The media says that there are many current signs of economic progress, low inflation, more jobs being created, people spending, the DOW Jones moving to over 11,000. At the same time nation-wide unemployment remains at about 9.7%. (This is an artificial figure because it represents people actually claiming unemployment benefits. When people exhaust their benefits or, after a year or more of not finding jobs, apply for Social Security or take a lower-paying job, they drop off the rolls of the unemployed.)
Recently I have encountered many people hired to work on the Census 2010. Almost all of them are looking (and have been looking) for work and have been unable to find it. It is good that the census gives them a temporary ("intermittent") job--similar to a substitute teacher, working when there is work to be done.
Hans Christian Andersen created a story about The Emperor's New Clothes. A child looked at the emperor and said, ". . . but he isn't wearing anything." The "new economy" (and economics in general and the current economic recovery in particular) is a lot like "the emperor's new clothes." There is a lot of trust involved and everyone needs to see and believe in the same way for it to continue to operate.
There are a lot of reality checks that act like the child. The FDIC is anticipating more bank failures this year. Homes are still being foreclosed. Many people are looking for work to replace incomes they used to have when, for whatever reason, they were laid off. States are hurting for income because people haven't made enough money to pay what they used to pay in taxes.
Is this a pessimistic post? I believe in seeing the glass "half full" rather than "half empty." At the same time, if the glass is half full, it's important not to claim that the glass (or gas tank) entirely full and to expect to "go the distance" a full glass (or gas tank) would allow.
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Showing posts with label trust. Show all posts
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Learning and Change--Action Steps for Teams and Organizations
Teams and organizations are created for different purposes. In general, they have goals and intend to work together somehow to achieve these goals. This post is a continuation of yesterday's post on Learning and Change. There is a follow-up post focusing on individual learning and change.
Sometimes teams are more successful than at other times in achieving their goals. Over time meta-models have been created that help explain what is going on in the groups and teams that make some more successful that others.
The Team Tracking Tool (see slide 12) is reproduced below. Notice the "Do Not Enter" sign at the top. Many teams and organizations think they can go immediately from inputs to outputs without moving through the process steps required. Almost 100% of the time this spells disaster and the team or organization has to undo or redo everything--as well as recover the lost trust that failure promotes. Note the trust building elements of the tool. Blake and Mouton developed a Managerial Grid explaining the different focuses of people and production in teams. (A variation of that grid is reproduced below the Team Tracking Tool and a link to Blake and Mouton's model is also provided here.)
(Click on the picture to see it separately and completely.)
Blake and Mouton created a management grid to explain the relationship of people (maintenance) focus and production (task) focus. The grid is reproduced on Wikipedia.
(Click on the picture to view it separately and completely.)
Both task and maintenance functions are critical to the successful progress of teams and organizations. Over emphasis on one or the other delays the development of trust and the effectiveness of teams. In my early career in Change Management, I learned to make people my task--thus ensuring that both task and maintenance functions were completed. Trust is the bonding that allows teams to function well and is a critical maintenance function.
(Click on the picture to see it separately and completely.) (See slide 11.)
If trust is not allowed to develop, synergy--the energy that allows the output to be greater than what could be produced by the sum of its parts (people) will be missing. As new people are added to a team, group, or organization and as the vision changes, building blocks of trust need to be revisited to allow for the group energy to move freely to the next area.
Sometimes teams are more successful than at other times in achieving their goals. Over time meta-models have been created that help explain what is going on in the groups and teams that make some more successful that others.
The Team Tracking Tool (see slide 12) is reproduced below. Notice the "Do Not Enter" sign at the top. Many teams and organizations think they can go immediately from inputs to outputs without moving through the process steps required. Almost 100% of the time this spells disaster and the team or organization has to undo or redo everything--as well as recover the lost trust that failure promotes. Note the trust building elements of the tool. Blake and Mouton developed a Managerial Grid explaining the different focuses of people and production in teams. (A variation of that grid is reproduced below the Team Tracking Tool and a link to Blake and Mouton's model is also provided here.)
(Click on the picture to see it separately and completely.)
Blake and Mouton created a management grid to explain the relationship of people (maintenance) focus and production (task) focus. The grid is reproduced on Wikipedia.
(Click on the picture to view it separately and completely.)
(Click on the picture to see it separately and completely.) (See slide 11.)
If trust is not allowed to develop, synergy--the energy that allows the output to be greater than what could be produced by the sum of its parts (people) will be missing. As new people are added to a team, group, or organization and as the vision changes, building blocks of trust need to be revisited to allow for the group energy to move freely to the next area.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Organizational Culture, Comfort Zones, Support, Trust, Norms, and Change
Organizational culture contains norms of accepted behavior, comfort zones, and processes to find support and to develop trust. There is an Organizational Performance Change Curve (slide 9) that shows how organizations move through a process of change.
Some organizations have created habits of looking internally for support--a kind of "inside the box" thinking. As organizations grow and mature, some learn to look outside the box and outside the organization for appropriate support. It is difficult for people enmeshed in the culture of an organization to seek outside support unless it is endorsed and encouraged by the culture.
In many small to mid-sized entrepreneurial businesses, all employees turn to the business owner for support. This can create problems for the entrepreneur. He or she can get bogged down by the number of daily challenges and problems brought to him or her for decisions and advice. Instead of putting his or her energy toward the improvement of business processes and in growing the business, he or she is invested in putting out innumerable small-fire-problems brought by the employees.
Often the entrepreneur can seek outside support for the business owner, the business, and the employees. By finding a trusted advisor outside the business, he or she can suggest that employees take many of their small-fire-problems to the consultant who is not going to have his or her support for the business interrupted by dealing with the problems and the employees. When entrepreneurs can use these consultants more effectively, they can choose a few employees to be the "go-to" people within the organization and the outside consultant can coach those people to be effective in helping employees with small-fire-problems and in improving their own ability to make daily decisions and to put-out the "small-fires" themselves.
Some organizations have created habits of looking internally for support--a kind of "inside the box" thinking. As organizations grow and mature, some learn to look outside the box and outside the organization for appropriate support. It is difficult for people enmeshed in the culture of an organization to seek outside support unless it is endorsed and encouraged by the culture.
In many small to mid-sized entrepreneurial businesses, all employees turn to the business owner for support. This can create problems for the entrepreneur. He or she can get bogged down by the number of daily challenges and problems brought to him or her for decisions and advice. Instead of putting his or her energy toward the improvement of business processes and in growing the business, he or she is invested in putting out innumerable small-fire-problems brought by the employees.
Often the entrepreneur can seek outside support for the business owner, the business, and the employees. By finding a trusted advisor outside the business, he or she can suggest that employees take many of their small-fire-problems to the consultant who is not going to have his or her support for the business interrupted by dealing with the problems and the employees. When entrepreneurs can use these consultants more effectively, they can choose a few employees to be the "go-to" people within the organization and the outside consultant can coach those people to be effective in helping employees with small-fire-problems and in improving their own ability to make daily decisions and to put-out the "small-fires" themselves.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
Leveraging Trust and Making New Connections
Between 1993 and 1998 I worked at Andersen Consulting (now Accenture). In that time I met many wonderful people associated with "the firm." One of the things that impressed me was the hiring practice used by the firm. They always found top-quality people, most of whom were very trustworthy and had a terrific work ethic. (Of course everyone is human and we have to learn to trust everyone we work with and this firm got us off to a good start.)
In fact, many of the consultants at Andersen Consulting/Accenture ended up marrying each other. The "joke" was that HR (human resources) had already qualified the people and now they just had to fall in love. The other "truth" was that, as an Andersen Consulting/Accenture employee, both partners realized how much work and how many working hours were involved on the job. They had some shared experience to relate to.
Part of the time when I was working at Andersen Consulting Education (ACE) in St. Charles, IL (where Andersen Consulting and Arthur Andersen and Andersen Worldwide had their corporate training center--now called the Q-Center), I had a chance to work with many multinational consultants in the USA, in Europe, in Australia, and in Asia. I valued those contacts, though I have lost track of them in the years since I left the firm and went on to other consulting.
Now I need some trustworthy contacts in Europe and Asia. It occured to me that a very good place to start was with the LinkedIn alumni groups associated with Andersen Consulting/Accenture. What worked for the people getting married may work for me in terms of finding people I can work with on new ideas for Europe, the USA, and Asia.
I've posted a discussion starter in one of the alumni groups, so now I get to see who may be interested in at least discussing what I am looking for.
In fact, many of the consultants at Andersen Consulting/Accenture ended up marrying each other. The "joke" was that HR (human resources) had already qualified the people and now they just had to fall in love. The other "truth" was that, as an Andersen Consulting/Accenture employee, both partners realized how much work and how many working hours were involved on the job. They had some shared experience to relate to.
Part of the time when I was working at Andersen Consulting Education (ACE) in St. Charles, IL (where Andersen Consulting and Arthur Andersen and Andersen Worldwide had their corporate training center--now called the Q-Center), I had a chance to work with many multinational consultants in the USA, in Europe, in Australia, and in Asia. I valued those contacts, though I have lost track of them in the years since I left the firm and went on to other consulting.
Now I need some trustworthy contacts in Europe and Asia. It occured to me that a very good place to start was with the LinkedIn alumni groups associated with Andersen Consulting/Accenture. What worked for the people getting married may work for me in terms of finding people I can work with on new ideas for Europe, the USA, and Asia.
I've posted a discussion starter in one of the alumni groups, so now I get to see who may be interested in at least discussing what I am looking for.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Awareness-Acceptance-Action and Evidence for Action
In an earlier post I described the aspects of learning and change. There are three components that must be in place for change to take place at an individual or organizational level. These are: Awareness, Acceptance, and Action (view slides 8 and 9). In the last 24 hours I have had conversations in multiple contexts that show how these steps have to be personalized before action can be even considered.
Yesterday I wrote about the need for flu vaccinations early this year--the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have already approved the release and distribution of "regular, seasonal" flu vaccines that we usually see in October. Because we need three shots this year, the CDC is encouraging everyone to take the seasonal shot early. Several people I spoke with had not personalized that information. They had "lumped" the seasonal flu shot and the H1N1 (Swine flu) shot--not projected to be available until October or November--together and were avoiding thinking about any flu shots until later in the year.
Today I was having a conversation about the challenge that some association managers have in trusting in and personalizing information they may receive from research reports, news letters, and well known speakers regarding the needs of the members of their associations. At the same time few of these association managers actually ask questions of their members to take authentic input regarding unmet needs.
This reminds me, again, of some classic action learning concepts. Reg Revans, one of the founders of action learning, was a researcher in the United Kingdom and was involved in the follow-up to the sinking of the Titanic.
As I recall the history, he went to leaders of the different engineering groups who built the Titanic and received the same kind of message from several of the most distinguished engineers working on the project. (This is a paraphrase, of course.) "I thought that the "xyz" (pick an engineering problem) was a problem and then I realized that "Dr. ABC" (another leading expert in the field) was in charge of that department and I knew that what I was wondering about must have been handled by the experts. Enough of the "xyz" problems existed when the Titanic went to sea that it sank after colliding with an iceberg.
Association managers and everyone else make decisions every day--some of which are based on evidence and others on emotions or other factors. A major question remains, what evidence is required to be accepted and trusted on a personal level to allow a decision-maker to move through the phases of awareness (there is a need to change); acceptance (I must take--or approve--action to make a change); and action (actually moving through the learning and change and investment required to accomplish the change)?
The earlier post mentioned the concept of denial. What evidence of decay (lack of positive growth) or dis-ease is needed before a decision-maker recognizes that there is a new need to change. What used to work is no longer working. What do I (we) need to do now?
Sometimes membership groups need to ask questions of their members. At other times the information resources of newsletters, magazines, reviews, media, and informed speakers can provide the necessary information to allow the decision-maker to take action--even if the initial action is to ask questions of the membership. In fact, sometimes the act of asking questions actually informs the people being asked.
What evidence for change are you looking for? How will you recognize it when you see it? What will it take for you to move through the three phases--awareness-acceptance-action--and do something about it?
Yesterday I wrote about the need for flu vaccinations early this year--the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) have already approved the release and distribution of "regular, seasonal" flu vaccines that we usually see in October. Because we need three shots this year, the CDC is encouraging everyone to take the seasonal shot early. Several people I spoke with had not personalized that information. They had "lumped" the seasonal flu shot and the H1N1 (Swine flu) shot--not projected to be available until October or November--together and were avoiding thinking about any flu shots until later in the year.
Today I was having a conversation about the challenge that some association managers have in trusting in and personalizing information they may receive from research reports, news letters, and well known speakers regarding the needs of the members of their associations. At the same time few of these association managers actually ask questions of their members to take authentic input regarding unmet needs.
This reminds me, again, of some classic action learning concepts. Reg Revans, one of the founders of action learning, was a researcher in the United Kingdom and was involved in the follow-up to the sinking of the Titanic.
As I recall the history, he went to leaders of the different engineering groups who built the Titanic and received the same kind of message from several of the most distinguished engineers working on the project. (This is a paraphrase, of course.) "I thought that the "xyz" (pick an engineering problem) was a problem and then I realized that "Dr. ABC" (another leading expert in the field) was in charge of that department and I knew that what I was wondering about must have been handled by the experts. Enough of the "xyz" problems existed when the Titanic went to sea that it sank after colliding with an iceberg.
Association managers and everyone else make decisions every day--some of which are based on evidence and others on emotions or other factors. A major question remains, what evidence is required to be accepted and trusted on a personal level to allow a decision-maker to move through the phases of awareness (there is a need to change); acceptance (I must take--or approve--action to make a change); and action (actually moving through the learning and change and investment required to accomplish the change)?
The earlier post mentioned the concept of denial. What evidence of decay (lack of positive growth) or dis-ease is needed before a decision-maker recognizes that there is a new need to change. What used to work is no longer working. What do I (we) need to do now?
Sometimes membership groups need to ask questions of their members. At other times the information resources of newsletters, magazines, reviews, media, and informed speakers can provide the necessary information to allow the decision-maker to take action--even if the initial action is to ask questions of the membership. In fact, sometimes the act of asking questions actually informs the people being asked.
What evidence for change are you looking for? How will you recognize it when you see it? What will it take for you to move through the three phases--awareness-acceptance-action--and do something about it?
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Key Processes in Facilitating Change and Learning
In a conversation today about facilitating change and learning for an organization, I was reflecting on some key processes that I have found over the years to be especially helpful and wanted to use this post to keep them "top of mind" and to share them with others. The ideas came from multiple sources have have become a part of my organizational change toolkit that I bring with me when consulting, advising, or otherwise working on projects dealing with learning and change. (See the link at the title of this post and explore some of the stories on that website.)
1. "Begin with the End in Mind" (from Steven Covey's work)--what is the total process involved and what are the final results being produced? This can begin at a high level and may have to come down to a more detailed level when dealing with identifying changes that need to happen.
2. "What are the bottlenecks in the process?" (from Eli Goldratt's work)--What slows down or stops the process flow? What would happen "downstream" if the bottleneck were removed? Most organizations have multiple bottlenecks which are only discovered when one early in the process is removed and it slows down again at the next bottleneck.
3. "Is there a critical chain?" (from Eli Goldratt's work)--Do certain things have to be ready before other things? Does that happen? What can interfere? Do resources have to be mobilized or staged so that the process can pick-up what is needed when it is needed to carry on to the desired results?
4. "Follow the trail of the money" (from Jerry Maguire)--Where does the money come from? Where does it go? Where does the organization place its value--on customers, on suppliers, on employees? Where is the balance and/or the priority of the owners of the business?
5. "Are we trying to force solutions or to ask the right questions?" (from Action Learning)--Do we have a facilitator to help us keep on track asking the right questions? Do we have a group committed to following the action learning process to work through the process of changing the organization? Who composes the group? What questions are being asked?
6. "Do we know what we want or need to change and what we want or need to change to?"--(from Organizational Change literature)--How do we know that? Have we thought it through and tested our beliefs?
7. "Do we share a common vision of the change goal?" (from Jack Gibb's work with Trust)--(see http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/file/view/Meta-Learning+Models.PDF and look for the Meta-Model on "Trust Dimensions in Team Performance")--Everyone working for the change needs to move through some dimensions of trust and get to a shared (collaborative) vision for the change. Then the group can develop a strategy and then tactics for how to achieve the change. Learning will be part of the strategy and tactics to develop or achieve the vision.
8. "Have we moved through the states of 'awareness--acceptance--action' with regard to the goal?" (from http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/file/view/Meta-Learning+Models.PDF --see the "Personal Performance Change Curve" and the "Organizational Performance Change Curve")--Individuals and groups need to move through these stages to bring the change about. If a sufficient number of people have not progressed to the appropriate stage, the change will probably be rejected.
9. "What levels of trust and potentials for synergy exist with the change team?"-- (see the meta-models listed earlier in this blog)--Trust is, indeed, the glue that allows change to happen. If it is missing, the group has to work to re-establish it at a sufficiently high level to allow progress to the next step in the trust building and performance change processes.
10. "Are all stakeholders involved and invested?" -- (from organizational change literature)-- If a stakeholder has been missed or is not in agreement, the change can be blocked or sidetracked quickly.
11. "Is everyone communicating clearly with shared definitions of relevant ideas and terms?"--(from organizational change literature)--Regardless of languages spoken, are members of the team talking about the same things when they discuss the change--goal, strategies, tactics, results, learning.
1. "Begin with the End in Mind" (from Steven Covey's work)--what is the total process involved and what are the final results being produced? This can begin at a high level and may have to come down to a more detailed level when dealing with identifying changes that need to happen.
2. "What are the bottlenecks in the process?" (from Eli Goldratt's work)--What slows down or stops the process flow? What would happen "downstream" if the bottleneck were removed? Most organizations have multiple bottlenecks which are only discovered when one early in the process is removed and it slows down again at the next bottleneck.
3. "Is there a critical chain?" (from Eli Goldratt's work)--Do certain things have to be ready before other things? Does that happen? What can interfere? Do resources have to be mobilized or staged so that the process can pick-up what is needed when it is needed to carry on to the desired results?
4. "Follow the trail of the money" (from Jerry Maguire)--Where does the money come from? Where does it go? Where does the organization place its value--on customers, on suppliers, on employees? Where is the balance and/or the priority of the owners of the business?
5. "Are we trying to force solutions or to ask the right questions?" (from Action Learning)--Do we have a facilitator to help us keep on track asking the right questions? Do we have a group committed to following the action learning process to work through the process of changing the organization? Who composes the group? What questions are being asked?
6. "Do we know what we want or need to change and what we want or need to change to?"--(from Organizational Change literature)--How do we know that? Have we thought it through and tested our beliefs?
7. "Do we share a common vision of the change goal?" (from Jack Gibb's work with Trust)--(see http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/file/view/Meta-Learning+Models.PDF and look for the Meta-Model on "Trust Dimensions in Team Performance")--Everyone working for the change needs to move through some dimensions of trust and get to a shared (collaborative) vision for the change. Then the group can develop a strategy and then tactics for how to achieve the change. Learning will be part of the strategy and tactics to develop or achieve the vision.
8. "Have we moved through the states of 'awareness--acceptance--action' with regard to the goal?" (from http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/file/view/Meta-Learning+Models.PDF --see the "Personal Performance Change Curve" and the "Organizational Performance Change Curve")--Individuals and groups need to move through these stages to bring the change about. If a sufficient number of people have not progressed to the appropriate stage, the change will probably be rejected.
9. "What levels of trust and potentials for synergy exist with the change team?"-- (see the meta-models listed earlier in this blog)--Trust is, indeed, the glue that allows change to happen. If it is missing, the group has to work to re-establish it at a sufficiently high level to allow progress to the next step in the trust building and performance change processes.
10. "Are all stakeholders involved and invested?" -- (from organizational change literature)-- If a stakeholder has been missed or is not in agreement, the change can be blocked or sidetracked quickly.
11. "Is everyone communicating clearly with shared definitions of relevant ideas and terms?"--(from organizational change literature)--Regardless of languages spoken, are members of the team talking about the same things when they discuss the change--goal, strategies, tactics, results, learning.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Trust vs. "There's No Such Thing as a Free Lunch"
Trust forms the essential "glue" that allows synergy and innovation to take place between people--in business and personal relationships. Without it we have isolation and maintenance of the "status quo" (and, in a growing organizm, the beginning of decay and death.
For a graphic that will help explain this concept, go to the link tied to the title of this post and to
http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/meta-models and open the Learning Models.pdf file. Look for the "Trust Dimension in Team Performance" model.
People develop habits of trust and distrust--often with good reason. Just like learning to walk, we have to stand up and move (trust) one more time than we fall down (distrust). This is another case of common sense vs. common practice--see my earlier blog. Trust is absolutely essential for learning and change.
We are vulnerable when we learn. (Visit http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/meta-models and open the Learning Affect Model Collection.pdf file. Look for the "Shame Affect Decision" model. (Small copies of both of these models are also on this web site: http://www.joelmonty.net/innovations. )
Because we are vulnerable we become concerned about the people we may be learning from. The common practice warning has merit--"There is no such thing as a free lunch." In most cases, when something is "free" there are strings attached. This is not always something negative and it doesn't always cost money. On the other hand, in e-mails, I have often found that the strings attached to many "free" offers cost more than whatever was being offered.
When we become jaded and start from a position of distrust, we can have a negative impact on real possibilities for learning and change.
What was in it for me? Is it really "free?"
Recently I had started a project with a group of member associations with the goal of helping their members identify the learning needs of their workforces. I estimated the value of my contribution to this project to be in the neighborhood of $10,000 which I was offering for free to this group. Because I didn't know everyone who should be involved, I began by contacting people I knew were stakeholders and asked them to recommend others who should be included in the project. I would then contact the people I had been referred to and would mention who had suggested that I contact them about the project. To save lenghy e-mails, I provided copies of the e-mails on the web site used for the project and asked everyone to read the e-mails.
I never asked for money for my services in pulling the project together or for the expertise I was offering. The purpose of this project was to benefit their members and their community and to be a pilot project for my firm which could be duplicated in other places. I never intentially said that I was affiliated with anyone else on this project.
Everyone I contacted at the beginning of this project was interested in participating. The focus and goal seemed to be well timed and was of perceived value to everyone invited to participate. One or two people were away from their office and could not readily be contacted, yet they were included in all the correspondence so that they would not be missing out on anything when they returned.
About three weeks into the project, someone who had been away read part of the correspondence and decided that, in some correspondence, I had misrepresented him. While I had not done so, he made the assumption and proceeded to "poison the pool" of member associations and other stakeholders.
"My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Even though I cleared up his misconception and that of one of the stakeholders, the brakes were on. Instead of 10 organizations participating, two followed-through on our next meeting and we were left with half of the needed questions for the organizations.
While the project could still be completed and still add value, the early momentum and trust had been lost--merely by someone making a false assumption and acting on it.
The project is dormant at present. While it could be resurrected, at this point I can offer the same process to another group of stakeholders (remember, my free services for this project were valued at about $10,000) with as much ease as starting over with the previous group.
I appreciate the continued trust of the two professionals who continued to work on the project with me. The community and their members lose out on the opportunities for learning and changes that could have been uncovered by the project. Perhaps they will find the resources to do it on their own in the future.
Trust is worthwhile. It is important to start group work with trust and to bring questions into the open without acting on assumptions based on previous experiences. A lack of trust brings lots of consequences--including isolation and maintenance of the "status quo." Check out the graphic on the link connected to the title of this post. It is designed to tell a story without words. What does it tell you?
By the way, if you check out the http://drm-resources.wikispaces.com/projects page and know of another group who would like to work on a needs analysis, feel free to let me know.
For a graphic that will help explain this concept, go to the link tied to the title of this post and to
http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/meta-models and open the Learning Models.pdf file. Look for the "Trust Dimension in Team Performance" model.
People develop habits of trust and distrust--often with good reason. Just like learning to walk, we have to stand up and move (trust) one more time than we fall down (distrust). This is another case of common sense vs. common practice--see my earlier blog. Trust is absolutely essential for learning and change.
We are vulnerable when we learn. (Visit http://joelmonty.wikispaces.com/meta-models and open the Learning Affect Model Collection.pdf file. Look for the "Shame Affect Decision" model. (Small copies of both of these models are also on this web site: http://www.joelmonty.net/innovations. )
Because we are vulnerable we become concerned about the people we may be learning from. The common practice warning has merit--"There is no such thing as a free lunch." In most cases, when something is "free" there are strings attached. This is not always something negative and it doesn't always cost money. On the other hand, in e-mails, I have often found that the strings attached to many "free" offers cost more than whatever was being offered.
When we become jaded and start from a position of distrust, we can have a negative impact on real possibilities for learning and change.
What was in it for me? Is it really "free?"
Recently I had started a project with a group of member associations with the goal of helping their members identify the learning needs of their workforces. I estimated the value of my contribution to this project to be in the neighborhood of $10,000 which I was offering for free to this group. Because I didn't know everyone who should be involved, I began by contacting people I knew were stakeholders and asked them to recommend others who should be included in the project. I would then contact the people I had been referred to and would mention who had suggested that I contact them about the project. To save lenghy e-mails, I provided copies of the e-mails on the web site used for the project and asked everyone to read the e-mails.
I never asked for money for my services in pulling the project together or for the expertise I was offering. The purpose of this project was to benefit their members and their community and to be a pilot project for my firm which could be duplicated in other places. I never intentially said that I was affiliated with anyone else on this project.
Everyone I contacted at the beginning of this project was interested in participating. The focus and goal seemed to be well timed and was of perceived value to everyone invited to participate. One or two people were away from their office and could not readily be contacted, yet they were included in all the correspondence so that they would not be missing out on anything when they returned.
About three weeks into the project, someone who had been away read part of the correspondence and decided that, in some correspondence, I had misrepresented him. While I had not done so, he made the assumption and proceeded to "poison the pool" of member associations and other stakeholders.
"My mind's made up. Don't confuse me with the facts."
Even though I cleared up his misconception and that of one of the stakeholders, the brakes were on. Instead of 10 organizations participating, two followed-through on our next meeting and we were left with half of the needed questions for the organizations.
While the project could still be completed and still add value, the early momentum and trust had been lost--merely by someone making a false assumption and acting on it.
The project is dormant at present. While it could be resurrected, at this point I can offer the same process to another group of stakeholders (remember, my free services for this project were valued at about $10,000) with as much ease as starting over with the previous group.
I appreciate the continued trust of the two professionals who continued to work on the project with me. The community and their members lose out on the opportunities for learning and changes that could have been uncovered by the project. Perhaps they will find the resources to do it on their own in the future.
Trust is worthwhile. It is important to start group work with trust and to bring questions into the open without acting on assumptions based on previous experiences. A lack of trust brings lots of consequences--including isolation and maintenance of the "status quo." Check out the graphic on the link connected to the title of this post. It is designed to tell a story without words. What does it tell you?
By the way, if you check out the http://drm-resources.wikispaces.com/projects page and know of another group who would like to work on a needs analysis, feel free to let me know.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Workplace Training in a Challenged Economy--Community Needs Analysis
Many organizations cut their investment in workplace learning when their budgets shrink. This is especially hard when employees entering the workforce after high school may be reading several grades below grade-level.
Some organizations use technology to compensate for low employee skills--pictures on keys so that employees can enter orders in fast food restaurants, for example.
I've begun working this summer on some questionnaires to be used to explore current trends and needs in workforce training and continuing education--based on targeting geographic areas based on community college districts set by states. I have proposed a pilot project --see http://drm-resources.wikispaces.com/projects .
The idea is to work with local Chambers of Commerce and other stakeholders to gather a true "community needs assessment" that can then be shared with providers of training based on documented needs of employees and their employers.
The follow-up steps and who would be involved are in another stage of the process. Informal observation says that this is an idea coming at a good time. Who will pay for the needs assessment and/or the training--that is still something to be developed.
Some of the issues identified may well fall into the arena of public education and others into areas for community development. It is critical to realize that the responsibility for assisting the employees to have the needed skills are not exclusively the responsibility of any one stakeholder--the employee, the employer, government agencies, or private trainers.
I see a community needs assessment as having several phases--data collection will include surveys, then, based on the surveys, focus groups or (even better if people are committed to follow-up action, action-learning groups). This will allow the data to be organized and processed so that recommendations for action (including training, collaboration, mentoring, community college, K-12 education, etc.) can be proposed. There is a need for phases--and there is a tie-in with community development and economic development departments in city and county governments--and even states.
In my work with organizations, I talk about three components that are required for change--Awareness, Acceptance, and Action. The Community Needs Assessment is part of the awareness component--acceptance is often a problem--people are "in denial" about reading levels. Recent research I have been doing and reading about confirms Jean's comment about high school graduates reading at a 3rd to 6th grade level in English. Because newer jobs will require more understanding on the part of many workers--even at entry level--we need more self-develop opportunities for high school graduates so that they can bring their own reading abilities up to a level that will allow them to contribute more in the workplace.
I have observed clearly--since 2000--that human resource development (a more generic term for training and professional development) takes a hit when the economy slows. Many companies regard this as a luxury. Others try to out-source areas of competence that they do not have--and do not want to build or pay for--in house. I have also observed that some organizations and leaders have habits of mistrust that can slow or stop efforts to collect information that could lead to positive change.
Trust is a significant factor required from the onset--even to do an accurate, reality-based community needs analysis. That issue has been seen to scrap many good projects and ideas in their infancy.
In the limited work I have had with MBA classes I have not seen a clear focus on building trust--it's critical for success and is hard to measure. Often people make decisions regarding cash flow that have little to do with human-to-human trust and more to do with trusting the balance sheet.
Dialogue is part of building awareness. Change is more possible when organizations accept that they need to change and what they need to change to. Action comes after acceptance when the change is planned and well organized.
Another road-block to organizational change and learning is when executive decisions are made to "scrap the project" or to change directions mid-stream--making everyone think that the training is "just another fad." This ties to my blog post on Organizational DNA.
Some organizations use technology to compensate for low employee skills--pictures on keys so that employees can enter orders in fast food restaurants, for example.
I've begun working this summer on some questionnaires to be used to explore current trends and needs in workforce training and continuing education--based on targeting geographic areas based on community college districts set by states. I have proposed a pilot project --see http://drm-resources.wikispaces.com/projects .
The idea is to work with local Chambers of Commerce and other stakeholders to gather a true "community needs assessment" that can then be shared with providers of training based on documented needs of employees and their employers.
The follow-up steps and who would be involved are in another stage of the process. Informal observation says that this is an idea coming at a good time. Who will pay for the needs assessment and/or the training--that is still something to be developed.
Some of the issues identified may well fall into the arena of public education and others into areas for community development. It is critical to realize that the responsibility for assisting the employees to have the needed skills are not exclusively the responsibility of any one stakeholder--the employee, the employer, government agencies, or private trainers.
I see a community needs assessment as having several phases--data collection will include surveys, then, based on the surveys, focus groups or (even better if people are committed to follow-up action, action-learning groups). This will allow the data to be organized and processed so that recommendations for action (including training, collaboration, mentoring, community college, K-12 education, etc.) can be proposed. There is a need for phases--and there is a tie-in with community development and economic development departments in city and county governments--and even states.
In my work with organizations, I talk about three components that are required for change--Awareness, Acceptance, and Action. The Community Needs Assessment is part of the awareness component--acceptance is often a problem--people are "in denial" about reading levels. Recent research I have been doing and reading about confirms Jean's comment about high school graduates reading at a 3rd to 6th grade level in English. Because newer jobs will require more understanding on the part of many workers--even at entry level--we need more self-develop opportunities for high school graduates so that they can bring their own reading abilities up to a level that will allow them to contribute more in the workplace.
I have observed clearly--since 2000--that human resource development (a more generic term for training and professional development) takes a hit when the economy slows. Many companies regard this as a luxury. Others try to out-source areas of competence that they do not have--and do not want to build or pay for--in house. I have also observed that some organizations and leaders have habits of mistrust that can slow or stop efforts to collect information that could lead to positive change.
Trust is a significant factor required from the onset--even to do an accurate, reality-based community needs analysis. That issue has been seen to scrap many good projects and ideas in their infancy.
In the limited work I have had with MBA classes I have not seen a clear focus on building trust--it's critical for success and is hard to measure. Often people make decisions regarding cash flow that have little to do with human-to-human trust and more to do with trusting the balance sheet.
Dialogue is part of building awareness. Change is more possible when organizations accept that they need to change and what they need to change to. Action comes after acceptance when the change is planned and well organized.
Another road-block to organizational change and learning is when executive decisions are made to "scrap the project" or to change directions mid-stream--making everyone think that the training is "just another fad." This ties to my blog post on Organizational DNA.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
