (behavior change) are readily measurable if you’ve designed good course objectives, but level 4 (business results) can be tough to pin down in every context except sales.
@DebExo—You’re dead on. Filling every minute is good for the presenter, not the learner. Even immersion programs need ample “dead time” for participants to absorb the message!
@Scott—touche. Exec MBA programs are run the same way: same info, in digest format, at twice the cost, in half the time.
@Ken—So true on all accounts. Still, there are times when the message won’t—or can’t—be sugar coated… plus, I have my doubts that people actually use Kirkpatrick feedback levels as intended.
A starting point: we need to measure training managers and executives using the same criteria. If both are measured based on whether the problem is resolved (or more realistically, improved) and performance changes, we can get HR and management on the same page, working collaboratively to implement the appropriate solution that targets the root cause (which is not always training). While it’s not always possible to implement all 4 levels of Kirkpatrick, we can certainly move beyond smiley sheets.
Too many leadership training programs assume the participants have the same level of “motivation” and “skill” to be effective leaders. This is a big mistake, particularly when you consider how some leaders chose to sit in the Big Chair because that was where the bigger paycheck was located.
For example, “high-skill low-will” leaders have a different set of training and coaching needs from “high-skill high will” leaders. Delivery of training programs should reflect these differences…
song currently stuck in my head: “calling” – kenny garrett
@Susan—I wonder what would happen if we gave up the ghost on measurement altogether? There’s no good way to measure education, yet how many people would opt to NOT send their kids to college? (No, I’m not buying that grades measure education… grades measure a narrow sliver of intelligence, and are not standard across institutions or profs… and are a poor proxy for effectiveness later in life.) Maybe we should put education in a category with things like trust, love, and respect… critical yet immeasurable?
@Kambui—As part of my training programs, I often do a “Skill & Will Assessment” for exactly that reason. The challenge is, can you imagine a room full of “low will” execs? Would you train them? Or fire the lot of them?
Useful information. Lucky me I discovered your site by
chance, and I’m stunned why this coincidence did not happened earlier! I bookmarked it.