"This movie - Rise of the Planet of the Apes, through it's engagement with creatures emotions via the very clever replication of eye contact has the ability to impact the psyche of the human race and encourage a change for the better"

Grant Crossley, founder Total Executive

Are your leaders connecting with the inner desires of your staff - a willingness to connect with our environment, community and nature...

How are your leaders engaging staff?

Are they communicating sincerely - looking them straight in the eye?

Are they still tied up with the antiquated historic style of management - ruling by Carrot and Stick?

So your staff always need to watch their back...

Do your leaders leave staff distant?

Wanting to start an Uprising?

Or, do your leaders engage with compassion...

Encouraging engaging conversation...

Building an environment of collaboration

Is your business encouraging engagement with community, staff and our environment as is an underlying theme for Rise of the Planet of the Apes?

Think about how your leaders are engaging with staff? Do they need a helping hand?

If so, Contact Us to discuss Responsible Leadership

And make sure you check out this Movie of The Year:

http://www.apeswillrise.com/

All images above sourced from http://www.imdb.com

Competitive advantage through people has always been a goal of modern leadership and becomes more critical as product and price differentiation narrow.  Traditionally, the role of creating more skilful and focused people has been given to HR and training.

Research tells us that classroom training (whether it be real or virtual) is only appropriate for 15% of development needs  (Rummler 1995).  Not only does this cause concern about the use and abuse of training events, it also raises the tantalising question of what is appropriate if training is not?

The broad answer is workplace rather than classroom development.  To explore this more closely, the researchers seem to indicate that regular interaction, rather than one off events, leads to enhanced skills and increased performance.

The diagramme above has been created as a result of applying a range of performance improvement techniques to varying organisations over a 20-year period (www.prosell.com).  It indicates that with a “clean sheet of paper” (i.e. no preconceptions or bad habits, as with new starters or new roles), people can more easily accept, in a training environment, that specific skills and approaches are correct and need to be mastered.

With individuals that already have a perception of what is right and wrong and in some cases extremely entrenched opinions, a different approach needs to be used.  Not only do we need to explain why new skills are needed, we also need to sensitively reassure people that they and their (old) skills are not redundant, but need to be adapted and updated.  If we are attempting to change behaviour, as opposed to initiating it, coaching is shown to be a more effective tool.

In order to develop further the rationale for this model and the positioning of coaching, we need to be familiar with the relationship between management intervention and performance/behaviour change.

The US organisation Technikron conducted research into the level of intervention needed to drive behavioural change.  (Technikron work with performance measurement and feedback systems in contact centres.  The research was conducted in 1997.)

They concluded that to change behaviour the manager needed to interact with the individual, on average, 2-3 times a week.  This raises serious concerns about the effectiveness of more traditional performance management tools, such as annual appraisal and performance reviews (Appraisals – A Good Investment?  Prosell Research, 1993).

Whereas we accept that most good managers talk to their people more often than just at appraisal time, our experience tells us that this is not a series of regular interactions which are carefully planned to reinforce changes in behaviour and provide input (coaching), when needed.

Coaching also has greater impact in terms of immediacy of resolution and as such, should be a primary development tool.

Danger of re-training 

There seems to be growing evidence that organisations accept that people will go through the same training (level and subject matter) at regular intervals (apart from compliance training).  This implies a number of unhealthy traits within the organisation:

• there is no consequence for not applying skills in the workplace; and

Once this becomes accepted practice it also has an impact on the quality of training delivered.  If people are not measured in their application of what they have learnt, then the training does not need to ensure comprehension, let alone competence.

The other major implication is centred on who is nominated for training in the first place.  Research suggests that the primary reason for training is performance discrepancy or skill weakness.  Those with skill weaknesses or areas for obvious development are not those who implement training well and willingly in the workplace.  There is clear evidence that, “those who need it most use it least” (Dettaman and Steinberg, 1993).

Questions must therefore, be raised about both the economics of re-training and the validity of the practice.

The Skill Development model and its implications

The model opposite shows that individuals go through three stages when acquiring skills.  Typically, the first and last stages, those of awareness and application, are workplace activities and in the main, management responsibilities.

The two figures on the left hand side of the model above illustrate important points.  The 35%-40% marks the point where people end up after training (on a competence scale of 1%–100%).  This means that the majority of the acquisition of competence takes place in the workplace.

This is broadly accepted within the training fraternity.  Whereas training allows people to explore new ways of doing things and hopefully exposes them to “best practice”, it does not create experts.

If expertise is acquired in the workplace and not the classroom, then we must accept that specific things need to happen in the workplace.  Primarily, people need to be coached and given feedback on their competence.

Our 20 years experience tells us that, proportionately, the following time and effort needs to be expended to successfully take an individual through the skill development process:

• Awareness     25%
• Practice         35%
• Application     40%

The second figure (5%-9%) is where the research tells us people end up if nothing is done in the application phase.  This is typically between unconscious incompetence and conscious incompetence.  This typically happens with 4 – 5 months.  This is a startling figure and perhaps explains why many people in business have a cynical view of the value of training.  It seems they are right.  Without specific application strategies, companies are wasting between 91 and 95 cents of every dollar they spend on training.

Practice and Feedback

It is commonly understood that people develop skills through one primary mechanism, practice and feedback.  Conventional training tends to be squeezed for time and it is inevitably the practice sessions that are sacrificed.  Too much content and not enough practice creates uncertainty in application, through issues of confidence and competence.  If a person cannot, through practice, feedback and practice again, achieve a point of competence (“I have practiced this to the point where I feel competent to do it in the workplace”), they have no confidence in applying skills.  The implications of this are that many people (over 75% in one study) actually avoid applying skills trained because they have no confidence that they will be effective.  Those organisations that use coaching as a development tool do not seem to face these issues.

Near and Far Learning

Noted behavioural scientists, Detterman and Steinberg, published a book in 1996 entitled Transfer on Trial.  The book focused on the issue of learning transfer (the measurable transfer of learning and skills from classroom to workplace).  Their research had concluded that 86% of training did not transfer effectively.  There were a variety of reasons for this – measurement, support, feedback (all key components of coaching).  They also spoke about the difference between near and far learning as a critical issue.

Far learning means completing exercises which are broad, generic and explore our understanding of principles.  Detterman and Steinberg’s research concluded that people found it difficult to relate broad principles to specific work situations – and as a result did not apply skills effectively.

Near learning produces significantly better results.  Near learning is practicing the specific skills needed, through customised and intelligently constructed exercises, so that the individual is practicing exactly what they are being asked to do in the workplace.  Coaching is the ultimate example of near learning – it says to the individual, “We are going to practice this until you feel you are doing it effectively and then evaluate as you do it live”.  As a result it is significantly more effective in ensuring learning transfer.

Performance Management and Coaching

Performance management practices (appraisal, review, goal setting, etc) all become uncomfortable, bureaucratic exercises if those responsible cannot add value and direction through coaching.  If neither party feels value is being added by the other, then both parties view the process as lacking in worth and tend to avoid it.

This also is reflected in a more serious deficiency that is commonly observed in management practice.  If a manager cannot rectify a performance deficiency they seem to imply that this is not their responsibility but solely that of the individual.

These situations end up with a management style of “I point out your weaknesses and you have to fix them”.  If one considers the fact that research tells us that the main reason people leave jobs is dissatisfaction with the way in which they are managed (Institute of Directors, UK survey, 2001), then managers’ inability to coach and develop may be having a much more serious impact.

Conversely, a good coach does more than just coach.  In order for a coach to be effective they must have a reasonable grasp of:

• Performance management;
• Motivation;
• Counselling;
• Development and support;
• Evaluation and feedback;
• Performance measurement;

Feedback also tells us that competent coaches add value to staff and have much better relationships with their people.  Creating a competent coach therefore, also creates competency in a number of essential areas.

Edward Johnson, one of the founding members of the Johnson and Johnson empire, was famously quoted as saying, ‘Leadership is cause, all else is effect.’  Leaders of people must all be aware that it is their behaviour, not the training department, which determines whether your people will out-perform the competition.

References

Douglas Detterman and Robert Steinberg, Transfer on Trial: Intelligence, Cognition and Instruction, Ablex Publishing, 1993

Geary Rummler and Alan Brache, Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space in the Organisation Chart, 2^nd ed, Jossey Bass, San Francisco, 1995.

Source:

Peter Fullbrook, Founder, Prosell

When it comes to e-mail, there is not a lot of things that shock me anymore.  I have seen inboxes with 28,000 e-mails in them. I have seen people who send e-mails to themselves to remind themselves that they need to action an e-mail already in their inbox. I have seen people who have given up and just deleted the lot!  But in a recent workshop on e-mail management at one of the big four banks, a participant shared how his team had been involved in a project to reduce the size (and therefore cost) of their mailboxes.  All of the support and maintenance for these was outsourced, so the costs involved were very tangible.  In the end, by decreasing the size of 100 mailboxes in the team, they have created a saving of $20,000 to $30,000 per year!  Staggering!  Imagine that across the broader organisation of 22,000 mailboxes.

That must be a drop in the ocean though, compared to the actual cost of e-mail in productivity terms.  Another recent conversation with a senior management team within a global financial institution uncovered the fact that these senior managers, who all wanted to spend more time with their people or working on strategic initiatives, were spending up to 5 hours per day just on e-mail.  They were drowning in a sea of CC’s, distribution lists and inbox noise.  And what about the cost of overfull and messy inboxes, the cost of searching for that critical but elusive e-mail you received last month, the cost of spending the first half-hour of the day deleting enough e-mail in response to the dreaded “Your mailbox is full” message.

E-mails cost time, and not just the recipient’s time, but also the sender’s time.  If the e-mail is internal the organisation may pay twice, if it is not adding value!  My goodness, I thought that e-mail was meant to be making us more productive.  The good news is though, it still can.  Although e-mail volumes have shot up for most workers, and become a large contributor to long hours and stress, it is still a fantastic way to communicate, and get information from A to B (or B, C,D and E all at once).  The trick to making e-mail work for you, rather than you working for it, is in understanding its traps and applying a set of principles to managing it.

The common e-mail traps and how to avoid them

E-mail is a core part of modern work life, and whilst it has improved the speed and efficiency of communication enormously, it comes with baggage attached (excuse the pun).  The common e-mail traps that I encounter with workers across the board are:

Making e-mail # 1 – E-mail has become our prime focus during the workday, and often outside of core work hours too.  We must remember that it is just a part of our role – a tube for getting information from one place to another.  It is not the main game, and not what we will be measured against come the end of the year.  We need to learn to make e-mail management a part of our day, to deal with it at regular intervals, and then to put it away to focus on our priorities and commitments. 

• Turn off e-mail alerts and alarms, they are just distractions from other work
• Check e-mail at regular intervals, between 3 and 6 times per day
• Check handheld e-mail devices at appropriate times, but turn off when it is time to focus

Too many e-mails – 30, 50, 100 per day and counting.  I recently worked with two poor souls who were getting over 1000 e-mails per day! Ridiculous!  Many feel that they cannot control what is sent to them, but with some concerted effort and creativity you can slash the deluge to a more manageable flow.

• Get off unnecessary distribution lists and e-mail subscription lists
• Discuss your expectations with your team about when and what to CC you on
• Set up e-mail rules to automatically delete or move (file) informational e-mails
• Send less e-mails (you will receive less as a result)

Overfull Inboxes – Messy, overfull and back-logged inboxes cause stress, delays, confusion and rework.  Many workers use their Inbox as a to-do list, and the act of checking e-mail is often an advanced form of procrastination.  The inbox ends up as an unruly mix of stuff you have not looked at yet mixed in with existing e-mails that need action, or should be deleted or filed. For the truly in-control e-mail manager, the Inbox is a delivery dock.  And just like the delivery dock of a supermarket, it should be cleared, to zero, weekly, if not daily.

• Set up a simple filing system (1 – 10 folders) to keep necessary e-mail

Poorly written e-mail – One of the stresses associated with e-mail is the irrational feeling that we need to respond to every e-mail.  We know this is not true, but it feels that way sometimes.  But, even with the percentage that we do need to respond to, time can be saved by learning to compose e-mails in a clear, efficient manner.  The clearer your e-mail is to the reader, the more cut-through you will have, and the more likely they are to action your e-mail in a timely way.  Remember, your e-mail for them is probably just one of 100 that day.

• Write clear subject lines with impact – most people scan, so stand out from the crowd
• State any actions required and due dates in the first line or two of the e-mail

In a world where time is money, and human resources account for the largest chunk of any organisations overheads, it seems a no-brainer to get better at managing the effect that e-mail has on our productivity.  Rather than organisations putting pressure on staff to work longer hours to get things done, why not focus on helping them make their core workday more productive.  The savings could be huge, and I promise you, everyone will be happier!

Source:
Dermot Crowley - Founder
Adapt Training