For many years we’ve been hearing from the HBR crowd that organizations have been overmanaged and underled. I was totally bought into this, and still support Emotional Intelligence and similar practices for leaders.  But recently it has occurred to me that we might really be overled and undermanaged.

When an individual contributor moves into a management role, they take on new responsibilities in addition to their technical expertise.  They now must hire, give feedback and coach, conduct performance reviews, delegate, make decisions for the group, etc.  These are basic skills/responsibilities required of every manager.  My observation is that most managers are failing at these fundamental tasks.

Senior leadership requires monthly/quarterly financial updates, and the entire organization dutifully complies – we would expect nothing less.   If “our people are our greatest resource” as so many claim, why do organizations live with one poorly done performance review per year?   Why don’t we expect monthly, or at least quarterly, people reviews?  Why do we allow the hiring/interview process to be so poorly managed?  Why don’t we do more post-mortems on decisions and delegations.

Furthermore, to what degree does HR, as a profession, enable this?  The HR community (of which I am a part) is always talking about “having a seat at the table” with the c-suite, to be part of the strategy-making process.   I realize that most HR departments are stretched to the breaking point these days, but how about we get the focus back on the fundamentals and get managers managing again.  How about we insist that we abandon the annual performance review process and move to a meaningful quarterly process and tie manager compensation to it being done well.  What might that be worth to an organization?

It’s time we swing the pendulum back the other way and get back to fundamentals – We need really good managers now.  Once they’ve proven their ability to manage well, we can think about their ability to inspire or whatever…

There are great lessons for every leader in the ongoing healthcare debate regarding the handling of strategic change initiatives that your political slant has no bearing on.    Leaders, whether Obama or you, must keep in mind that humans are genetically “hardwired” for certain behavior.  Three such hardwired behaviors are on vivid display in the healthcare hysterics:

1.  Humans are hardwired to be “Loss Averse.”  This has been demonstrated in countless university psych classes.   True to form, we see people far more concerned about what they might lose, rather than what they might gain as an individual, family, community or society.    Leaders must remember that employees will not ask, “what’s in it for me?” they will instinctively ask, “what might I lose?”  and they must be prepared to address this concern

2. Humans are hardwired to trust “Emotional instincts before reason.”  How else can you explain the currency that the patently absurd “death panel” story gained?  Leaders must plan to plant a positive emotional connection to any change initiative.  If inaction/lack of communication allows fear to take hold, there will be an uphill battle to gain the hearts/minds.

3. Humans are hardwired to seek and share information in order to build alliances (a.k.a. Gossip).   No matter how hard anyone tries, they cannot shut down the “rumor mill.”   What stories will be told at the water cooler or over lunch?   Will they be the stories you want to be told?  

For more details on hardwired behavior, read, “How Hardwired is Human Behavior?” by Nigel Nicholson in July 1998 Harvard Business Review.

This posting is a summary of a discussion I facilitated with the Metro Milwaukee Society for Human Resource Management Performance & Development committee during their July ’09 meeting.

I was in a discussion recently with several corporate learning professionals and some Gen. Y folks.

We were discussing the application of Web 2.0 tools for learning, specifically the integration of Wiki’s as a post-training tool that learners could use as reference and best practice sharing sites.  The L&D pro’s were adamant, “We couldn’t allow that!  How could we control the accuracy of the information being shared?”  One of the younger folks replied, “You guys have been sharing bogus information at the water cooler and the lunch room for years, why does it bother you now?  At least this way you can see what we’re sharing!” 

We were stunned by the obvious logic and the clarity of the point.  As I reflected on this exchange over the next few weeks, it dawned on me that the ground has shifted under the Training & Development department!  In the last few years, driven by the wide-spread adoption of Web 2.0 technologies, the factors that can impact the success/failure of an elearning deployment have changed radically from what they’ve been historically. 

A brief survey of Technology-Enabled Learning / Elearning history

• Gen. 1 – Laserdisc; specialized delivery systems(mid-80’s)
• Gen. 2 – CD-ROM; desktop PC delivery (1990’s)
• Gen. 3 – Intranet-based; Workplace or home PC delivery/Learning Management Systems (LMS) (2000’s)
• Gen. 4 – Internet-based, Web 2.0 (e.g., Wiki, YouTube, Podcast, Simulations, Twitter);  PDA/Smartphone delivery/Learning Content Management Systems (LCMS)

Summary of Current Trends:

• Unprecedented cost pressure on business (travel & training impact)
• Training design shifting from discrete events to distributed-over-time
• Control shifting from Training Dept. to Learner
• Cost of technology-enabled training production & deployment dropping
• Complexity of learning content management increasing
• Workplace generational gaps/differences with technology widening

Cultural adoption issues for Gen. 1 thru Gen. 3

For the first three generations of technology-enabled training, it was the training department on the cutting-edge of technology.  Their job included not only the development and deployment of elearning content, but staying abreast of the developments in elearning technology, and the marketing of the technology to their client population as well.   During roll-out of an enterprise-wide elearning application at GE, as recently as 4-5 years ago, these were the typical cultural adoption issues:

• Inconsistent navigation features from e-course to e-course – None have the comfort of a “book metaphor” (i.e., Table of Contents, Chapters, Index, Visual search, Mark pages with tabs, write in margins/ highlight, etc.).
• Learner comfort/preference for face-to-face social interaction and value of spontaneous interaction found in a classroom vs. the solo elearning experience
• Shift from listening/verbal skills/social skills needed in a classroom to reading/writing/technology skills needed for elearning
• Classroom/off-site training frequently seen as a perquisite – elearning seen as a task
• Overcoming user frustration with technology glitches and lack of computer  fluency/skills
• Good time management skills and discipline managing distractions (e.g., Phone, email, drop-ins, boss) required for elearning.   Additionally the psychological benefit of changing venue (going to classroom) for training, helping to refocus attention to learning.

Actual learner feedback; “When I go to a classroom event I make training my A priority and I keep up with my day job before class, during lunch/breaks, after class.  When I’m at my desk, my day job is my A priority and elearning is a C priority – I rarely make the time for it”

Cultural adoption issues for Gen. 4

The wide-spread adoption of Web 2.0 technologies such as Wikis, blogs, social media, YouTube, simulations, smartphones, etc., predominantly by younger (Gen. Y) workers has created a larger “technology gap” for many of the boomers in the workforce who still have the Gen. 1-3 issues described above.   Now we add in a whole new dynamic, the Gen Y folks who bring:

• Comfort with/preference for Web 2.0/social technologies and elearning rather than face-to-face social interaction
• Expectations of highly-sophisticated technology experience (i.e. intuitive user interface & fast, glitch-free technology)
• Different production values on-line content (e.g., cell phone video posted on YouTube is fine as long as it meets acceptable audio/video quality) as opposed to the emphasis on “glitzy” production that is still preferred for Gen. 1-3 elearning to support the internal marketing of it.
• Widespread adoption of smartphone/PDA technology seamlessly integrated with on-line applications, and expectations of truly anywhere/anytime learning. 

I will continue this discussion in another post soon.  I’d love to hear your comments!

The Results – Activities – Systems & Structures (RASS) Model

Whether designing a new organization or diagnosing the performance of an existing one, there are three fundamental questions that must be answered: What is the organization trying to accomplish? What does the organization’s leaders want their employees to do in order to achieve these goals, i.e., the desired behaviors?  And finally, are the organization’s business systems and structures aligned to drive the behavior?  Business systems and structures include, but are not limited to, the hiring & staffing system, the training & development system, the measurement & reward/incentives systems, tools & processes, organizational structure, etc.  The answers to these three questions comprise what I call a Results – Activities – Systems & Structures (RASS) model for performance improvement.

Step 1 – Results

What is your organization trying to accomplish?  It is essential to differentiate between business results and accomplishments.  It is common to hear a manager state the current sales targets as the desired results.  Obviously they are desired outcomes, but NOT the results we are interested in.  Among other problems, these types of business measures (e.g., volume and margin) are lagging indicators, after-the-fact, that do not enable a manager to evaluate progress and correct course if necessary.

Instead, the results that must be identified are the behavioral accomplishments of individuals, based on the organizations’ vision and go-to-market strategy.   For example, ABC Co. wants to be viewed by customers as a strategic partner.  ABC Co. management knows from experience that if a sales rep can establish such a relationship that opportunity and deals that lead to volume will follow.  Subsequently, they want their sales reps to be regarded as trusted advisors.  An individual accomplishment toward this end might be, “Establish a collaborative relationship with the CFO and his/her staff.” 

Step 2 – Activities

What should your employees to do in order to achieve these goals, i.e., the desired behaviors?  A good manager understands what their successful employees do to achieve their results. We need to identify the activities, or behaviors, that we want – not simply the end result. We must be able to articulate what we want these people to actually do (more of, less of…).  These behaviors are referred to in HPT as “Performance Objectives.” Being able to articulate the desired observable, measurable, behaviors is a fundamental lesson of GE’s CAP process (See post “Overview of GE’s Change Acceleration Process” – 25 Jan 09).  In my experience, management failure to identify and effectively communicate the desired behaviors is the root cause of numerous business problems – ineffective employee coaching programs for example.

Unfortunately, this step is frequently skipped – or done superficially.  It is difficult and time-consuming to construct good performance objectives.  But it is absolutely essential.  So many business initiatives fail because leadership thinks their work is done after they communicate the high-level vision. 

To continue the example above: In order to establish a collaborative relationship, ABC Co. wants the sales force to stay current on industry developments, and their target customers’ developments.  They want sales reps to meet with CFO’s subordinates to learn the customers financials and their pressing challenges, and to share insights with them.  They want a strategic account plan created for the top accounts in each territory.  They also want sales reps to schedule and record meeting notes in their CRM tool.  Additionally, ABC Co. wants managers to use reports from their CRM tool to manage sales and they want senior managers listen on those meetings periodically.

Step 3 – Systems & Structures

Are your organization’s business systems and structures aligned to drive the desired behavior?  These systems exist to support the current state of your business.  If you do not modify them to support your desired state, they will drive behavior to maintain the current state, that’s what they are supposed to do. 

Ironically, you may find it’s fairly easy to do this once you identify the behaviors you want.  It is virtually impossible to align your business systems and structures with those goals if you DON’T identify your performance objectives.

At this point, take your list of desired behaviors and systematically evaluate each of your business systems and structures against them.  Have the behavioral expectations been communicated effectively by upper management?  Is there accountability for the behavior?  Are you hiring the right types of sales people?  Is your training & development system preparing your employees properly?  Does your measurement & reward/incentives systems drive the right behavior?  “Most businesses are replete with undesirable behaviors that stem from disregarding the fundamental principles of organizational reward systems.”[1] Is the CRM tool accessible and easy to use?  You can use a simple tool like a force field analysis to get you started on this.  Eventually you will want to use more rigorous criteria to evaluate your systems, like benchmarking of world-class organizations or best practices checklists provided by industry groups like SHRM or ASTD. 

You are likely to find that your business systems present your employees with a confusing, contradictory set of instructions and incentives.  Without clarity and consistency they are left to choose for themselves how to behave.  You should not be surprised if what they actually do is not what you were hoping for.

ABC Co. provides commercial loans and leases to a specialized industry segment.  Their market strategy is for the sales force to be regarded by customers as “trusted advisor” a collaborative partner, who adds value (to justify their above-market rates). Their business metrics are reported to headquarters (and ultimately shareholders) quarterly

Consequently their compensation plan drives the sales force to try aggressively to close business in a quarter-to-quarter cycle, rather than on the customers’ timetable.

Progressively tougher targets and low base salary drive a high turnover rate in sales.  Their hiring system recruits aggressive closer types, who typically lack the either the necessary financial acumen or industry knowledge, which are both critical success factors for every sales rep.  New sales reps call on customers they hardly know and try to close business.

Training is provided to develop industry expertise. But, only a few sales reps bother to stay up-to-date on the rapidly changing developments in their customers’ industry after the training is over.

Training is provided to develop financial acumen.  But, only a few sales reps bother to invest the time to learn the customers’ real financial state, and their broader needs beyond the immediate deal opportunity.

ABC’s organization is structured into four business units by product type, with some potential overlap.  Each unit has its own sales force.  Consequently, it is not uncommon for 2-3 different sales reps from ABC to call on the same customer.  Due to poor communications, they often present conflicting information.

Existing business metrics and compensation plans dis-incent the sales reps from sharing customer information and cooperating on proposals/price to win business.

Many sales managers lack proficiency with the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) software application, so they do not use it to generate reports, or to manage weekly/monthly sales meetings.

Their sales reps know that no one is looking at their data in the CRM tool, so they don’t bother to keep it updated, or in some cases, fudge the entries.

The quality of data in the early and mid stages of the sales funnel/pipeline is so poor that sales forecasts of longer than 30 days are unreliable.  Senior leaders deal quarterly with surprises.

Marketing wants to use data from the CRM to create programs for the field (that the sales force is clamoring for!), but the data is so poor that no worthwhile analysis can be done.

Sound familiar?

Training, by itself, no matter how good, has literally no chance of improving the performance of ABC’s sales force.  In fact, it could conceivably be counterproductive.  Ditto for a lean six sigma project.

Only a holistic performance improvement approach, such as HPT, has any chance of improving the business results.  An approach that considers all the contributing factors at every level in the organization, and implements effective interventions is necessary.

Level 1 (Organization) – The strategy, goals, organizational structure and measures at the organization level

Level 2 ((Process) – The design, implementation and management of internal processes.

Level 3 (Job/Performer) – The behavior of individuals and groups.

Six Sigma is an improvement methodology, generally credited to Dr. Mikel Harry while at Motorola. The basic premise of Six Sigma is built on the old adage, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.” Originally applied to manufacturing/product improvement, once embraced by GE it was successfully applied to services. My experience at GE, and my focus here, will not be on improving the ubiquitous widget (i.e., tweaking raw materials, production machinery, and measuring devices). Rather, I will focus on service processes – performed by people who process information, make judgments, and count things.

A Six Sigma approach to process improvement follows the traditional Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control (DMAIC) roadmap.
§ In the Define phase you make the business case for the project and specify the boundaries of the process to be improved.
§ In the Measure phase you specify the process output characteristic(s) of interest, define how the characteristic(s) will be measured, plan the data collection, and collect data.
§ In the Analyze phase, you quantify the current state of the process and identify potential sources of process variation.
§ In the Improve phase, you plan and execute experiments to confirm the sources of variation, and to develop process improvements to eliminate the variation.
§ In the Control phase, you quantify the improved state of the process and develop process controls to maintain and further the improvements.

More recently Lean Six Sigma has been widely adopted, combining the concepts and tools of the Toyota Production System with Six Sigma. From my perspective, the basic DMAIC roadmap does not change with the integration of lean, the toolbox simply gets bigger and better!

The vast majority of managers and human resources professionals I have known over 25 years in business were (and may still be) functionally illiterate regarding Human Performance Technology (HPT).  They are by and large capable of executing their corporate hiring processes; they participate in employee performance evaluation process and compensation planning.  They dutifully track and report their business metrics and communicate messages coming down from headquarters.  And when challenged by leadership to improve business performance they immediate request training for their employees.  Therein lies the symptom of a serious problem.

It has been my experience that most managers and HR professionals, almost reflexively, turn to training to solve any perceived performance challenge. “Do more training!” – who can argue with that?  It makes the managers feel good and makes employees feel good. The typical training manager is happy to have support of management, salutes smartly, and sets about to develop and implement the training, confident that management won’t require any meaningful training evaluation.  The resulting training may be excellent, but ultimately ineffective, i.e., the original performance challenge remains. The problem was not with the training design or delivery, but with the original problem diagnosis, or lack thereof.

Mager and Pike, put forward the insightful, if politically incorrect, training needs analysis question, “If I put a gun to their heads could they do it?”  It certainly does cut to the chase.  If your job incumbents already know how to do something you can safely draw two conclusions: 1. Training has little or no chance of improving the situation, 2.  The underlying business systems and structures are at the root cause.

HPT is a systems approach to performance improvement; it looks at all the potential factors, at all levels of an organization that may influence employee behavior, such as; incentives and rewards, organization structure, processes and tools, expectations and motivation. When you start with the question, “what do they need to know?” you are always led to a training solution.  It presumes that there is a knowledge/skill deficit at root of problem/ opportunity. By asking, “What do we want/need them to do” you are faced with a much broader range of potential root causes – not coincidentally, identical to the range of interventions encompassed in HPT.

Human Performance Technology (HPT), or Performance Technology is defined by Joe Harless, one of its founding fathers, as, “…the process of selection, analysis, design, development, implementation and evaluation of programs to most cost-effectively influence human behavior and accomplishment.”[1] I prefer to use this definition because of its familiarity to anyone versed in Instructional Systems Development (ISD).  Although the development and practice of ISD predates HPT chronologicaly, It is useful to think of ISD as a sub-set of HPT – the process to follow when the root cause of a performance gap is a knowledge/skill deficiency. HPT takes a broader, more holistic look at the causes of and the interventions for performance gaps:

·        Incentives and Rewards

·        Information and Feedback

·        Environment, Resources and Tools

·        Individual Capacity

·        Expectations and Motivation

·        Knowledge and Skills

HPT also considers potential root causes at all levels of an organization, as opposed to ISD, which is concerned primarily with Level 3.

·        Level 1 (Organization) – The strategy, goals, organizational structure and measures at the organization level

·        Level 2 ((Process) – The design, implementation and management of internal processes.

·        Level 3 (Job/Performer) – The behavior of individuals and groups.

[1] Stolovitch, H.D., and Keeps, E.J., Eds.,  (1992)  Handbook of Human Performance Technology, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Welcome to whoever may view this!

I plan to use this blog to share my experiences and professional opinions regarding the practice of Human Performance Technology (HPT) from 25 years of on-the-job application.  I will do my best to indicate when I am offering my opinion, and accurately cite the words and opinions of others.