Help Them Help Us

As a selfish person, I've never cared about whether those at the top are able to efficiently rise even higher. As it is they often have more than their fair share, so if they stagnate, so be it. But as a selfish person I also see the value of executive coaching--not because it helps them advance in their careers, but because, if done right, it helps them help those of us in the middle or entry-level ranks of a company.

The problem is these coaching sessions don't usually seem to focus on becoming a better manager, or if they do, the lesson doesn't appear to be taking. I may be wrong, given I've never been invited to participate in an executive coaching session (maybe because I'm not an executive) but from an outside perspective it appears the main lesson is how to do whatever is necessary to increase departmental revenues. I imagine a series of sessions devoted entirely to streamlining your department, with role play exercises on how to effectively fire and then hold department-wide town halls on how those weren't layoffs, but a "consolidation of synergies."

In tense financial times, managers at the executive level need coaching on how to make hard choices to keep the dollars rolling in, but it would be nice if they also were coached on how to maintain the morale and productivity of their employees so those decisions aren't necessary. What about executive coaching on managing a mobile or flex-time department?  Or how to gauge the level of engagement of workers?  Or how about a session or two on generating innovation? Technology, a new 21st century mentality about work, and a need to reduce the overhead cost of office space, has made the traditional 9 to 5 routine obsolete. In this new environment, what does productivity mean? Is it just a quarterly numbers game, or do executives need coaching on understanding big picture, long-range thinking?

I have a couple horror stories from the world of executive short-term thinking. One is the departmental head who seemingly fell into hysterics at the end of every quarter during the last year of his reign. Salespeople with an overall history of superior performance were terminated because their numbers from the last quarter were slightly off. The other is of an executive who decided his first order of business after accepting his job was to ask the employees working under him to justify their positions. Are these two practices part of the executive coaching you have in mind?  Instead of panicking and cutting the job of the rep who had a bad quarter or two but otherwise was known as a strong performer, the executive might have tried giving the person a warning and providing sales coaching to get the employee back on track. Along with that, the executive should have been educated enough to ask if there was anything at the office or even in the employee's personal life that was contributing to the decline in sales, and if the executive and his team could do anything to help. As for the exec who asked his employees to justify their postions, it might have been more appropriate to meet with each of them to find out what their day-to-day work is truly composed of (never mind what it says on paper their title is) and ask what the executive team can do to help them be more productive.

So it seems executive coaching is working great for executives, but I'm not sure about the rest of us. Teaching them how to continue in their rise to "the top" is compelling (at least for them) but more compelling would be a few lessons on spreading the coaching wealth. Your middle and entry-level ranks could use a little support, too.

What's the gist of your executive coaching?  What knowledge do you try to impart, and how do you know it's benefiting the rest of the organization?   

Are You Worth It?

Is it really worth having you around?  It's easy for a trainer to get low self-esteem during times of economic unrest--the rumor is training and learning and development programs are the first to get cut when business starts slackening. Whether or not that's true, training is, nevertheless, not the world's most glamorous profession (shocking, isn't it?), so it's rare you're given the credit you deserve. It's not like you're the sales manager with a staff that's raking in a fortune, or the top executive whose brilliant strategy saved the company from a financial plummet. Your contribution is more of a quiet one, like the corporate equivalent of a movie set designer or sound technician. Invaluable, but usually not one to be stopped for compliments.

So is it a surprise that though your value has been proven--investment in learning and development we've all heard adds up to greater company profit and success--the investment in resources by your bosses in the programs you need to implement to deliver on their goals often is lacking? If you've already hauled in the business analytics to make your case for enhanced investment in training, what's the next step?

The best would be to already have that much-talked about seat at the corporate table so you can glare angrily across the morning conference bagels and pastries, offering a tacit reminder that you're still there. But since that's not a situation enjoyed by the majority of trainers, and even some learning executives, you have to start looking for other ways to make your case. You've given them the numbers, so now it's time for them to hear from some of the glamorous star employees. Don't be afraid to use internal company networking to nudge that "gifted" sales manager to bring up to the executive suite the helpful sales training programs you've put together for his team for the last five  years. Be frank, just ask for the sale's manager's help in proving the worth of learning and development to the boss. It's a process similar to asking for references before landing a job. In this case you're asking for internal references to continue, and maybe even do better, in your current role. That new executive who wouldn't be a part of the suite you have to prove yourself to if not for the leadership development and succession plan you put together years ago?  Ask him or her to put in a good word for you, too.

There's an old adage that the numbers speak for themselves, but that doesn't appear to be the case when it comes to training. Study after study gives evidence of the business-savvy of preserving learning programs, and executives say how important they think these programs are to employees, but your curriculum and job always seem to be on the line when finances tighten. Why is that?  Since there's no logical answer I can come up with, I attribute it to a lack of internal boosters to offer what they call in advertising the emotional sell. Great ad men and women know the best commercials focus on tugging at emotions rather than delivering numerical evidence of worth. So maybe you should do the same.

The star managers and up-and-coming leaders your programs paved the way for may not be the most articulate orators, but they'd probably do better than that mute row of extra zeroes you've been counting on.

Your job and programs on the line again?  Are you relying on something more than numbers to make your case to executives?

Virtual Worlds Training for Corporate Executives

Corporations researching virtual worlds as a training platform quickly realize that they lack expertise to fully capitalize on the benefits and avoid costly mistakes.  If they don’t, quite often they become a good candidate for me to talk about during the next seminar “Avoiding Costly Mistakes When Starting Corporate Virtual World Training Program”.   Steve Prentice, VP of Gartner recently noted that early attempts [working with virtual worlds] suffered from a lack of clear objectives and a limited understanding of the demographics, attitudes and expectations of virtual-world communities.  As a clearer understanding of the dynamics of this new media channel develops, Gartner expects this situation to change.  Despite understandable concerns about investment during a time of growing business uncertainty […] the internal deployment of virtual worlds offers most enterprises significant benefits in cost savings and improved productivity. 

To help corporations realize this potential to its fullest, AHG started a series of new courses taught by a team of experts who have real life experience creating, consulting, and supervising successful Second Life / Virtual World programs. We share our expertise in a series of hands-on courses that encompass corporate training, HR, marketing and other activities as related to corporate use of virtual worlds.  AHG offers two separate tracks: Executive and Instructional Designer / Developer. Instructional Designer track provides hands-on training focused on day-to-day development and maintenance of Virtual World projects. After the courses are completed, students are able to design and build Second Life environments, create simple scripts, implement and modify scripts developed by others. They also develop an understanding of human factor issues that affect productivity and quality learning in virtual world environments, techniques to "flatten" learning curve, importance of standards, methodologies, and life cycles in the management of Second Life projects and resources. 

Executive Track courses provide in-depth understanding of virtual worlds from an executive perspective as a tool for the creation of a sustainable competitive advantage. These courses offer up-to-date information on theory behind successful Second Life implementations, practical approaches, promising new developments, successes, and problem areas in other companies’ implementation of virtual worlds in corporate environment.  As an added benefit, AHG shares audio recordings from our Second Life round table where executives of companies such as Accenture, Michelin, Philips and others describe their experience with Second Life projects.

You will find more information on http://www.ahg.com/courses/second_life_courses.htm

Knowing the Out-Going

Some of the Traditionalists and Boomers you're saying goodbye to you know all too well--her penchant for making plans in secret which she then delightedly springs on those in charge of execution; his tendency toward premature self-congratulation only to be followed by last minute panic when it finally dawns on him the project didn't go as planned.

So when organizing a knowledge transfer to capture the genius of retiring employees, how do you separate the wheat from the chaff?  Or do you even bother?  After all, even mediocre players sometimes have interesting lessons learned doing their roles incompetently.  The reprimands from higher-ups that had increased in frequency (probably hastening the departure) might have sunk in enough to warn successors. At the same time I wonder in a period of economic slowdown, when company resources are being so carefully considered, whether it's smart to waste time and technology gathering the lessons of any but top performers?  What do you think?

If you do decide to give the honor of knowledge transfer only to out-going "top talent," how do you define who those people are?  Is it as simple as those who generated the most revenue during their tenure? Those the workforce liked the best?  Or some combination of those two criteria?  Of course, corporate ogres who generated a fortune for their companies are a well known archetype. The wonderful fellow who implemented forced ranking, cut staff by a quarter, and scaled back benefits did a fabulous job for investors, but will those employees who survived his/her reign of corporate terror want to patiently listen to the reflections of such a person--no matter how successful he/she was? 

And that brings me to another question. Do you mandate workers listen to the famous last words of retiring execs, or do you just save it to your database so it's there as a resource in case anyone is interested (and strong stomached enough) to take it in?  Unless your out-going staffers are very funny and charming, you might want to force remaining employees into it--especially if one of the gurus has lessons to reinforce that most of your workers found unappealing enough the first time around.

Next I wonder whether you should check to see whether anyone actually forced their brain to tune in. Is it similar to any course in that an assessment is required? Should you at least weave a question or two into a larger assessment (if the knowledge transfer talk was incorporated into a larger course) about the spiel?  I think you better at least warn learners a couple questions about it may be asked, or else a mental escape plan may be hatched.

Granted, there are those retiring executives who were genuinely fun to chat with, and had true wisdom to leave behind, but wouldn't you have tried harder to keep them a little longer if that were the case?

To make knowledge transfer efforts more salient, pair up out-going workers with promising Gen Y and X'ers. Giving their presentations together will spice up the lesson. One way to do it is by having the Gen Y or X'er interview the retiring chieftain about his/her legacy and the company's upcoming challenges. Then have the old guy/gal on the block pose a few questions to the fledgling. Rather than let a perhaps partly loved/partly loathed executive get away with self-congratulatory rambling for an hour, this give-and-take approach is potentially more substantive.

Whether savior or ogre, you thought enough of them to capture their wisdom. They shouldn't mind fielding a few questions about their corporate savior/ogre methodology.

What's your knowledge transfer strategy?  How, if at all, are you capturing the wisdom of retiring employees?

Painful PowerPoint Practices

I want to start off by apologizing: I'm sorry if you're tired of this subject—if, by now, you've read more articles about this than about the war in Iraq. I'm sorry if you consider yourself an exception to the typical culprit, and are personally offended by this entry. Most of all, though, I'm sorry for you, me and every person who is forced against his will to spend time losing brain cells as some mindless drone reads bullet points off his PowerPoint presentation.

It's unfortunate that the typical PowerPoint presentation is a better tranquilizer than sleeping pills downed with a double-shot of vodka. I wish I didn't consider a two-by-four to the head a viable alternative to another "PowerPoint-less" presentation. And it is truly sad that one of the greatest aids public speaking has received since the invention of the microphone is being uninhibitedly and incessantly adulterated.

All of this is astoundingly unfortunate, and for that I feel regretful.

Rather than spend this entire blog entry spewing hate—which, for your information, I would be more than capable of doing—I would like to offer a radical remedy: PowerPoint presentations should have ZERO stand-alone value.

PowerPoint presentations should not have bullet points emphasizing the exact points the speaker is conveying; the presentation should not have excerpts from which the presenter quotes; the entire slide show can not have a single word, for all I care.

So what should be put on PowerPoint presentations? Anything! That's right, put on anything that would be of interest to your audience: Show graphs, present figures, play songs, show movie clips, heck show me your family portrait from your vacation to Hawaii. Obviously, whatever is in your presentation has to have some relevance to your topic—for example, showing a clip from The Godfather while presenting a quarterly financial report may prove counter-productive—but "some" is as far as the relevance should go.

When a typical speaker is about to start his presentation, he lacks to comprehend that his entire audience is present and eager. Whether they are there out of free will or because they have to be, the audience will most likely give you a chance to captivate their attention. What you do next is what makes or breaks your speech: You can either begin talking and enthrall them by having funny and amusing PowerPoint slides correlated with what you are saying, or you can immediately turn your back on your audience and monotonously read off your slides: "As you can see here, 87% of industry leaders…"

Two-by-four, anyone?

Recession or Innovation Challenge?

In recessions, the most common 'help' employees give their employer is agreeing (usually having no other choice) to be fired, or 'agreeing' not to enjoy a promotion or raise. So, in other words, the contribution of workers to their company in times of economic recession is typically passive, and not to their benefit. But, like most negative workplace practices, there are alternatives that are not only more humane, but which might actually work a lot better.

Similar to suggestions I've made to coordinate corporate philanthropy with team building exercises and leadership development, so too can you use a recession for learning and development related purposes. What about using the challenge as an innovation training exercise in which each department or business entity is expected to generate one viable business idea each month or quarter?  In such lean times, when workers realize their jobs are at stake, they'll be motivated to prove their's, and their work group's, worth by working hard to think of compelling ideas. In addition to exercising their capacity for pragmatic  creativity, the challenge, when made to work teams, also forces employees to work with colleagues toward a common goal, thereby also testing out and honing their collaboration skills, and maybe even encouraging some team building along the way. To make it even more interesting, appoint, or ask employees to appoint, a co-worker other than a supervisor to lead their innovation effort--that way the challenge also adds to leadership development.

As to the "innovation," that depends on how you choose to define it to suit the business needs that have the most chance of pulling your company out of the financial dregs, or keeping it from reaching the dregs at all. It could strictly be ideas for new products and product upgrades, or it could run the gamut from ways of doing business with less waste, to retention strategies (employee turnover in times of financial crisis not being a great thing), ways of reaching out to emerging markets (new customer bases, maybe), or how to improve the company's internal communication so customers are better served.

Not firing workers is a good start to keeping morale at a healthy level. Once you've decided not to fire them, though, don't let them languish, wondering whether the employment ax will soon fall, or feeling that the company is stagnating in the face of a possible recession. It's depressing to think your company--the people you devote your energy to and rely on for paychecks--has no fight left in it. Addressing a potential financial struggle proactively by issuing an innovation challenge, then, also is useful because it keeps employees engaged. They may feel a little stressed out at first about the mandate to come up with viable business ideas, but if they're worth having under your corporate roof, they'll also feel flattered you reached out to them for help.

The economy may be becoming a little depressed (or recessed, as we now say), but it's awful to think of  your company lying inert on the couch, binging on inefficiency.

Has your company given up already in the face of a possible recession, or are you gearing up for a good fight, rounding up employees to contribute the innovation you need to survive?