Asking the Right Questions

I just read a well-written article on front-end analysis.  In addition to providing practical insights into performance analysis the author does a good job differentiating human performance technology (HPT) from basic training development.

Human performance technology is a set of disciplines but it is also a way of thinking.  A thorough performance improvement effort requires specialized experience but everybody in an organization can help.  One of the best contributions a person can make is to conduct an informal front-end analysis.  Note the emphasis on informal.  This may sound intimidating or complicated but it isn’t and doesn’t have to be.

The author provides two goals for the front-end analysis but anyone can make significant progress on the first, defining the current and desired performance.  Most performance improvement efforts start with a problem.  The person who identifies the problem can probably provide valuable information about it and its causes without the guidance or involvement of an HPT professional.

Below are relevant questions I chose from the article.

• Based on what evidence can you say you have a problem?
• How will we know when the problem is solved?
• What are the possible causes of the problem? (Lack of data, tools, incentives, knowledge, capacity, motives)
• What is the probable cause? (Of all the possible causes which one is the most likely?)
• Should we allocate resources to solve it?

The point of this process is to make an early attempt at understanding a problem.  In most cases these questions will bring focus and help determine if more people need to get involved.

 

Hasbro develops internal talent to promote growth

Throughout its nearly 90 years of history, Hasbro has grown its business with iconic toys like Mr. Potato Head and acquisitions of well-known companies like Parker Brothers and Tonka.

In the 2000s, Hasbro “needed to refocus, shifting from acquisitions to nurturing the cadre of more than 1,000 brands in its portfolio with the goal of total brand immersion, including games, toys, entertainment and housewares.”

How did they do it?  By developing on internal talent.  In this article, we learn how this change in focus enabled Hasbro to identify and capitalize on new markets and strategies.  The approach they took could be right out of the ISPI handbook (if there was one).  Below are some highlights and my thoughts.

In 2003, the company, in partnership with the executive education program at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, created the Hasbro Global Leadership Program to bolster the talent pipeline and provide opportunity for high potentials to expand their leadership roles. (ISPI standard #4)

To set the initial curriculum, Tuck professor Vijay Govindarajan, faculty director for the Hasbro program, worked closely with Hasbro’s leadership to identify skill gaps and plot where the company needed to go and the skills needed to get there.

Three things jump out at me here.  First, they had a vision for what they wanted to accomplish (ISPI standard #1 Focus on results).  It appears this was used to stay focused (plot where they needed to go).  Second, they identified skill gaps (ISPI standard #5).  This is huge.  I am sure most of the stakeholders had opinions about how to achieve the goal.  Taking a systematic and systemic approach is a much wiser course.  I hope they didn’t end there.  Identifying gaps in knowledge and attitudes is just as important.  Finally, they prioritized they skill gaps.  Focusing on skills that will achieve their goals will maintain momentum and reduce the likelihood of burnout.

So, what did they come up with?

Modules were mapped out to address global strategy, personal leadership, brand building, emerging markets and ethics. Specific modules included “Changing the Rules of the Global Game: Creating the Future,” “Developing Transcultural Competence,” “Emerging Markets: Challenges and Opportunities,” “What Got You Here Won’t Get You There” and “Building the Global Organization of the Future.”

To execute this plan they created “action learning teams.”  These teams would talk “about ways to stimulate out-of-season sales, such as promoting the games business at Easter, leveraging Kids Day in Latin America or Canada’s summer cottage season, or the cultural particulars of emerging markets. In some countries with low per-capita income, it is essential for parents to understand the educational benefits of play.”

Is this approach only good from a corporate perspective?

Of the more than 200 participants since the program started, nearly 20 percent have been promoted or taken on greater responsibilities.

HR will love this approach too because the retention rate of participants is around 90%.

Read the whole thing.  It will only take a few minutes.

 

The first shall be last

One of the first questions stakeholders ask in the learning development process is, “how much training credit are we going to give for this?”  This is actually one of the last questions I ask when developing a training solution.

Non-developers ask this question first because they are usually accountable for creating training opportunities that will help employees meet their annual requirements or because they have to fit the training into a larger program.

Developers ask this question last because it places the emphasis in the wrong place, limits the design process, inhibits creative thinking (yes training development requires creativity), and because it is impossible to answer at the beginning of the process.

In Chapter 9 of Designing Successful E-Learning, Michael Allen describes a process he calls “backgrounding.”  This is an information gathering stage that occurs before the actual design of a training solution begins.  In this process he suggests some key questions you SHOULD be asking first regardless of the format of your training solution.

1. Is there really a human performance problem? This is similar to standard 5 of ISPI’s performance standards which I wrote about here.
2. Is the problem caused by a lack of ability to perform?  Cause analysis is standard 6, which I wrote about here.
3. What are the determinants of behavior?  “People do things for reasons.  Their reasons may be built on misconceptions, fears, and lack of confidence, desire to fit in and behave like everyone else, perceived strengths and so on.  To be successful with a learning intervention, instructional designers need to identify the primary determinants of the behaviors that need to be changed.”

When I am “backgrounding” a project I want to know what result we are trying to achieve, what problem we are trying to solve or what opportunity are we trying to address.  ISPI uses the acronym RSVP to describe this process.

R – Results
S – Situation or context
V – Value
P – Partnerships

The answers you get when backgrounding a project will focus your efforts and greatly increase your likelihood of success.  Forcing a topic (assuming it is the right topic) into a predefined time-limited box will greatly impair your design and development effort and may cause you to miss your target altogether.

 

Success is a Byproduct of Design, pt. 7a

A key word in this series is “design.”  It would be understandable for a person to ask “when is he going to get around to discussing design?”  I’m almost there.  Before I do, I want to review where we have been in previous posts.

Whenever an organization is dealing with a performance problem, the focus must be on results (ISPI standard #1).    You may think training is required.  You may discuss who is or is not doing what they’re supposed to do.  Some may suggest investing in new software or systems.  Resist these temptations.   Focusing your efforts on results will put your discussions into the right context.  This will enable you to collect the right information, understand the true cause of the problem, and come up with a solution that will achieve the desired results.

Focusing on improved results sets the tone for the entire effort.  You must also consider the situation or context (ISPI standard #2) and decide what resources are required to effectively achieve the desired results.  With a clear understanding of the context and the right people on the project (ISPI standard #4), it is time to do a detailed analysis of the problem (ISPI standard #5).  Your preliminary research and partnerships will help.  Throughout all of this, resist the temptation to draw conclusions too soon.  Patterns will emerge.  Solutions will seem appropriate and attractive.  Wait until you have all the data and have analyzed it before you draw conclusions.  Let the data reveal the true nature of the problem and what is causing it (ISPI standard #6).

I can’t tell you the number of times I have seen an organization decide training will solve a problem without any idea what results they are trying to achieve.  They see that something is going wrong so they automatically assume training will fix it.  What do you train on?  Who decides what the training should be about?  How will you know the participants got what they’re supposed to get?  To find the right answer you have to ask the right questions.  Here are some ideas to get started.

• What are your expectations (be specific)?
• What does “wrong” look like?
• What does “right” look like?
• Who is doing it “right?”
• Why is this person doing it “right?”
• Why can they do it “right” and others can’t?
• How will we know we have achieved our goal?

This process does not have to take months to complete.  Depending on the scope of the situation, performance improvement can be achieved in weeks or possibly even days.  Do not automatically assume that this process will consume a lot of time and resources.  It is not unusual for this process to save money.

This is a time-tested approach to achieve a successful outcome.  It isn’t always glamorous, but it works.  With the review behind us, lets get on with the discussion of ISPI standard #7, design.

 

Success is a Byproduct of Design, pt. 6

Resuming my overview of ISPI’s performance standards, the focus of this post is cause analysis.  According to ISPI, “some causes are obvious, such as new hires [who] lack the required skills to do the expected task.”  Training should be a part of the solution for onboarding new hires.  However, one should not always assume training will resolve every need a new hire or any other employee has.

What is implied in the quote above, but not explicitly stated, is the fact the underperformance can be caused by factors that are not fully resolved through training.   These can include organizational priorities, lack of access to resources or individuals, inadequate or defective tools, poor morale, ineffective incentives, or ill-defined processes.

Settling on a solution because it seems right or because it is the way you have always done things is a common mistake.  I encourage you to look beyond the obvious and explore what else could be causing a performance problem.  This may take some effort and will definitely be challenging but you will be well on your way to coming up with a solution that will actually improve performance.

 

More on Millennials

Going through my backlog of articles I want to read I came across an interesting post that touches on how to manage millennials.  No I am not obsessed with them I just post what I think might be helpful.  There is also a learning angle to this but you’ll have to read on to find it.

In this post, Tammy Erickson reviews the events that occurred in the formative years of millennials and how that has formed their identity and habits.  Below are  a few excepts I found interesting.

• Y’s want to feel they are doing work that is challenging and important.
• Focus on the actual completion of tasks; hold them accountable for outcomes, not for time spent.
• Create a collaborative, team-based environment.
• Leverage technology to create more efficient processes.
• Provide frequent feedback; first-line managers should teach rather than assess.
• Provide a variety of world-class learning opportunities.

Aren’t you glad you read to the end to find out what the learning tie-in is?  Read the whole thing.  It will only take a few minutes.  There is more in the post that is worth taking a look at.

 

The Rules of Data Collection – What are they?

I am planning a job analysis for an internal team in a retail organization.  They are skeptical about the need and process.  The buzz around the office is that this effort will be time consuming, tedious, and unsuccessful.  With this in mind, my supervisor has challenged me to develop an unconventional data collection plan.  In short, his vision is that we will break the “rules” of data collection.  For example, do we really need to convene a group in a room for 2+ hours?  Can we break the process into smaller chunks and still get reliable data?

To be clear we are not setting out to break “rules” just for the sake of doing it.  There is a bigger goal behind the vision, culture change.  Many habits (whether positive or negative) have become ingrained.  As you can imagine this has led to a stagnant culture.  We cannot afford to be stagnant.  We need innovation.  We need to be able to recognize and respond to opportunities.  I am hopeful we can have a successful analysis and begin to break the behavior patterns that are preventing us from performing at to our highest potential.

To break the “rules” we need to know what they are.  Please help me compile a list and share any other ideas, regardless of how crazy they may seem.

Here is some additional info that may be helpful.

• Everyone works the same hours (more or less)
• Everyone works in the same location
• There are about 12 participants
• All the participants have 5+ years of experience with the company

 

Defensive routines

Toward the end of my last post I referred to forces that interfere with effective team learning, the most common being defensive routines.  I return to this topic because I believe it is a significant obstacle.  On p. 251, Mr. Senge writes “Deep within the mental models of managers in many organizations is the belief that managers must know what’s going on.  It is simply unacceptable for managers to act as though they do not know what is causing a problem.  Those that reach senior positions are masters at appearing to know what is going on, and those intent on reaching such positions learn early on to develop an air of confident knowledge.”

Can you see how this can be an obstacle to team learning?  In my experience, once a person makes up their mind about something they become closed to alternative views or a better understanding of a situation.  This applies to me too.  When this happens, communication has ended and so has any opportunity for learning.  I am not saying all managers think this way.  However, I would suggest that each person reading this should examine their thinking and behavior.  Ask yourself if this describes you.

Mr. Senge continues, “Managers who internalize this mental model find themselves in one of two binds. Some actually internalize this air of confidence and simply believe that they know the answers to most important problems. But, to protect their belief, they must close themselves to alternative views and make themselves uninfluenceable.  Their bind is that to remain confident they must remain rigid.  Others believe they are expected to know what is causing important problems but, deep down, recognize the uncertainty in their solutions.  Their bind is that to maintain a facade of confidence they must obscure their ignorance.  Managers who take on the burden of having to know the answers become highly skillful in defensive routines that preserve their aura as capable decision makers by not revealing the thinking behind their decisions.”

These are strong words.  I don’t believe the author is saying managers who are in the bind described above are always ignorant.  I believe he is saying their mindset prevents them from seeing the truth in a given situation.  Have you ever seen this?  Have you ever worked with a person who does this?  What impact does this have on the team?  Do you think this has an impact on the organization’s culture?  I would say “how could it not?”  Closing oneself off to input from others blocks the flow of energy in a team that might otherwise contribute toward a shared vision.  This atmosphere is extremely damaging to a learning culture.

As bad as this atmosphere appears, the author says it is actually worse.  On p. 255 he states, “to retain their power, defensive routines must remain undiscussable…teams stay stuck in their defensive routines only when they pretend that they don’t have any defensive routines, that everything is alright, and that they can say ‘anything’.”  When a leader falls into a defensive routine it has the effect of causing others to develop their own routines.  This is one way an counterproductive  status quo gets started.

How do you break this cycle?  The greatest gift a person can have at work or away from work is a person who will speak the truth to them, no matter how hard it is to hear.  I am fortunate to have friends who listen and confront me.  I have come to appreciate and value this.  Seek wise counsel.  Schedule a regular time to get feedback from trusted sources.  Don’t resist constructive criticism even when it is hard to hear.  Be open to making a personal change.

 

Can Someone Really Think Outside the Box?

We are all familiar with, and maybe a little tired of, the phrase “think outside the box.”  The phrase has really become a cliche.  You don’t need me to tell you that, but I said it so lets move on.

What does it mean to think outside the box?  When someone says we need to think outside the box what are they expecting happen?  I think when a person says we need to think outside the box they really mean you need to think outside the box.  If thinking outside the box was that easy no one would have to tell us to do it.  In fact, we would probably do it naturally.

Before I go further on getting out of the box, I want to explore where the box came from in the first place.  I read a problem solving book a few years ago that provided useful insights on impediments to effective thinking.  The author asserts that people develop mental shortcuts that enable us to process information more quickly.  These shortcuts are based on patterns the mind stores and uses to process information.  Patterns and shortcuts are helpful time savers with simple tasks such as matching names with faces but it can be a hindrance when we are trying to solve complex problems like buying a car.  If we don’t take time to think through our decision we may rely too heavily on shortcuts and make a bad decision.  I bought a car several years ago and failed to consider my actual driving habits.  I ended up making a bad choice and spent several years getting over it.  It was a painful experience but I learned a valuable lesson.

Was I guilty of thinking inside the box?  Probably.  I was driving an SUV that I thought was no longer cost effective to own.  It was spending a lot of time in the shop and I was spending a lot of money maintaining it.  Did I need to replace it?  I’ll never know.  Did I need to replace it with another SUV? No.  I did not carry passengers enough to need a big car.  I did not live in a place where weather affected my travel.  I liked the size and convenience of an SUV.  I was single so I did not mind the payment (at first).  I loved the idea of owning a new car.  Aha!  There was the box.  In the book referenced above the author states that emotion overwhelms our ability to reason.  I could have purchased a used car and saved a lot of money.  Since I had recently experienced the inconvenience of a series of costly repair bills I decided I did not want another used car.  However, I could have purchased a more economical car and still saved money.

This leads me to what I believe what it truly means to think outside the box, challenging your assumptions.  I believed a new SUV was what I needed.  That belief was based on several assumptions.  I don’t want to deal with the inconvenience or cost of repair.  I was a skier so I convinced myself that my lifestyle demanded an SUV.  Surely gas will always be $.95/gallon.  Challenging any one of those assumptions would have affected my thought process and led to a different buying decision.  I was trapped in an SUV-shaped box and I was not able to get myself out using the tools in my toolkit.

This leads me to the most-recent chapter in Peter Senge’s book The Fifth Discipline.  It is dedicated to the concept of a mental model.  A mental model represents how we view a situation and the thought processes we use when working within that situation.  Mental models are based in part on a set of assumptions.  As noted earlier in this post, a person’s assumptions are based on their experiences.  A mental model is comprised of tasks and rules used to navigate situations and we all use them to complete common tasks.

Are you struggling with a task?  Are you not getting the results you used to get?  It is worthwhile to examine the assumptions that affect your mental model.  You might be surprised what you find.  In this increasingly complex culture we live in, you might realize your assumptions need to change.

How do you challenge your assumptions?  I introduced a critical thinking book earlier.  In it the author provides several methods for solving problems.  One of them is to simply ask “why?” until you come across something you had not considered before.  Another method is to document the sequence of events in a situation.  The author provides 14 different techniques.  I gave you two of the easier ones.  Some of the others are complicated.  If you’re more into creative thinking, I recommend this book by Roger von Oech.  Its less practical but if you’re looking for an interesting read or struggling with your assumptions check it out.  Its a light read with lots of clever pictures.  The author also has a website if you are interested.

To answer my own question, I don’t think anyone can truly think outside the box.  To be an effective thinker, a person should not take anything for granted in their thinking, consistently challenge their assumptions, and be open to ideas that differ from theirs.

 

Human Performance Technology Boot Camp

What is human performance technology (HPT)?  If you search for it on the Web you get broad promises about fulfilled potential, optimal performance and better results.  But what does it look like?  How will you know it when you see it?

HPT can seem simple or complex depending on who is explaining it.  I admit to doing a poor job at it more than once.  I have found it easier to explain through case studies.  A few weeks ago I read an article describing changes the US Army has made to basic training.  This project is a good case study to introduce some of the principles of HPT.  The process used by the Army illustrates several standards of human performance technology developed by the International Society for Performance Improvement (ISPI).  In this post I will focus on some of the principles that are clear in the project.

ISPI describes HPT as “a systematic combination of three fundamental processes, performance analysis, cause analysis, and intervention selection.”  Confused yet?  Simply stated, performance analysis is examining optimal and actual performance with the intent of defining both.  Cause analysis is looking at reasons why people fall into the optimal camp, the actual camp, or somewhere in between.  With the performance gap defined and the cause identified, it is time to select the appropriate intervention.  In the Army example, I will focus mainly on the performance and cause analysis.  Since the Army is committed to the face-to-face training model, there were few opportunities to choose another training model.

There are ten principles of performance improvement.  The first is focusing on results.  To accommodate changes in the modern battlefield the Army has been moving away from large scale troop engagements in favor smaller semi-autonomous teams.  To equip modern recruits for this approach, basic training also had to change.  Conditioning needed more emphasis.  The type of weapon used and how it is used has changed.  The focus on small team engagements means interaction with local populations is increasingly important.  All of this also placed a premium on individual decision making.  Based on the article, the intended result of the updated basic training is a self-directed decision maker capable of interacting with local populations to engage the enemy with a small but highly effective team.

To account for these changes and achieve a successful outcome, the Army needed to adopt a systematic approach.  These are are reflected in HPT principles 5 – 10.  These six principles are similar to the instructional systems design (ISD) process.  ISD has been used successfully for years to analyze specific learning challenges and develop learning goals and objectives and to develop the appropriate instruction to meet those goals and objectives.  In this post I will only focus on 5 (needs assessment) and 6 (cause analysis).

ISD starts with a systematic analysis of the performance problem.  The Army surveyed the troops who had served in Iraq and Afghanistan to learn what was needed in the field.   They also studied the characteristics of recruits.  The survey analysis found that some skills taught in basic training could be removed.  They also learned that cultural awareness was important.  Analysis of the physical demands of modern warfare required a different approaches to conditioning.  One of the biggest findings was a need to equip soldiers to be effective and confident decision makers.

The combination of all these factors led to substantial changes to basic training.  Long distance runs have been replaced by short sprints.  Stretching and strengthening core muscles is emphasized.  Recruits use the actual  weapon during they will carry for marksmanship training.  Marksmanship has also been spread across the ten-week program instead of one intensive block.

Army analysis f0und that recruits, mostly all are millenials, are more adept at “juggling information” and “aware of global affairs” than previous generations.  They also have shorter attention spans and are less physically fit.  From a performance perspective, these are constraints that must be accounted for when developing the appropriate intervention.  The Army dealt with these issues by using a team approach to learning where recruits had to solve problems together and rely on one another’s strengths.  They also challenge recruits by frequently changing the conditions of a task and adding complexity.

Taking a systematic approach is more time consuming.  Successful organizations never stop reviewing the performance of the individuals, teams, and what they produce.  The ability to recognize and respond to market trends requires a thoughtful and intentional methodology.  HPT provides a framework where organizations can develop tools and methods that take into account the various inputs and constraints that affect performance.

How does your organization assess performance issues?

Does your organization apply a systematic approach to performance?

Do you have a program for analyzing the performance of your direct reports?

What are you doing to ensure they have the tools and training to perform at the highest level?

Does every performance problem get solved with training?

If you can’t answer these questions with confidence, click here to find a certified performance technologist near you.