Why Aren't They Doing What I Want Them to Do?

A leader frequently finds herself at wit's end trying to understand why her people won't perform up to expectations. There are really only four possible reasons why people fall short:

1) LACK OF SKILL: They don't know how to carry out the tasks required to perform as expected.

2) LACK OF WILL: They aren't motivated to do their best.

3) BARRIERS: They may know what to do and have the desire to do it, but there's something in the environment that blocks their performance - for example, lack of needed tools and resources.

4) GOAL CONFUSION: They may not actually know what's expected of them, often because it hasn't been clearly communicated to them.

Unfortunately, when a person isn't performing successfully, the most common approach to addressing the situation is to treat it as an issue of skill or will. This approach tends to put the responsibility on the performer to remedy the situation. However, as W. Edwards Deming once said, "A bad system will beat a good person every time." Rather than treating every performance issue as requiring a training solution (skill) or calling for a "fire" to be lit under the performer (will), the leader might also consider the possibility that she bears a big part of the responsibility. After all, Reasons #3 and #4 are factors largely under her control.

A Few Quick Thoughts About Empathy

1) Empathy and sympathy are not the same thing. Sympathy means being affected by the feelings of others. Empathy means making the effort to understand why others think and feel the way they do.

2) Empathizing with someone doesn't necessarily mean you're agreeing with him; 

3) Empathizing doesn't necessarily mean you have to do it the other person's way; 

4) Empathizing gives you a chance to better understand the other person's interests and perspectives so you can potentially find common ground; 

5) Empathizing shows that you care, which in turn creates trust; 

6) Even if you don't pursue the direction the other person wants, if the person feels that you at least gave her a hearing and took her interests into account, she'll be more likely to accept your decision; 

7) Ultimately, as the leader, you have the final say. But if you take action with others' views and interests in mind, you'll be more likely to win their commitment (rather than just compliance) - which means that they'll be more likely to go the extra mile for you and the organization. 

8) Empathy is a prerequisite for influence, because we need to know what will motivate a person to change before we can take action that will lead him to change.

You Need to Have a Goal - or Do You?

I've frequently seen references to a study conducted at Yale in 1953 which found that 3% of MBA graduates surveyed had clear written goals for their future, 13% had goals but had not written them down, and 84% had no specific goals at all. When these same graduates were surveyed ten years later, the 3% who had written goals were earning on average ten times as much as the other 97%.

This study has been cited for years to prove the point that specific, written goals are essential if you want to achieve your highest level of success. The idea is that, if you don’t know (and don’t document) where you’re going with total clarity, you’ll likely fall far short of your potential.

I’ve always been somewhat skeptical of this one-size-fits-all approach to life and career planning. After all, how many people can see with 20/20 foresight what opportunities will present themselves on life’s journey? And, just as situations change, people change. My burning ambition at age 21 to devote myself to an all-consuming career may suddenly be tempered by life events somewhere down the pike – say, my desire to spend more time with my family as I get older.

My sense that there are a variety of approaches to life and career planning is supported by research conducted by Annie McKee, founder of the Teleos Leadership Institute. McKee found that people use three different approaches to thinking about and planning for the future:

1) Goal-oriented: This is the style used by the 16% of the people cited in the Yale study. “Goal-oriented planners tend to focus on very specific goals and outcomes,” writes McKee in Becoming a Resonant Leader (co-authored with Richard Boyatzis and Frances Johnston).

2) Direction-oriented: Regarding this style, McKee writes: “Although they know the general path they wish to pursue, they stop short of getting too specific…. They adapt easily to changes in the environment, but stay true to an overarching set of principles, values, or a vision.” This style is similar to the approach I mentioned in an earlier post, in which a person sets an Aspirational Goal about the things she wants to realize in her life without locking in to a specific path or role.

3) Action-oriented: Action-oriented planners tend not to look very far down the road at all. As McKee says, “They choose each action according to the logic of the moment and base the next decision on outcomes of recent past actions.” I would call these the Improvisational Planners (to use a deliberate contradiction), who base their approach on a series of on-the-fly choices that just feel right at the moment.

With respect to these styles, McKee makes a telling observation:

“One size does not fit all when it comes to formulating a useful plan for your future [emphasis added]. When leadership development programs attempt to convince everyone to use the same format and propose one ‘best way’ [shades of Frederick Winslow Taylor!] to think about a person’s future and plans, it is not surprising that change is not sustained.”

I think that McKee’s research reflects a key point about the nature of change and growth: The more you’re able to chart a development path that reflects your own style, the more likely you’ll be able to follow it. The more you try to shoehorn yourself into an approach that doesn’t fit you, the more you’ll be continually struggling against yourself to sustain your resolve.

As with any change effort, of course, you’ll be well served by challenging yourself to do things outside of your comfort zone. In McKee’s words, “Each of the three styles has wisdom for the other; the point is to know and honor your preference and be aware of the others as you organize activities in your plan.”

But do McKee’s findings go against the conclusions drawn by the Yale study I mentioned above? Well, no – because in fact there is no such Yale study! Even though the “study” has been cited for years (with multiple variations in the retelling – some peg it to Harvard, some place it in the ‘60s, or ‘70s – all in true Urban Legend style), no evidence has been found to confirm its actual existence, as Fast Company magazine pointed out in a 1996 article. While “You Must Have a Goal” may sound like the only way to go, the research shows that it's only one approach to creating a career and life that will work for you.

Balancing Chaos and Rigidity: Using Light Structures to Guide Our Improvisation

I’ve found the concept of “improvisation in organizations” to often be a difficult sell.  Many people seem to think that “improvise” means “make it all up as you go along” – which conjures up images of multiple free agents setting off on individual courses of action that can’t be tracked, monitored, or controlled.  

In fact, though, improv follows processes and rules of engagement that guide individuals in their actions without dictating exactly what they should say or do. As Cathy Salit of the applied improvisation group Performance of a Lifetime says, “Beneath the apparent chaos of improvisation is a light structure that allows it to work.” For performance improvisers, that structure is comprised of games that frame the boundaries of the actors’ onstage performance, as well as rules (such as “Say Yes And” and “Make Your Partner Look Good”) that guide the behaviors of the actors.

Without this sense of light structure, performance improv would be nothing more than individual actors trying to upstage one another by making wisecracks and calling attention to themselves as individuals. The team aspect of improv – a central aspect of its appeal and success – would be totally lost, since there would be no unifying goal for the performers’ actions beyond trying to evoke big yuks.

The value of using “light structures” is also becoming increasingly recognized by business organizations.

Think about it from your own experience: When was the last time you arrived at work and were handed the “script of the day” to be rigidly observed until it was time to go home? Improvising is the human condition – we’re constantly improvising, from morning until night. Yet organizational life requires each of us to focus our improvisations on the accomplishment of a common goal. Structures such as a company vision, mission, core values, and work objectives allow an organization to marshal all of the individual actions of its members toward the achievement of a common purpose. These structures also allow for a degree of consistency and control in the operation of the enterprise.

However, the danger of making these structures too heavy can be illustrated by certain organizations that have tried to operate by means of overly rigid requirements. In his book To Sell Is Human, Dan Pink notes that Col. John Patterson of NCR Corporation sketched the blueprint for a sales approach that depended on saying and doing things precisely by the book in interactions with customers. Quoting Harvard business historian Walter Friedman, Pink notes:  “The ever more detailed instructions … focused ‘not only on what salesmen should say, but also on what they were to do while saying it.’”

While consistency is needed in a company’s sales methods, this approach taken to its extreme has the downside of making sellers sound robotic and inauthentic. These methods may have met with success in the days when selling was largely a formulaic, cost-benefit proposition. Selling today, though, requires building relationships with customers as much as it does pointing out features and benefits of products. And relationship-building involves give and take, going where the customer wants to go, listening carefully, and treating each customer as a unique individual – none of which is possible with a completely prearranged approach. A more lightly structured selling approach that focuses on the customer’s buying steps and the actions that can help guide (not force or push) the customer up those steps allows for sellers to recognize the needs and expectations of each individual customer while still maintaining a consistent approach.

You might say, “Well, that’s fine, but my job doesn’t involve selling anything.” But one of Pink’s main themes is that we’re all in sales now. His studies have shown that up to 40% of the workday of the typical organizational member involves what he calls non-sales selling – “persuading, influencing, and convincing others in ways that don’t involve anyone making a purchase.” Whether you’re a manager trying to negotiate for project resources, a lawyer trying to move a jury, a doctor trying to persuade a patient to follow a treatment plan, or a facilitator trying to influence a class participant to adopt a new behavior or way of thinking … you’re a salesperson. And the same light-structure approach – derived from the rules of improvisational theater - that guides the actions of the modern sales professional can guide yours as well. As Dan Pink describes them:

1) Hear Offers: As Cathy Salit says, improv performers must “listen without listening for anything.” In other words, they need to suspend the mental filters and assumptions through which they hear the words of others and which can distract them from the actual message. For example, if someone you’re trying to influence responds by asking several questions, you might interpret their failure to immediately agree with you as resistance to what you’re saying. You may then react by treating them as an adversary who needs to be “defeated.” But if you listen carefully and generously, you might realize that their questions reflect a good-faith attempt to understand what you’re saying. In effect, they may be making an offer to continue the interaction and perhaps work collaboratively toward a mutually agreeable solution.

2) Say “Yes And”:  When we say “yes and,” we maintain an attitude of positivity and possibility toward the person we’re trying to influence.  “Yes and” doesn’t necessarily mean Agreeing with the other’s Position. Rather, it means Accepting the Person, Acknowledging the Possibilities in what he or she is saying, and Advancing with Positive Purpose.

3) Make Your Partner Look Good: As mentioned above, improv is a collaborative team performance that requires the actors to allow space for their fellow team members to shine. Doing so makes for a better scene, and better success for everyone. The same holds true when you’re trying to influence someone in a certain direction: Focusing on the other’s interests as much as your own can result in creative win-win solutions that allow both of you to “shine.”

Light Without Heat: Creating the Full Equation for Change

I'm always on the lookout for pop music from the '60s - the more obscure, the better. Last week, on a browse through YouTube, I found a song titled "Light Without Heat" by a California group called (fittingly enough) Creation of Sunlight. Even before I listened to the tune, though, I was intrigued by the title - especially in "light" of the thinking I've been doing lately on the subject of personal change.

It strikes me that "light without heat" describes the way many people attempt to effect change in others - and in themselves. For example, a leader might be dealing with an employee who has high potential but who's saddled with a behavior - such as a hair-trigger temper - that's derailing him in his career. The leader might try to give the employee a wake-up call by shining the light of realization in his face regarding his behavior. This can take the form of a coaching session in which the leader encourages the employee to reflect on his behavior and self-realize the way in which it's holding him back. It might also be a 360-degree feedback process, a comment on a performance evaluation, or (in extreme cases) a direct confrontation in which the leader flat-out tells the employee about the behavior and its negative impact.

Certainly this "light" can serve to jar the employee out of his complacency or cluelessness. But such a wake-up call is likely to have only a temporary effect. In order for the employee to do the hard, day-in and day-out work of personal change, he needs to have a sustaining vision of what he can become. By creating a clear picture of what his life will be like if he's able to work more effectively with others, he can create the "heat," the fire in the belly that will motivate him to pursue his personal goal.

Or consider an automobile salesperson who uses a consultative approach with her clients. In inquiring about a client's situation and needs, she may become aware of a blind spot in the client's understanding of his current circumstances. For example, the client may have a 10-year-old vehicle with 200,000 miles that's running fine now but that might cause problems as the client moves to a new house an extra 25 miles from his job.

In this situation, the consultative salesperson could ask a question to shed light on the client's situation: "With that longer commute, what would happen if you found yourself taking your car into the shop once a month or even more?" As the client considers the impact, he could give himself a wake-up call that might rouse him from his complacency. But to help the client see a way out of the bad outcome he's now contemplating, the salesperson could follow up with another question: "What would it feel like to have a car as dependable as your current car was 10 years ago?" This can prompt the client to see the positive outcomes in proceeding with a purchase - again, to motivate him to move toward a possible future rather than just running from an undesirable present.

Organizational change itself also works best if wake-up calls (to shake people out of their comfort with the status quo) are accompanied by a positive vision for change and a series of steps to start moving in that direction. The wake-up call - which can be a stark message about what could happen if change does not occur - can provide the light. The positive vision - the well-drawn descriptions and images of what the organization and its people could achieve - provides the heat, the inner fire of motivation to proceed even in the face of difficulties that might lie ahead.

"Light Without Heat" is another way of saying "Awareness Without Action" or "Knowing Without Doing." Both sides of the equation are necessary to maintain your resolve and commitment to change.

Why Be Positive?

As a kid, I was a huge fan of Bill Cosby’s comedy records. I particularly liked his routine about his grade school teacher who tried to teach math by rote:

TEACHER: Class, one and one is two.

CLASS: Yeah, cool, man! What’s a two?

Well, rather than fall into the trap of merely asserting “universal truths” and assuming that everyone knows (and agrees with) their significance, I’ll summarize some of the benefits that can result from the YES! Leader’s adoption of positivity in his leadership practice:

1) Emotions are contagious, and the leader is usually the main carrier. People look to the leader to set the emotional tone of the organizational environment. If the leader approaches challenges in a negative way, her mood is likely to rub off on her followers. By contrast, if the leader adopts an optimistic outlook on her people’s ability to deal with current and future challenges, the followers are more likely to believe in their capacity for creating positive outcomes.

2) Learning flourishes in an environment in which people are respected, valued, and empowered to give their best. If the leader conveys a consistent message of high (and attainable) expectations of people’s abilities, along with ongoing support for and recognition of their efforts, then people are more likely to, not just achieve goals, but learn from their experiences and engage in sustained successful performance over time. The true mark of a positive environment is the regular expending of discretionary effort by the organization’s members – doing far more than just the bare minimum.

By contrast, if the leader creates an overall sour mood that doesn’t encourage and support people in their day-to-day work, people are less likely to experience the benefits and payoffs that come from attempting to stretch themselves. Especially if the leader’s mood is inconsistent and erratic, the followers focus less on achieving and learning, more on protecting themselves from the leader’s unpredictable behavior. This can result in an environment in which people are constantly on guard against potential attacks. Simply put, optimal learning can’t occur in a high-stress environment.

3) Positivity sparks a mindset that creates a vision of an ideal future. In their book Becoming a Resonant Leader, authors Annie McKee, Richard Boyatzis, and Frances Johnson refer to this as engaging the Positive Emotional Attractor, which in turn “supports a sustainable change process by increasing our capacity for emotional flexibility, improving our neurological functioning, and increasing our sense of psychological well-being.”

One example of the Positive Emotional Attractor in action can be seen in the process of individual growth and change. Many people embark on development efforts by first identifying the gaps and weaknesses in their arsenal of skills (“If I could only get better at _____, I’d be great”).  But this focus on deficiencies can quickly become demotivating unless the person first paints a mental picture of what life could be like – what he could become – in the future. As McKee et al. say, “The key is that the vision should invoke in our mind a specific, clear picture of the future – one that we find inspiring and feasible.” Creating this vision of the ideal self and the ideal future gives us both a clear direction (to guide our development plans) and an inner passion (to keep us motivated to pursue those plans).

The YES! Leader can reflect this Positive Emotional Attractor in her own development as a leader, by creating and continually refining this detailed vision of her ideal self as a beacon to guide her individual growth. She can also inspire her followers to create their own personal visions by coaching them in their development efforts. And she can inspire the entire organization by encouraging the adoption of the Positive Emotional Attractor as a mindset to guide everyone in their daily interactions – by expecting the best of every encounter and working collaboratively to bring it to fruition, rather than wallowing in the factors that keep them stuck in the current reality.

Painting an ideal future will not by itself lead to realizing that future – but it’s a necessary starting point for a development journey that could easily involve multiple speed bumps and barriers along the way. As Jim Collins notes in describing the Stockdale Paradox, an optimistic belief in the power to change and a realistic acknowledgment of the current reality must go hand in hand. The latter without the former leads to discouragement and demoralization. The former without the latter leads to an unrealistic assessment of the challenges ahead – which, when encountered, lead to discouragement and demoralization as well.

GOOOOOAL! Keeping Yourself on the Path in Your Life's Journey

Many people believe that future success depends on creating a precise vision of exactly what you’ll be doing with your life by a defined time in the future – for example, “In 10 years I’ll be the Talent Management Director for a Fortune 500 retail company.”

I’ve always questioned whether this near-mandate of “you must have a specific goal” is a universal truth, for two primary reasons:

1) Setting such a specific goal usually involves making a future projection based on current realities. Who knows whether the existing job description for a Talent Management Director will still apply in 10 years? And if the nature of the role changes significantly, how do you know that the skills you’re building for the role will still be important 10 years from now?

2) Not only do “things change,” but we change. Our goals and motivators are largely determined by underlying values that are important to us – such as “making a high income” or “having a lot of power.” It’s funny, though, how life events (such as having children) and the natural process of maturation can cause us to recalibrate our values and priorities. As we get close to that definite goal that requires high responsibility and long work hours, we may find that “work-life balance” has unexpectedly become an imperative in the interim. And if we’ve focused our career development efforts too narrowly up to that time, we may find ourselves in career crisis.

Undoubtedly there are people who know exactly what they want in X years and go get it. But there are also others who would feel too hemmed in by such a predetermined goal and who find it more effective to shift and adjust (i.e., improvise) to meet the changes in the environment – and in themselves. As with many other things, career planning (or what I prefer to call “life planning”) is a matter of personal preference and not a cookie-cutter proposition.

Perhaps the best rule of thumb is this: In life planning, either your goals must be flexible or you must be flexible – or both, in whatever combination reflects your own approach to dealing with your environment.

One highly effective approach to life planning involves the creation of an Aspirational Goal for yourself. An Aspirational Goal is, very simply, the way you would complete the sentence, “In X years, I want a situation in which I ….” If you have a precise idea of the role or position you want, you can complete the sentence with precision – e.g, “In 10 years, I want a situation in which I am the Talent Management Director of a Fortune 500 retail company.” 

However, if you are the type who prefers to maintain flexibility in your planning, you can instead describe the factors you want to have in place in your future situation – whatever it might ultimately be. For example, “In 10 years, I want a situation in which I am able to run my own business using my creative abilities, leaving enough time to take two months off each year for travel.” A benefit of the latter approach is that it brings your values (creativity, autonomy, mobility) front and center into your life planning and allows you to reevalute them at regular intervals to see if they still apply.

You can think of your Aspirational Goal as a beacon on a distant hill that helps you navigate your life’s journey. You might find yourself taking detours from time to time and proceeding in a less-than-direct path – but the light from your Aspirational Goal will still be visible to help you reorient yourself and check your progress on the path. As you reach decision points – Should I accept this job? Do I want to pursue this degree? Do I want to relocate to Wyoming? – you can ask yourself: “Will this help me move in the direction of my Aspirational Goal?”

Getting Past the Impasse

So you’re butting heads with someone, or you’re participating in a session where people are butting heads.  What options are available for getting beyond the disagreement – other than just resorting to a show of power? Here are some options to consider:

Discuss the issue and persuade the other side. This is probably the most common way to deal with disagreement. We make our best case for our particular position and hope that our rationale will convince the other side to see things our way.

Agree on standards to which a solution must adhere, then look for solutions that best meet the standards. For example, we might agree ahead of time that a solution must cost no more than X dollars, be completed in Y number of weeks, and allow us to accomplish certain outcomes. We can then evaluate each proposal as it’s generated to determine how well it meets the predefined standards.

                                                                                                              

Agree on common interests, and work toward a solution that best meets those interests.  In a classic example, two people argue over which one of them should have the last orange in a bowl. As long as they remain stuck on their positions – “I need the orange!”, “No, I need the orange!” – they’ll never be able to reach agreement. It’s only when the parties explore why each needs the orange – “I want to make juice! , “I want to make marmalade!” – that they can see that their positions may be incompatible but not their respective interests. In fact, in this case, both of their interests can be satisfied with only one orange – by giving one the inside of the orange (for the juice) and the other the peel (for the marmalade).

                                                                               

Clarify the positions to see if new understanding minimizes or eliminates the disagreement. Sometimes in the course of discussion, the parties raise so many different proposals, contingencies, assumptions, etc., that the trail of information being shared becomes muddied beyond recognition. In those situations, the parties can find themselves reacting to positions that in fact mischaracterize what others are saying. It can help to just stop and have each party restate what they’re saying – and what they think they’re hearing. They may well find that they were in “violent agreement” all along.

Clarify the definitions of terms being used to see if new understanding minimizes or eliminates the disagreement. I recall once observing two parties who were in disagreement over how an analysis task should be conducted in a meeting. One party kept saying that they needed to just “keep it simple,” which seemed to set the other party off, as if she were being accused of overcomplicating the task. It was only when the first party was asked “What does ‘simple’ look like?” that the parties started to focus more on the needs and the defined scope of the project and less on their differing interpretations of the term “simple.” As they discussed, they found that they really weren’t so far apart after all.

Have a neutral third party decide. Even when the parties look beyond their positions and explore their interests, they may still find themselves at an impasse. In that case, the best course may be to have the tie broken by a decision-maker whom both parties respect.  Usually, this more drastic approach is indicated if the stakes – and the need for urgency – are particularly high.

Take a vote. Sometimes, groups get wrapped up in contending over a relatively minor issue that could be easily settled by just taking a vote – for example, “Where should we go for lunch - Mexican or Italian?” Even then, though, there are several options available for conducting a vote that go beyond just signifying either “This” or “That.” For example, if there are many choices on the table, each group member can be given (say) five votes, with the option to allocate his votes among the different options however he likes – all five votes on one option, or three votes on one option and two on another, etc.

Another voting option, called the Gradient of Agreement, allows members to indicate on a scale of 1 to 5 how strongly they support a proposal – a 5 means “I fully support it,” 4 means “I like it with some minor reservations,” 3 means “I’m ok with it,” 2 means “I don’t like it but I won’t stand in the group’s way,” and 1 means “I veto it.” Even if nobody vetoes a proposal, the group can still take a reading of how strongly the members support the proposal. If the votes tend toward the 3s and 2s, then even though it “passed,” the group might still decide to continue working toward a solution that might be even better. 

Learning After the Training

In my previous article, I described the GAPS Model of individual development as an approach that allows a learner to fill in skill gaps by using a series of learning steps that progressively build toward proficiency in the skill

So when you’ve completed each of the GAPS steps, you should be ready to hit the ground running on the other side of the chasm, right? Well, likely not. And this is the point where even the best development strategy can break down.

To become truly proficient at a task, you need to begin performing it in actual situations.  And no matter how closely your Synthesize-oriented learning activities resemble reality, they are after all just simulations. When you exercise the skill for the first time in actual situations, you’re still in learning mode. And you’re likely to become frustrated and discouraged when you encounter real-world challenges that the simulations didn’t cover – especially when you feel as if you’re on your own when it comes to figuring out how to proceed.

You can muddle through this School of Hard Knocks, and certainly many people do that. But you can also seek out some supporting mechanisms to help you through this critical period when you’re trying to transfer classroom learning back to the job. Such mechanisms include:

Action Learning – Action Learning is a process in which small groups work on real problems, periodically reflecting on and discussing (usually with the help of a coach) their individual and group learnings. By using actual situations as a laboratory for exploring how their learned skills and knowledge can be applied, participants can get the benefit of learning to deal with non-simulated complexity in a supportive environment. In addition, the organization gets the benefit of a completed project.

Coaching – In their influential book Transfer of Training, Mary Broad and John Newstrom demonstrated how the actions of a class participant’s manager immediately after a training event play a critical role in ensuring the application of the learned skills back on the job. Coaching at this stage can be focused on helping the learner discover how the skills and knowledge she acquired in training can be applied to  real-world situations.

Class Reunions – After a class has concluded, the facilitator can schedule a follow-up session with all participants to share and discuss some of the ways in which the participants have applied their learnings on the job. The participants can also describe some of the challenges they’ve had in implementing their new skills and knowledge and can gain insight from their cohorts about how to deal with those challenges.

Shadowing – As Yogi Berra once said, “You can observe a lot by just watching.” Shadowing involves approaching someone whose performance you’d like to model and asking if you can spend time with them as they go throughout their business day. This can be an effective way of understanding more about leadership practices and the types of things on which they focus in a typical day. Or, if you have a more specific skill you’re trying to develop – say, making effective presentations – you can watch someone who has mastered the skill and take a few pointers as he performs it.

Seeking Feedback – This can be thought of as the reverse of shadowing. When you’re trying out a new skill, you can ask someone whose opinion you value to observe your performance and provide feedback. You can make this even more powerful by briefing the observer upfront on the specific parts of the task you find challenging and asking the observer to pay particular attention to those parts.

Games – One of the biggest and most promising trends in organizational life today is gamification, the application of game structures (with their competitive aspects) to non-game contexts such as learning and development. As Ellen Langer has shown in her research on mindfulness, recasting a “task” into a “game” can have powerful benefits for individuals and organizations, such as greater engagement, increased motivation, and better retention of learning points.

The public records lookup site MyReportPlan.com demonstrated how gamification could be used as a post-class follow-up. The company split its customer service representatives into two teams, with one team playing themselves and the other team playing problem customers. The goal of the customer team was to create the most difficult-to-solve customer service problem possible. Then the customer service rep team tried to solve the problem as quickly as possible. Points redeemable for rewards were given to the rep team for solving the problem in a set amount of time, and to the customer team for stumping the reps.

If MyReportPlan.com only experienced an uptick in energy and engagement from its reps, the game effort would probably be worth it. But there was more: Measurements showed a 58% increase in customer satisfaction after a team was put through game training. Clearly, the reps’ self-generated learning based on real-life customers, along with the competitive features of the game structure, resulted in better transfer of learning and solid bottom-line gains.

REFLECTIONS FOR THE YES! LEADER

Many leaders seem to believe that developing their people’s skills is a matter of giving them a “training pill” – that is, sending them to a class and expecting immediate performance improvement when they return. As we’ve seen, though, the classroom event is usually just the start of the learning process. It’s what happens after the class that makes the most difference in applying what’s learned in the class. And it’s the leader’s post-class actions that can be the difference between “Yep, fun class” and “Hey, this stuff really works!” – because many of the post-class strategies mentioned above can best be implemented by the leader.

Here are some questions for the YES! Leader to consider:

·         Do you discuss an upcoming training class with a team member before the class begins, emphasizing the importance of the topic and creating a plan for post-class follow-up?

·         Do you seek opportunities to coach your employees as to how they might apply their new skills to real-life situations?

·         Are you always on the lookout for creative post-class experiences that can give your team members an opportunity (with your support) to exercise their new skills?

·         As you develop your team, do you observe the 70-20-10 guideline that says that 10% of learning comes from formal classes, 20% comes from coaching and learner observation of others, and 70% comes from on-the-job experience?

The YES! Leader Closes the Skill GAPS

Let’s say that you wanted to improve a particular skill in your leadership toolkit – for example, influencing others.

You could start your effort by reading a good book on the subject. This would help you grasp the best practices involved in moving people to think and act in a certain way. But while a book can increase your general knowledge of the topic, it wouldn’t make you proficient in actually using the skills in your daily work.

So you might go a step further and organize a discussion group to talk about the book. The group could identify ways to apply the best practices to particular situations, discussing (for example) case studies drawn from the members’ own experience. This would go beyond providing you a flashcard-level knowledge of concepts and give you an increased understanding of how the concepts could be used to vary the approaches you take to your actual work.

Yet at this point, when it comes to your skill-development effort, you’re still primarily working in your head, at the level of recognition and realization. In order to truly change your behavior, you need to embed new skills (as my applied improvisation colleague Gary Schwartz says) “in your bones” and start developing your muscle memory.

So your next best step would be a strategy of actually practicing the skills that you’ve been reading about and discussing with others. In your discussion group, for example, you might create role plays that would call on members to verbalize and vocalize a persuasive message that they might actually be called upon to deliver in their work. Your role play could involve a written scenario that describes the situation, such as “You are Jeff, a manager trying to influence your manager, Najila, to adopt a new process in your department.” After brief preparation to plan what you might say in the role of “Jeff,” you would then interact with “Najila” (another role-playing participant) in a semi-scripted, semi-improvised scene that would let you practice coming up with the right words and saying them out loud. You would then get feedback from the other group members.

You’re now getting closer to your goal of implementing new behaviors. But a role play is still, after all, an artificial situation that only resembles real life. For one thing, in real life you don’t often have the luxury of pre-planning an approach as to what you’ll say. Further, real-life interpersonal interactions involve an emotional component that can only be simulated (and usually not very well) in a role play. Finally, a role play essentially says, “OK, get ready now for a situation involving the use of influencing skills,” and then constrains the roles and reactions of the role-players to those set out in the written scenario (“You, Najila, are risk-averse and value the status quo”). Real life situations are of course much more ambiguous (or, to use the technical term, messy) than that, calling for quick action on your part based on instant processing of data, taking into account factors such as power relationships, interpretation of body language and tone of voice, urgency, long-range impacts, and myriad other considerations.

To get the most from your practice, you need to create situations that more closely resemble real life. This will allow you to use your developing skills in order to synthesize many complex considerations into an effective action – on the spot, in real time. In our “influencing skills” example, your discussion group could enlist the services of trained improvisational actors to portray a group of skeptical managers whom you are trying to persuade toward a certain course of action. The actors would just be given a broad outline of the situation and their roles and then respond in a realistic manner to your attempts to change their way of thinking.

The progression of development steps described above comprises what I call the GAPS Model of development. The GAPS Model conveys the idea that development starts with recognition of a “gap” between our current level of skill and our desired level. Just as a wide chasm can’t be crossed with a single leap, a skill gap can’t be effectively traversed with a single development method, such as reading a book or taking a class. Instead, the gap must be progressively filled in with development activities that build upon each other, as follows:

Grasp – Developing a basic understanding of the concepts and procedures that comprise the skill.

Apply – Developing an ability to recognize how the concepts and procedures are or could be used in different situations.

Practice – Developing an ability to put a concept or procedure into action in a controlled environment via role plays or skill practices.

Synthesize – Developing an ability to select and use the right concept or combinations of concepts to address a given situation or scenario, usually in ambiguous circumstances that simulate actual situations and time frames.

The GAPS Model can be used to identify a multi-step strategy (similar to the “influencing skills” example I described above) for developing complex interpersonal and leadership skills. But it can also be used to design and evaluate an individual training program to assure that it doesn’t overlook any of the steps or become too heavily weighted toward (say) Grasp-oriented activities that might be more effectively covered as prework, leaving classroom time for more interactive Practice and Synthesize activities.

So when you’ve completed each of the GAPS steps, you should be ready to hit the ground running on the other side of the chasm, right? Well, probably not – and this is the point where even the best development strategy can break down. Next time, I’ll talk about strategies to continue the learning even after the training.