The media is communicating that "our economy is coming back." At the same time there is still double-digit unemployment. The percent of growth of consumer buying (especially in the "back to school" season) was very low and was still growth.
As we invite others to collaborate and share value, we are challenged in choosing the most effective ways to build trust and openness with these people. This can be even more challenging for business leaders in that many do not want anyone else to be aware that they could use some outside help. (Actually, we all can--at least to gain more perspective and wisdom on the issues we are dealing with.)
Digital portfolios may be one way to build a bridge to communication. Two of these digital portfolios are available at the website the title is connected to. Even so, people need to go beyond the digital portfolios to begin to find the value that may be present in working with the professional offering the portfolios.
This is a topic for discussion. Blogs also serve as ways to get people more engaged with us and can lead to an increase of both openness and trust.
Let's see what's next.
Showing posts with label needs assessment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label needs assessment. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
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
