Linda M. Farley » Accountability

Lack of Feedback Can Kill

Linda Farley — Fri, 22 Jan 2010 21:10:06 +0000

Tragedies touch me deeply. Yet, in processing them, come perspectives that I never expected. I respectfully submit to you the following article. May we learn much from the mistakes that led up to the sacrifice of so many.

How often have you seen the following sequence of events in your organization: a low performing employee continues on, year after year, with his/her lack of performance being ignored, moved from position to position – maybe even getting a promotion?

Maybe supervisors and managers have been trained on performance development–however, are they actually putting this training into practice?

Are they competently giving performance feedback?
Are they following up on performance progress?
Are they appropriately implementing consequences?

What is the process for addressing performance issues in your organization? What is the impact when this process is not trained, implemented and monitored in your organization? At the least it can adversely affect organizational performance. It may implode your company.

It could even be tragic.

Consider the Pentagon findings regarding the November slayings in Fort Hood, Texas, as reported by the Chicago Tribune:

“…shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan repeatedly earned favorable performance ratings in spite of mounting concerns about his views and behavior.”

“Among other issues, investigators have examined how it was that Hasan received repeated positive performance reviews that allowed his career to advance despite concerns about inappropriate behavior….”

“… the findings are expected to explore why concerns about Hasan’s performance at Walter Reed Army Medical Center were not passed on to his supervisors at his next assignment, at Texas’ Fort Hood.”

“Hasan’s performance at Walter Reed, as described by officials and those who knew him, should have raised red flags and prevented his promotion and transfer…. For instance, Hasan’s superiors faulted his light caseload and said he shirked professional responsibilities.”

“The investigation is also supposed to point to ways to overhaul the military performance evaluation system.”

The LA Times reports:

“In the Army, few performance reviews contain negative comments. However, at senior levels and in competitive fields, an evaluation that is less than effusive in its praise can derail an officer’s promotion. In less competitive fields and at junior levels, the Army has promoted the vast majority of its officers. And because of a shortage of mental health personnel, few such experts are blocked from promotion.”

“The culture that encourages mainly positive reviews has undercut the usefulness of the system for evaluating officers’ strengths and weaknesses, according to some military officials who requested anonymity when discussing the case.”

Consider how our employees often progress through performance development, compared to the progression of this Army officer.

Frequent Employee Progression

Hasan’s Progression

Employee’s performance is low.

“Records from his medical school days at a Maryland university also indicated Hasan received average and failing grades and at one point had been placed on academic probation.” ~CBC News

Employee’s low performance is ignored.

“Despite concerns about Hasan’s behaviour, supervisors gave him positive reviews in his officer evaluation reports.” ~CBC News

Employee gets a new position or promotion.

“Hasan was promoted to captain in 2003.” ~CBC News

Employee continues low performance.

“The review revealed that Hasan’s supervisors during his psychiatry internship and residency at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., from 2003 to 2007, voiced concerns about him in memos, meeting notes and counseling sessions.

He graduated from Walter Reed in 2007.

Upon graduation, Hasan received a favourable reference letter from Moran, despite the director’s earlier concerns.” ~CBC News.

Employee is passed from department to department, supervisor to supervisor where low performance pattern continues.

“Hasan completed a two-year fellowship at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences in Bethesda, Md., before arriving at Fort Hood in July 2009.

He was promoted to major in 2009.” ~CBC News

After a while, the low performance is passively accepted because the employee has worked there so long. Additionally, we don’t need to lose another person and have to hire and train a new one.

“Some have speculated that Hasan was able to rise through the ranks, despite his superiors’ hesitations, because the U.S. army is contending with shortages of both psychiatrists and majors in the medical corps.” ~CBC News

People talk about the low performer, resent him/her, but learn to live with the situation.

“Hasan’s performance at Walter Reed, as described by officials and those who knew him, should have raised red flags and prevented his promotion and transfer….” ~LA Times

Low performance begins to permeate the culture. Soon, people know that nothing will be done, that the organization needs them too much to challenge their results.

“The culture that encourages mainly positive reviews has undercut the usefulness of the system for evaluating officers’ strengths and weaknesses. ~LA Times

Of course, this is not a mere story about performance. It is about an individual who was motivated to far greater destruction than we can comprehend. However, it does raise the question that if appropriate development and consequences had been implemented, would the “red flags” have been noticed? Would this person have had the easy access to our loved ones to carry out such an atrocity?

As business professionals, we are responsible to develop people, to get people in the right positions and, also, to get them out of positions which would be detrimental to the organization or to others. We are responsible for creating an effective development process, training the process and holding people accountable to implement the process…even when implementing appropriate consequences is tough.

Could something as simple as implementation of a true performance development process have prevented this tragedy?

Do you need to look at how your organization’s performance development process is being implemented? What “red flags” are you missing?

Complete news stories at

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-tc-nw-fort-hood-0111-0112jan12,0,4710456.story

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jan/12/nation/la-na-fort-hood12-2010jan12

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/01/11/fort-hood-shooting.html

Follow Me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LindaFarley

Training and the Corporate Giving Cycle

Linda Farley — Mon, 11 Jan 2010 10:00:27 +0000

Oh, so you think the gift giving season is over? For corporations it has just begun.

January marks the start of renewed focus on results, productivity and efficiency. It also begins the yearly cycle of training.

Companies give training and expect employees to give back through improved revenue and decreased expenses. But are we getting the best return on investment? Could we do better in this Corporate Giving Cycle? Yes! The key is to create and facilitate training that is broad based and lasting.

Broad based training is learning which applies to a variety of situations. Does your training incorporate a wide variety of situations and scenarios in which participants can apply learning?

Communication skills training and customer service training can be combined to apply to communication with co-workers as well and customers, to internal and external customer service. Think about it-the skills really are the same.
Leadership skills can incorporate communication skills, which apply to…you guessed it.
Process skills can incorporate customer service skills.
Ethics can be woven into communication and customer service courses.

Create lasting training by incorporating past learning into current courses. Learning lasts longer if it is used frequently, so incorporate rarely used but essential learning from past courses into current ones.

Include a little used process in a scenario teaching a new one.
Design complex practices that incorporate both previous and new learning.
Develop learning that targets new information and emphasizes weak areas of performance:
Practice a new process with a time limit that will improve low productivity results.
Role play a scenario that includes completing a form that is currently a quality issue.

Apply the concept of broad based and lasting training in a way that participants can use some of the techniques in their outside-of-work life.

Provide examples of how to use conflict management skills with friends or family.
Practice negotiating skills with the participant as a customer as well as a service provider.
Link the process focus of quality and productivity to situations outside of work that affect participants.

When people understand that training can make their life better, not just their work better, they have a better buy-in into the training.

Providing broad based and lasting training results in a better return on investment. More importantly, when a company invests in people, rather than their employees, it is corporate giving at its best. Everyone benefits.

Follow Me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LindaFarley

Email: LMF@onr.com

Who is Donald Kirkpatrick and Why Do I Care?

Linda Farley — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 00:27:18 +0000

If you are in training, you CARE.

Have you ever felt that your training department and operations were on different pages, opposite sides, even in a battle?
Do you feel that your training department is more vulnerable to downsizing than other departments?
In your nightly dreams, is Nirvana a place where leaders value the training efforts in which you have put so much brain power?

Enter……Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick, founder of the Four Level Training Evaluation Model.

I was recently privileged to hear Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick speak at an ASTD (American Society for Training & Development) conference. He is 80 years old and his work is as relevant today as it was when it was first published in 1959. (Don’t stop reading just because it’s old – Einstein’s work is still relevant.)

One of the concepts that Kirkpatrick talks about is identifying a “chain of evidence” that provides compelling proof of the value of training to the organization. He encourages us to supply a preponderance of proof, rather than proving the value beyond a shadow of doubt.

This is an important differentiation for trainers and training leaders who have beat their heads against the wall to prove empirically that their training was specifically what impacted results in a positive way.

Why might empirical proof be difficult? Trainers know that the temperature of the room, the attitude of the individual’s supervisor and personal distractions can affect a participant’s evaluation of training. Additionally, individuals may score high on what they learned in training, then be discouraged to employ the skills or procedures on the job. Conversely, outside influences, such as a thriving market or a new product introduction may have impacted results in a positive way independent of training.

Rather than focus on irrefutable proof, build a chain of evidence, compelling proof that the training has value by evaluating training in as many of the levels as it makes sense.

The levels that Kirkpatrick developed are summarized below in reverse order. Why in reverse order? Because so often training professionals do not think beyond Level 1 or 2. Our companies are called upon to bring in results in very competitive world. Trainers need to partner with the organization to achieve those results as actively as any operations person. This focus positions the training department as a value added to the operation.

Level 4 – Results

Results measures the impact of the training on the organization or company. The evaluation views sustained results, usually from 30, 60, 90 days after the intended audience has completed training. It often measures even beyond this timeframe. Level 4 evaluation may include a % increase in performance results, a cost/benefit analysis and/or an ROI (return on investment).

In “Implementing the Four Levels,” Kirkpatrick states that this is the most important because it is the most important to our stakeholders.
Kirkpatrick recommends that you “start with the end in mind.” In the design phase of training, trainers must agree with stakeholders on the goal the training will achieve and design metrics to measure that goal along with training design. From Kirkpatrick’s viewpoint, this level measures “Return on Expectations.”
Consider using a control group and experimental groups to measure results before and after training.

Level 3 – Behavior

This level of evaluation is done after the participant returns to work. Its goal is to determine if he/she is using the information delivered in training and to what level it is being used. (e.g. If the individual attained a satisfactory score on the end of course test and then does not apply the skill on the job, it may indicate a lack of willingness, coaching or a difference in the direction the person is receiving on the job. These are all good bytes of information to determine how to make the course most effective.)

Engage the operational supervisors and managers in evaluating behavior on job. Make sure to get buy-in for the process during the design phase of the training.
Either employ evaluation tools already in use in the operations or create tools that supervisors and managers can use routinely to develop people. The tools then become part of the operation, rather than another task to be done for the training department. (e.g. In a call center operation, trainers can use the observation checklist that is used by the QA (Quality Assurance) department. Trainers for a trucking company can use a checklist developed by the truck manufacturer to ensure quality repair is demonstrated on job.)
Often the same tool used to evaluate learning can be used to evaluate behavior on job. (e.g. If training uses a simulation that times how long it takes to complete a transaction, the Level 3 evaluation may be the report from the Automatic Call Distributor that averages the time for each agent’s cumulative transactions.

Level 2 – Learning

Evaluation of learning is performed at the end of the training session. Some of the methods which can be used are tests, graded simulations or observations rated using a checklist.

Ensure that the evaluation gages the level of learning as described by the objectives of the training. (e.g. knowledge, comprehension, application, etc.) Use Bloom’s Taxonomy to develop objectives to the appropriate level of learning.
Design the evaluation so that it can be easily scored and tabulated.
Avoid making tests too easy. Challenging multiple choice tests can be created by using scenario based questions and scenario answers that have complex details to consider before answering.

Level 1 – Reaction

Reaction gages how participants feel about or view the training. It is the quintessential “smile sheet” that can be as valuable or destructive as you make it.

Provide the evaluation at the end of training class as possible. Online evaluations sent by email after class will not be completed by as many people and will not capture the immediate reaction of individuals as well as end of class evals.
Ask only the questions that will provide valuable information that actually will be used.
Avoid using the evaluations as the only or the major assessment of instructor performance. (Oh, yes, instructors have been known to throw out less than perfect evaluations in order to ensure a superior rating and a substantial annual raise.)

Use these levels – all of them – to get your training department and operations on the same page, the same side, to jointly win the battle. You will feel less vulnerable to downsizing and you might even achieve Nirvana!

What do you think?

Follow Me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LindaFarley

Class Size Matters

Linda Farley — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:24:23 +0000

We are always charged to do more with less.

At what cost?

In multiple situations I have designed and delivered classes, targeted at a specific size audience. Hours of development time were invested to identify the most effective learning activities, calibrate the number of teams and estimate time to debrief. Then, the class was “crammed” with too many people and we were challenged to “make do.”

Many reasons are given for overbooking the class:

We are too busy to go to class, so everyone waited until the last session to attend.
We are trying to save money by providing fewer sessions, but have the same number of people to train.
We have no way of knowing how many people sign up.
That’s the way the supervisors want it.
That’s the way we always do it.
We didn’t know it mattered.

It matters.

You can see it in the Level 1 evaluations. Right sized classes tend to have more positive evaluations. Participants’ feedback is more positive about the facilitator’s skill, the learning they experience and the individual attention they received.

More importantly, a higher level of learning is achieved when class size follows the original design.

Debriefing of information is not rushed.

Time for clarification and answers is sufficient.

Understanding of content is better facilitated.

The class size issue may be caused because Leader Led training is not the right approach for the situation. Training professionals must adopt a consultative approach to determine how content should be delivered. Consider:

Should the leader-led class be supplemented with pre-work to allow for more classes with shorter length?

Can technology be used to deliver all or part of the content?

Should blended learning be employed?

Can all or part of the learning be facilitated on job?

What other methods can be used to deliver content?

The challenge for organizations is to determine what objectives it wants to achieve for each training class and provide the resources to meet the objective. The organization must be able to trust the training professionals to deliver learning using the most effective and efficient methods

If Leader Led training is the answer, then…..

Instructional designers should design a class for a specific class size.

Training managers and administrators should arrange for a room that will accommodate that size class.

Leaders should value the learning investment and not insist on overbooking the class.

Follow Me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LindaFarley

One Eyed Booger Face

Linda Farley — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 14:11:30 +0000

One Eyed Booger Face
You keep one eye closed so you can’t see the clock
And one eye open to the inside of your mind
You drone on and on
Words fill up the place and run out of your nose
I wonder what you are saying, One Eyed Booger Face
You lost me a long time ago
And I am late to pick up my kids
Open your eyes and get to know who you are talking to
Look us in the eyes
And you will stop running over

Freedom to Learn

Linda Farley — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 02:34:29 +0000

The Statue of Liberty stands proudly bearing her torch of freedom in New York harbor.

I can just imagine the excitement that early immigrants felt as they passed the Lady after a long and grueling voyage in hopes of a new life. Fleeing oppression, poverty and discrimination, they welcomed the challenges of the unfamiliar so that they could embrace the possibility of opportunity.

Others journeyed against their will to America, usually arriving via other harbors that lacked the welcoming landmark.

I wonder if participants in our training classes have the same hopes as those early immigrants who saw the Statue as they passed. Or do they have any hopes at all, any interest in being in class? Or are they hostages like those who arrived via other harbors?

The attitudes of learners begin to form long before they ever arrive in our classroom, in the voyage through the corporate environment which leads them to us.

How can we generate an attitude of positive anticipation for training, rather than the fear and dread of being a classroom hostage?

Create a corporate attitude that values learning

Leadership drives an attitude that values learning. Training departments must prove the ROI of training. They must provide learning opportunities that meet the needs of the organization using the most appropriate delivery methods (think e-learning, leader-led, webinar, pod cast, wiki and beyond). Leaders from the top down must believe in learning, not just “check the box” that people have attended training. Decisions must consider how people will learn and how learning will be implemented. Training departments must have a seat at the table of decision making.

Promote WIIFM

Learners need to know “what’s in it for me” (WIIFM). They need to know this before arriving in class. They need to believe that the learning will help them in some way. When supervisors speak about the training, the WIIFM should be emphasized. Learners should know why they are attending training and what they will learn and why. Promotion for the learning should begin as far in advance as possible and should communicate a positive message about the value the learner will gain.

Build individual accountability

Everyone involved must be held accountable for learning.

Supervisors must be willing to allow workers to attend learning functions and not postpone attendance due to lack of time or staff.

Trainers must professionally develop and facilitate learning.

Learners must be held accountable for learning.

Accountability calls for at least a Level 2 evaluation (yes, a test). Not just any test, but a true test of learning. More than a mulitiple-choice-you-can-guess-the-answer-test. Level 2 evaluation should be a true evaluation of what the participant has learned. Test critical thinking skills, demonstrated skills, ability to assimilate information into a real work environment. (p.s. – for trainers, this takes more planning than just creating a PowerPoint slide presentation of training)

Accountability includes cutting loose – a Texas term describing how we cut cattle out of a herd who don’t belong – those participants who don’t want to learn, aren’t able to learn, aren’t willing to learn or who just want to blow off the whole thing. Did I just hint that some people shouldn’t work for you? Darn right!

To learn is freedom. We grow through learning. Help people in your organization welcome the challenges of the unfamiliar so that they can embrace the possibility of opportunity.

Follow Me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LindaFarley

Statue of Liberty photo taken in New York Harbor on July 30, 2009 by Andrea Farley

Do You Honor Learners? Part 2

Linda Farley — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 20:27:40 +0000

Stop. Read the previous “Do You Honor Learners?” Don’t want to? OK, proceed, but I’m not going to explain Maslow all over again.

As facilitators, our body language either communicates that we honor or discount the learner. What is your body doing as the learner is talking?

We all know about eye contact, head nodding and verbal responses to indicate that we are listening. There are more subtle ways that we honor the learner’s communication.

Jane is expressing her very important point of view and the instructor turns his back to her and walks back to cue up the next PowerPoint slide while she is talking.

Rohit is answering a question and is a little unsure of himself. The teacher looks away as he is talking, her attention distracted by a person texting in the back of the room.

Chris is presenting information, after a group activity. The facilitator, who has taught the same course 30 times, takes this opportunity to flip through the lesson plan to the next learning module.

Jorge raises his hand to ask a question and, simultaneously the instructor thinks about how behind schedule the class is. Jorge hesitates when he sees the grimace on her face.

What impression do these learners have of how they are being honored?

Facilitators are human. They get distracted, weary, and occasionally have to repress a burp from the Italian food they ate for lunch.

Powerful human facilitators are aware of subtle body language and the effect on learners. They consciously control themselves and practice improving continuously.

How do you honor learners with your body language? What do you need to improve?

Do You Stretch?

Linda Farley — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:13:37 +0000

Trainers

Stretching
Learning
Doing things differently
Adapting to the learner
Trying new technology
Trying new skills
Trying new techniques

Stretching learners’ abilities
Stretching companies’ possibilities
Stretching trainings’ credibilities
Stretching organizations’ operabilities
Stretching businesses’ sustainabilities

Are you stretchy?

Follow Me on Twitter: http://twitter.com/LindaFarley

Artwork @2009 Andrew Farley

Corporate Walls That Lie?

Linda Farley — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:13:50 +0000

The employees are not performing. Supervisors are not developing employees. We have too much gossip in the workplace. Objectives are not being met. We have inconsistency.

Let’s have a training class. But we don’t have much time. And money is an issue. Can we do it in 30 minutes? We could put it in a list on a handout. Better yet, just send an email and remind everyone. But just a very brief email. Better yet, just put it in the subject line of the email so they don’t have to read the whole thing. Maybe we could just wave a magic wand and sprinkle stardust on them while they sleep-multitasking at its best.

Yes, we can do all those things. (Well, maybe not the last one.) But employees are not appliances that you take to the repair shop to be fixed. They are, rather, humans that need and deserve nurturing.

My friend Anne sent me a Zig Ziglar quote today, “The only thing worse than training your employees and losing them is not training your employees and keeping them.”

So true, Zig!

Investments that we make in our employees have a big payoff: behavior change that supports organizational goals. But that investment cannot be just a training class. Training is the beginning – a learning event. Behavior change rests on a foundation that includes procedures, behavioral modeling and feedback as well as learning events.

Learning events can be training workshops, group meetings, or even instantly accessible reference material or instructions. Effective learning events match the need. Some learning can be put in an email. Others take 8 hours, or 10, or a week.

Procedures are the policies, guidelines and instructions. They must be in place to guide workers and set expectations. Clear, concise, available procedures are the structure of the operation.

Actions speak louder than words. Supervisors, Managers and Staff must model behavior that they want exhibited. (Who expects employees to not gossip or to treat customers well, when leaders do just the opposite?)

People deserve feedback. Surprises at the end of year evaluation are not fair. When people don’t perform as expected, immediate, professional, supportive feedback must be provided. Read the “One Minute Manager” for the best advice on feedback.

This continuum works. Which components do you have in place? Which components need improvement.

Looking for a quick fix?

Do you have employees or appliances?

Follow Me On Twitter www.Twitter.com/LindaFarley

Appliances in the Workplace

Linda Farley — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 04:05:26 +0000

The employees are not performing. Supervisors are not developing employees. We have too much gossip in the workplace. Objectives are not being met. We have inconsistency.

My friend Anne sent me a Zig Ziglar quote today, “The only thing worse than training your employees and losing them is not training your employees and keeping them.”

So true, Zig!

Procedures are the policies, guidelines and instructions. They must be in place to guide workers and set expectations. Clear, concise, available procedures are the structure of the operation.

This continuum works. Which components do you have in place? Which components need improvement.

Looking for a quick fix?

Do you have employees or appliances?

Follow Me On Twitter www.Twitter.com/LindaFarley