Insights

Why is typical class-type training a “trust me” card?

Because you do the training and then trust change on the job – behavior and results of the trainee – will happen afterward.

Organizations don’t provide training just to have training. Training is really a desire for something different to happen after the training. Some type of change. Training is just a mechanism to help achieve the change.

However, just being in the class doesn’t make change happen. Behavior, especially, takes time to change into competent habit. Even the best constructed training doesn’t result in lasting change.

“But we’ve always done it this way … we wouldn’t be doing it if it didn’t work.”

Actually, no and no.

We haven’t always done it this way.

“Training” over the centuries used to be mostly learning on the job, doing the job. Apprentices. Or working in the family business. Even universities largely started as discussion and research, not lectures and packaged “broadcasts.” Training Within Industry famously solved a labor shortage in the U.S. during WWII with training on the job.

Directionally, education changed – mostly in the 20th century in the U.S. – to deliver in a classroom setting more like an assembly line, with exercises done in class or as “homework” disconnected from real application. Organizational training followed the same path, especially in the latter part of the 20th century through today, as the training and development industry boomed to over $80 billion a year in the U.S. alone.

Typical training also doesn’t work … but no one can tell outside intuition. Training is usually evaluated with vanity metrics … how many people attended, “smile sheets” passed around at the end, etc. There is very little evaluation of what change, if any, happened in the workplace outside the training.

Training appears to be cheaper and faster done the typical way, but that’s a false economy if no real or lasting change occurs.

A better way is to combine “just enough” information with application in the workplace. Even better is to do parallel projects that achieve ROI … and more than pay for the training.

This also works especially well for leadership development.

Done well, people become natural change agents and collaborators for continuing change past the training. This compounds the ROI … and why it’s the Compounded Performance Projects Method.

👉  Want real change that leads to better performance and real ROI? Contact us to discuss how the Method can work in your organization.

“In times of constant change, it’s easy for people to think that even the fundamental laws governing human decency and behavior have changed. But they haven’t.”

From the book Managing By Values – by Ken Blanchard and Michael O’Connor

Does your company’s mission, values, and vision contribute to or solve the “Great Resignation,” “Quiet Quitting,” and the like?

Some questions for you to start checking:

❓ Can your employees link company mission and values to their work lives in practical ways and daily?

❓Are company mission and values evident in decision-making, communications, allocating resources and initiatives, and solving task and people problems?

❓At all levels?

❓Can your employees see that working toward company goals is in their best interest?

❓Can people find success and satisfaction in their work?

❓Does the company make that easy or hard?

How did you do with the questions?

If employees can’t find some fulfillment in the work alone, they’ll look for it elsewhere either through disengagement or outright quitting.

If they can find fulfillment in the work alone, but aren’t aligned with the mission, values, and vision, they won’t help achieving or have some ownership in company goals … and may even detract from goals.

One is an issue for the employee.

Both are issues for the company.

The solution starts with:

• Organizationally: clear mission, values, and vision that addresses all key C.E.O.S. stakeholders – Customers, Employees, Owners/shareholders, and Significant other stakeholders … and that all can readily align with.
• Individually: how well the employee fits the role/work direction and how that relates to their quality of life, and both in line with the organizational mission, values, and vision.

There may be more that needs to be done, but those are the foundations.

Company “engagement” surveys can also help with answers and can get information people may not be comfortable sharing with you.

Better yet are assessments that cover engagement *and* mission, values, vision, and policies/processes effectiveness.

👉  Interested in seeing what a more complete assessment looks like? Contact us to discuss how to get more complete information for your organization.

Be very clear in language and wording in governance documents … no matter your company size … to avoid confusion and potential legal problems.

A third governance example from Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) …

SVB had an apparent language mismatch in their Risk Committee charter. The charter serves as an example of how even a short company governance document can create disconnects if taken at face value and not worded carefully.

Here’s some of the first part of the SVB Risk Committee charter:

“The Committee’s purpose is to act on behalf of the Board in fulfilling its oversight responsibilities:

• Oversight of the Company’s enterprise-wide risk management policies and frameworks;
• Oversight of adherence to the Company’s risk appetite, risk profile and risk culture;
• Oversight of the Company’s Risk function and leadership; and
• Oversight of various risk management activities across the Company.”

OK thus far … a pretty common overview and typical Board committee type responsibilities – “oversight.”

Now the language mismatch.

SVB had an interesting situation in how risk governance was structured based on later parts of the charter: “The Committee shall be responsible for the appointment, performance evaluation (including goal setting), compensation, and termination of the Chief Risk Officer (the “CRO”), in coordination with the Compensation and Human Capital Committee, as appropriate. The Committee shall also be responsible for validating the CRO has the stature and experience to execute her or his role effectively. The CRO shall be subject to dual reporting: (i) to the Committee on a functional basis, and (ii) to the Chief Executive Officer of the Company on an administrative basis.”

In short, the Board via the Risk Committee was directly responsible for selecting/hiring, evaluating, compensation, etc. of the Chief Risk Officer based on the language in the charter. Not just final approval/disapproval of CEO actions or recommendations. The Chief Risk Officer was responsible to the Board functionally, not the CEO. The Board directly managed the risk function.

This contrasts with common formal Board structures where the Board selects, evaluates, and compensates the CEO who in turn is responsible for doing the same for the rest of the company. Selected functions like audit, risk, cybersecurity, and other functions the Board deems critical often have “dotted line” relationships to the Board for direct information flow, unfiltered by anyone else. Boards may also have final approval authority – concurrence or nonconcurrence – for selection, evaluation, compensation, etc. for key positions.

The language mismatch is “oversight” versus direct responsibility for managing the risk function. Not the same thing … at all.

🔎  Check your company key governance documents, paying attention to the language as an outsider would read them. Or, better yet, have an outsider read. Any things not clear?