Cari Info

- by Brain Tracy

Peter Drucker wrote some years ago that the definition of an executive is someone who is expected to get results. You are an executive to the degree to which results are expected of you. You don't have to
have a staff or an office to be an executive. All you have to do is be a person in charge of getting the job done in a timely and measurable fashion.

As an executive, your key ability is solving problems and making decisions. In fact, from the time you get up in the morning until the time you go to bed at night, you are continually taking in information, analyzing the information, solving problems based on that information, and making decisions that lead to action from yourself and others. It's safe to say that the quality of your decision making and problem solving determines the quality of your life. If you want your future to be better than your present, you must simply improve your
quality of thinking and make better choices. You must become a creative problem-solver.

Building creative brain power is a lot like building muscle power in that the more strain you place on your brain, the stronger it becomes. And you can pump "mental iron" by using two powerful methods for
increasing your creative problem solving ability.

The first method is called "mindstorming. " To engage in mindstorming, also called "The 20-Idea Method," all you need is a pen and a piece of paper. Begin by writing a particular goal or problem at the top of the page.

For example, if you want to increase your income by 50 percent over the next year, you would write
something like, "What can I do to increase my income by 50 percent over the next 12 months?"

Or, you can be even more specific by writing the exact amount. If you are earning $50,000 a year today, you would write: "What can I do to increase my income by $25,000 over the next 12 months?"

The more specific the question is, the better the quality of answers will be. So don't write, "What can I do to be happier over the next 12 months?" That kind of question is too fuzzy for your mind. Be specific, detailed, and focused in your questions and you will find practical, effective answers.

Once you have written the question, jot down twenty answers. Let your mind flow freely. Write down every answer that comes to you. Don't worry about whether it is right or wrong, intelligent or foolish, possible or impossible. Just come up with at least 20 answers.

For example, you could start with answers such as, "work harder," or "work longer," or "work faster." Eventually you might work up to more in-depth answers such as, "change jobs," or "introduce new products or services," or "start my own business."

Whatever you write, keep writing until you have at least 20 answers. If you get stuck after writing the obvious
answers, write about the opposite solutions. Don't be afraid to be ridiculous. Very often, a ridiculous answer triggers a breakthrough thought that might save you years of hard work.

Next, go back over the answers and select the one that seems to be the most appropriate for you at this moment. You will often have an instinct or feeling about a particular answer. It appeals to you for some reason. This is an unconscious suggestion that you are on the right track.

Once you've selected the best option, here's a way to double the creative impact of this exercise: Transfer the answer to the top of a new page and then write 20 ideas for implementing it in your life. You will be astonished at the outpouring of creative ideas that flow from your mind through your hand and onto the paper.

The second method of creative problem solving is called brainstorming. This is a form of mindstorming done with a group. In brainstorming you again start off with one problem or question, but this time, you have a variety of individuals contributing to the solution.

The keys to brainstorming are simple. First, the problem or question should be stated clearly and simply so that it is understood by each participant. Take a little time to discuss the problem questions, and then write it on a flip chart. This will dramatically increase the quality of answers generated.

The aim of the brainstorming session should be to generate the most ideas possible within a specific period of time. An effective session will last anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes, and 30 minutes is usually ideal.

The best number of participants for a brainstorming session is between four to seven people. Any less than four, and you run the risk of not having enough stimulation. Any more than seven, and you may find that there is insufficient opportunity for everyone to contribute.

Each brainstorming session requires a group leader. The role of the leader is to keep the ideas as free-flowing as possible. The group leader is a stimulator of ideas, encouraging each person to speak up with anything he or she has to contribute.

The most important rule of brainstorming is to avoid evaluating the ideas during the process. The focus is on quantity, not quality. Evaluation and discussion of the ideas will take place at a separate session,
away from the original brainstorming.

There should also be a recorder at each session. This person will write down every idea as it is generated so that the list can be typed up and circulated at a later time.

The final keys to successful brainstorming are positive emotions, laughter, ridiculous ideas, and absolutely no criticism of any kind. The group leader needs to ensure that no one says anything that throws water on the ideas of anyone else. When I conduct brainstorming sessions, I find that the best way to get going is to
first agree on the question or problem, and second, to go around the table one by one. Pretty soon, everyone will start to contribute and the session is off and running.

When it comes to evaluating the ideas in a later session, it can be helpful to bring together an entirely different group of people. This group will consider the ideas without the ego involvement and emotional
attachment of the original group. As a result, they will be able to assess the ideas far more objectively.

The amazing thing about mindstorming and brainstorming is that virtually anyone can come up with an incredible number of ideas when stimulated by one or both of these methods. And you can never tell
which ideas are going to provide the breakthrough solution that you need. So go for quantity, because the more ideas you generate, the greater the likelihood that you will have exactly the idea that you need at exactly the right time.

By practicing mindstorming and brainstorming on a regular basis, you can unleash a torrent of ideas that will enable you to accomplish your goals faster than you ever believed possible. Today, in the information age, ideas are the most valuable tools of production. And since your ability to generate innovative, effective, usable ideas is virtually unlimited, your future is unlimited as well.

by Kevin Wilde

The rant began before the second glass of wine was served. I recently was dining with two marketing executives when the pair started venting their frustrations about how HR was missing the point. One person paused midway and said, "Now Kevin, understand that we like you and you 'get it;' our issues are with those HR types that don't."

I think that was a compliment, but I didn't feel great about the tone of the discussion. I've observed business executives dividing the HR community into two classifications: those who "get it" and those who miss the point. Those who get it find themselves in the highly sought-after business partnership. Those labeled otherwise find themselves on the outside looking in.

Getting it is necessary to be a strong HR contributor. It means a leader has a firm grasp on the business, appreciates the line leader's agenda as primary and views HR work as secondary.

Three fundamental skills of HR leaders who get it:

a) They put business first.
I try to stay grounded in my role to contribute to the business first and serve my HR-learning role second. "Win, have fun and make a buck" was the slogan of one of my GE mentors years ago. His quote still resonates with me as a reminder that my job is to help the team win customers, not produce shiny new HR initiatives for their own sake. I've always been curious about business as much as the development profession. I am a constant student of investor reports, internal financial reports and business plans. Moreover, I try to start every conversation with line leaders by discussing their business: what's new, how's the new product working and how do they see the numbers going this quarter? Business first, then we move on to the HR agenda.

b) They work the map.
In my early days at General Mills, I did not have a feel for the business or how to navigate the organization. These were "new guy" challenges to overcome if I was going to have an impact in the organization. I read all the business material I could find and bought a sea of coffee while learning from every available finance and marketing manager I could befriend. I also studied those who were successful creating change in the organization. They seemed to possess an unofficial and invisible organization chart to guide their actions. In addition to learning the map, these high influencers introduced me to the concept of executive presence. When the path to organizational change placed them in front of senior executives, they had a crisp, confident and relaxed style. As I grew in the job, I found it easier to at least fake being confident and relaxed. The "crisp" part took some time as I had to temper my enthusiasm to explain everything I knew about a topic
when given the chance.

c) They exercise balcony judgment.
The HR role is partly that of a trusted adviser. One of my favorite learning stories is about the new apprentice asking the old mentor how to acquire good judgment. "From experience!" said the mentor. When the apprentice asked how to acquire experience, the mentor wisely said, "From poor judgment!" Using poor judgment to create learning experiences is a recipe for career derailment rather than success, but the scar tissue of hard-fought battles is part of the professional journey.

Learn from others' battle experiences. Seek out top performers and wise counselors to share what they've learned over time. Accelerate your judgment capabilities and solidify an impressive support network at the same time. Finally, gain perspective by reflecting on what's going on and what can be learned. A friend of mine calls it "getting to the balcony" to oversee the situation, rising above the noise and distractions of the moment.

Like it or not, many leaders will divide their perception of HR into two camps: "gets it" or "doesn't get it." The former is a much more rewarding and fun place to be, but it needs to be earned. Make investments in your business acumen, organization influence and judgment. At the very least, it makes for better dinner conversation.

by Ron Selewach

Automated candidate screening and assessment solutions have become standard practice for many employers in the race to hire and retain talent in a shrinking labor market. Technology exists not only to assess skills and competencies, but also culture fit and work style, which can be reliable indicators of job performance and retention. However, few realize the benefits such technology affords in terms of objectively recruiting people with disabilities and leveling the playing field for all candidates.

Automated candidate screening and assessment solutions can be delivered via multiple methods - Web, phone, kiosk or table PC - and make it easy for anyone to apply and be interviewed regardless of mobility challenges or disabilities. Further, by removing the face-to-face aspect of a conventional interview, candidates need not be concerned the interviewer will be distracted by their disability rather than focusing on the interview's content.

Applying for jobs via technology compels an employer to make a determination based only on the candidate's responses to questions and assessments, as opposed to appearances or information presented on a one-dimensional resume.

Traditional hiring processes typically screen out unqualified candidates, leaving employers to hire those who fit minimum qualifications. This creates what is essentially a double jeopardy for persons with disabilities. It becomes easy to focus on restrictions the disability presents rather what the person may be able to do in spite of any challenges.

Advanced automated interviewing systems driven by artificial intelligence can be set up to adjust questioning appropriately, seamlessly and diplomatically when such situations arise - even routing the interview to a different line of questioning for jobs for which the candidate may be better-suited. In short, this process can screen in candidates based on the skills and competencies they possess. Conversely, face-to-face interviews can lead to the determination a person is not suited for an advertised position. The conversation is effectively terminated, rather than initiating a discussion to explore alternatives.

Synchronizing the assessment process via Web and phone also gives rise to the use of job simulations. For example, the employer can have a customer service simulation in which several screens of information are available to the applicant on the desktop. The candidate is then charged with negotiating the screens while responding to a variety of service calls. This provides all candidates with the opportunity to demonstrate their skills and proficiency to handle the job.

Web-based interviews can be structured to ensure compliance with Section 508 requirements of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that requires federal agencies to make their electronic and information technology accessible to people with disabilities. Additionally, using a properly configured automated solution erases the potential for human error, such as asking potentially discriminatory questions during a face-to-face interview.

While objectivity and fairness should be the mantra of any interview and assessment, an automated system can document each question asked, the answer provided and the basis for the overall assessment. With the EEOC and the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs' aggressive interest in systemic discrimination, this detailed documentation can prove invaluable in proactively safeguarding the hiring process from negative outcomes such as litigation and compliance-related fines.

Most important, using an automated screening and assessment solution provides all candidates with a seamless and convenient process to apply for job openings. Moreover, it provides employers with an objective and reliable process for hiring and retaining qualified candidates who will be productive members of their workforces.

by Lindsay Edmonds Wickman

Let's state the obvious. With different work tasks, employees have different levels of readiness. What may not be as obvious is leaders must adapt their behavior to each individual's readiness with each task. But how? That's what the Situational Leadership Model teaches.

"In one sentence, it's matching your leader behaviors to the performance needs of individuals, " said Dr. Paul Hersey, founder and chairman of the board of the Center for Leadership Studies and author of The Situational Leader. "It's not different strokes for different folks. It's different strokes for the same folks depending upon what it is you're attempting to get done through that person."

To become a situational leader, you must first identify the task at hand, assess the individual or group's ability and willingness to accomplish that specific task and, lastly, match your leadership behaviors to that individual's performance needs.

"When my son, David, was in high school, it wasn't a question of what kind of leadership style do I use with David for homework? You even had to identify what kind of homework it was," Hersey said. "When it came to getting in shape for football and wrestling, I didn't need to give him any direction [or] guidance. He was gung-ho. He had both capability and willingness. But when it came to math, I had to closely supervise. [So] it's matching your behaviors to their performance needs [for] that specific activity."

In developing leaders who can adapt to each employee's needs, organizations should familiarize the leaders with the model, teach them how to diagnose an individual's readiness and then teach them how to match their behaviors to that level of readiness by using vignettes, case studies or role-playing. But how do you diagnose an individual's readiness at a specific task?

"Readiness is a combination of ability and willingness, " Hersey said. "Ability is knowledge, experience and skill. [So] you look at what is the ability they bring to [a] particular task, and then you look at their willingness to do that particular activity. It's very easy to pick up those things when people are working with you, when they're part of your team."

If your leaders adapt their behavior to their employees' performance needs, it will ultimately lead to a more effective workforce.

"One of the main benefits is bottom-line results," Hersey said. "If you do a better job of leading your people, you get more productivity at whatever you're doing. [This model is] a way of getting the best you can from your people.

"As far as I'm concerned, if training doesn't make a difference in bottom-line results, why bother? Why spend the resources? Training only makes sense if you're getting more productivity - if you're accomplishing your goals in a more effective manner."

by Mark Brenner

To create a high-performance organization, learning leaders must focus on behavioral and interpersonal strategies. Although the specifics vary from company to company, this always is accomplished one individual at a time.

Remember that trite zinger, "If you're so smart, why aren't you rich?" (Of course, it always was spoken to other folks - never to us!) However, if that sarcastic barb instead is aimed at the leaders of struggling companies, it takes on surprisingly profound accuracy. Indeed, why isn't the company doing well? It's a fair question, and it gets at the very heart of why many companies are frustrated in their attempts to build high-performing organizations.

Much of the source of this frustrated effort is the misplaced and widely held belief that the way to advance an organization' s (or an individual's) performance is by making it smarter. To that end, companies around the world have been frantically transforming themselves into quasi-universities, converting office space into classrooms, forcing senior executives into teacher's robes, crafting cutting-edge curricula, all with the misplaced hope that with enough junior-executive and managerial butts in enough high-concept seminars for enough hours, company X's high potentials will finally blossom into full-fledged leaders.

But here's the rub: Learning about leadership and teamwork isn't the same as being able to demonstrate those skills effectively. Need proof? Ask a person who's read any one of the thousands of books on the subject whether the absorption of informational content resulted in that miraculous transformation. Further complicating matters is the confusion many companies have regarding what their fundamental objectives are and how to achieve them. If, for example, a company's goal is to create a learning-oriented culture - which many organizations apparently desire - the "corporate university" model is a logical choice. Classrooms are very good at churning out people with minds full of information. Unfortunately, there's no demonstrable connection between intellectual power and business success.

On the other hand, if a corporation desires a performance- centric culture replete with measurable results, putting intelligent people into classrooms to make them smarter won't do the trick. Let's face it: Lack of IQ has never been a problem in most U.S. companies. American business is smart. What's required, instead, is a change in work-related behavioral and performance strategies at the individual and group levels. Unfortunately, the model for achieving that goal does not originate from teaching and learning. Rather, the model needs to be reverse-engineered to deliver what it promises - namely, enhanced performance and execution.

Defining the Value of the Learning Culture

There is, of course, nothing intrinsically wrong with training or teaching in an organization. They are indispensable tools, particularly when it comes to keeping people current on the technical side of their work and advancing specific, job-related skill levels. But for increasing individual and organizational performance, an entirely different set of tools is necessary. Rather, focus needs to be brought to bear on one's emotional intelligence (EQ), not the person's (or group's) IQ.

Instead of being classroom-based and theoretical, this model operates in the workplace where people actually live, breath and conduct the day-to-day business of the enterprise - a realm dominated by the rhythms of human emotions and interpersonal dynamics.

A meaningful shift in management style and culture that doesn't address these profoundly human realities has scant chance for success. Just consider what's required of a company's leaders in order to successfully implement a significant organizational transformation. First and foremost, they have to be versatile and talented in the art of discovering, advising, mentoring, coaching, nurturing and deploying talent. So the question is: What is the driving force behind those essential leadership abilities? Almost exclusively, they are a product of an individual's EQ-related qualities, not intellectual horsepower. Here are some of the classic EQ characteristics executives need to have:

a) Accurate self-awareness.
b) Self-confidence.
c) A steward-like relationship with colleagues and stakeholders.
d) Trustworthiness.
e) Transparency and authenticity (perceived by others as an "open book").
f) Mastery of self (composure, self-control and/or grace under pressure).
g) Flexibility and a welcoming attitude regarding change.
h) Passionate interest in learning and achievement.
i) Consistently optimistic and resilient.
j) Organizationally astute.
k) Empathy as a teacher/mentor.
l) Inspiring as a role model.

Good luck trying to "teach" these EQ characteristics, skills and behaviors in a series of "leadership and teamwork" seminars. It can't be done. However, they can be nurtured, encouraged and developed in high-potential individuals. In fact, that's a fundamental requirement for any company that seeks to build a performance- centric culture. The entire process pivots on an organization' s ability to move its people - all of them - into an environment in which meaningful personal and team contributions to the enterprise are esteemed, supported and rewarded.

Becoming a High-Performing Organization

Common sense dictates that since an organization' s people drive its performance, the process of enhancing that performance must be focused entirely on people, by refining their behavior in a strategic way. Fairly obvious, right? But it's at this point that many companies begin to lose the way. They mistakenly believe the key to leveraging the behavioral routines of their people is through education-centered models. They either forget or never learned this well-established fact: Adults simply do not take in new information quickly or easily. Additionally, and even more importantly, the acquisition of knowledge rarely leads to lasting behavioral changes.

Again, when it comes to successfully creating a high-performance organization, the emphasis has to be on changing behavioral and interpersonal strategies, not teaching and learning. It's an individual process that varies from organization to organization. Each company needs to find its own way to catalyze the collective passion, enthusiasm and potential of its people and then harness it to serve the enterprise's larger strategic goals. But in the end, this is accomplished one person at a time.

Adult Behavior-Change Theory

While the process of enhancing an individual's EQ repertoire is partially informed by adult learning theory, its main focus is on refining behavioral and performance strategies, rather than learning. Given that important distinction, it is better referred to as "adult behavior change theory." In short, the theory puts forth that success is optimized when:

1. The WIIFM ("What's In It For Me?") is crystal clear to each individual.

2. The change agenda feels self-initiated rather than imposed by the organization ("This is what I want for myself, and this is where I want to go.")

3. The development experience is perceived as being self-directed ("This is my action plan, and these are the tactics that will move me from here to there.").

4. Adequate time is allowed for real-world practice and experimentation on the job (e.g., action learning).

5. Individuals are allowed to cope with the various "get out of the comfort zone" challenges in their own unique fashion.

6. An individual's gap profile is made crystal clear - the "gap" being the distance between how one is performing today versus one's ideal performance level at some specific future time.

The Gap Profile: Essential to Changing Behavior

The purpose behind the development and use of a gap profile - a process notably absent in the classic adult learning model - is to create a committed, relevant and visceral sense of urgency for change on the part of the individual and an entire organization. The vast majority of enterprise-wide management development initiatives lack this essential and compelling element. Constructing a gap profile lends a palpable shape, depth and texture to the burning platform that ultimately serves to shift an organization and its individuals out of their comfort zones.

A wide assortment of assessment tool and methodologies is available for identifying and describing organization- wide gaps and using these provocative findings to move an organization and its people dramatically beyond the gap and toward the next level of performance.

Of necessity, the assessment phase of this process must unfold systematically. However, the bulk of an organization' s transformational heavy lifting takes place in the realm of everyday corporate life, where people conduct the day-to-day business of the enterprise. It's a sometimes nonrational, fluid milieu of human relationships, loyalties, motivations and emotions, where team and individual dynamics interact and continually evolve.

Experience shows repeatedly that the only place where authentic human development can occur is where people actually live (that is, on the job). And make no mistake, it's a daunting task, one that can make rocket science seem like a Sunday stroll.

Cascading Strategy Into People Development

If an organization can be thought of as having a soul, now is the time to search it. Words and constructs such as success, results, growth and performance should be characterized and examined in light of where the organization is today and where it wants to go.

In that spirit, here is a general sequence of steps that form the critical moving parts required by an organization as it builds a performance- centric culture, one where productivity and talent can flourish. Each organization should:

1. Conduct an eyes-wide-open exercise of self-study. Guiding the process are questions such as: What do the above terms mean to our institution? To our organizational family? What will they look like on the ground? The purpose of this difficult, creative and thoughtful work is to lead an organization to a relatively straightforward portrayal of its vision for its stakeholders.

2. Identify and describe the organization' s gap profile. The goal here is to reveal the true mission, vision and core values of the enterprise and where it falls short of them. Unless the endeavor resonates with depth and authenticity and challenges people with a breathtaking goal, it will not create a burning platform sufficiently capable of grabbing and holding the attention of the senior management team.

3. Map out a strategy. This is accomplished by harnessing the intense energy that comes from standing on a burning platform and relying on the navigational instruments created by the first two phases' deeply challenging work. The mission, vision, core values and strategy documents produced now become the equivalent of compass and gyroscope for management as it navigates the uncharted waters ahead, a journey that will test its imagination, courage and leadership.

4. Develop a leadership-competen cy model and improve talent development resources. The above core strategic processes and benchmarks should lead the organization to develop a leadership-competen cy model, an exceptionally useful directional tool for helping leaders maintain a course toward true north. Management also should utilize the same core strategic processes to refine and add to its array of talent development resources.

By using these steps, a strategically informed, EQ-savvy leadership team will be able to create the levels of trust, communication, inspiration and meaning that will support and fuel an organization' s transformation and continued growth, individual by individual.

Leader-Like Behavior

Although true change can't be taught in a classroom or mechanistically imposed from the top down, it has to begin at the top. To accomplish this, an organization' s leaders need to behave in ways appropriate to their roles at all times. The fact is that employees view their executives, managers and supervisors as role models and measure their leaders' behavior against an intrinsic, personal set of expectations. If leaders of the enterprise don't individually and collectively embody their corporate strategy with integrity, transparency and passion, employees almost certainly will become disillusioned and cynical, a death knell for any change initiative.

The only realistic way for an organization' s leaders to conduct themselves with such consistency is by regularly consulting the company's set of orienting devices (the compass, gyroscope and maps discussed earlier). It's at this point that an organization' s leaders can begin strategically cultivating an enterprise-wide performance culture seeded with change agents, individuals who flourish in the dynamic environment of what is an unfolding, self-supporting and continually evolving social experiment.

This is how ordinary companies transform themselves into extraordinary ones. They're built by large numbers of ordinary people who are genuinely empowered and encouraged to discover their respective muses, find their true voices and function at their highest potential levels - individually and collectively.

[About the Author: Mark Brenner is chairman of the Global Consulting Partnership. ]

The Good Teacher Instructs
The Excellent Teacher Invites
The Superior Teacher Involves, and
The Great Teacher Inspires.

by Fred Harburg

I recently was interviewed by a major network asking whether Sen. Barack Obama's chances for the White House could be damaged by the incident involving the use of a logo resembling the presidential seal that appeared on the podium he used at a Chicago event. Well, sure, his chances could be damaged, but just how damaged has a lot to do with how hyped up the story becomes in the news cycle and how much his staff learns from the incident.

Like all senior leaders in public service, business, sports, nonprofits and entertainment, Obama lives in a fishbowl of continuous public scrutiny. For high-profile leaders, every move is under the microscope. One of the first and most disconcerting things senior executives learn is that people always are watching them and making all manners of attribution regarding their actions, mannerisms and trappings.

In the greater scope of things, the seal is a minor issue, and the story probably will go away soon. Obama probably had nothing to do with its design or even the decision to use it, but like any leader, he bears the responsibility for issues such as this, no matter how trivial.

This situation illustrates a couple of bigger leadership issues: One is the general issue of image vs. authenticity, and the other is the specific issue of a leader's image with respect to arrogance and narcissism vs. humility.

With ubiquitous media coverage, all leaders constantly face image-based assessments whether they like it or not. Perceptions are real in their consequences, even if the perceptions are dead wrong. Leaders are forced to pay attention to their images, not because they want to, but because doing otherwise can compromise their ability to lead in a way that serves the best interests of the organization, its employees, its customers and its stakeholders. In the best of all worlds, a leader's publicly held image is consistent with his or her privately held values. These leaders are authentic, and they hold values that evoke a sense of confidence in their competence and character.

When it comes to leadership, the first thing that followers ask, consciously or unconsciously, is, "Can I trust you?" In a 2001 study called "The Voice of the Leader" by the Corporate Leadership Council, 88,000 businesspeople across industries and across global cultures said the qualities they most wanted in a leader were integrity and authenticity.

We hear a lot about arrogant business leaders but not so much about the humble ones because they enjoy a lower profile than their more flamboyant and highlighted peers. Who has not heard the story of former Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's "business expense" charges to the stakeholders for a $6,000 shower curtain and a $2.1 million birthday party for his wife? We also know that ex-WorldCom CEO Bernie Ebbers thought $12 billion of expenses could be accounted for as capital investments. But what about the selfless business leaders who hold values greater than their self-interest? Why not learn from the positive exemplars?

I have had the privilege of working for a few of these inspiring leaders during my career. One of them was Skip LeFauve. He was the CEO who launched Saturn Corp. Working for him gave me the chance to see what a psychologist would call "mutuality" up close. One of the hallmarks of achieving rapport with other human beings is the authentic and consistent demonstration of genuine regard for them. LeFauve had it in abundance. Whether talking with a shop worker or the chairman of General Motors - and I was with him when he did both - he treated each with the same degree of courtesy, respect and, when appropriate, firm disagreement.

Another example was Bob Galvin, former CEO and chairman of Motorola. Galvin had the humility to listen carefully to employees far less experienced and knowledgeable than him, and to learn from them. His active listening could not be faked, and it engendered fierce loyalty and respect from his people.

People rarely take the time to get all the facts. Unfortunately, they operate on sound bites and one-frame storyboards. Substance clearly is the first priority for a leader, but appearance matters too. Leaders who lack the appearance of competence rarely get the chance to show that they have it. We are all blessed when a leader has both. Leaders like Galvin and LeFauve have demonstrated that it's possible. Here's hoping the same is true for our elected leaders.

[About the Author: Fred Harburg is a private consultant, writer and speaker in the disciplines of leadership, strategy and performance coaching. He has held numerous international leadership roles at IBM, GM, Motorola and Fidelity Investments. ]

by Scott Flander
[Human Resource Executive Online | September 2, 2008]

Employees worried about their jobs because of the tough economy are competing against each other in unhealthy ways. But HR executives can mitigate such problems in several ways, including making people feel more appreciated.

As the economy falters, it's more of a dog-eat-dog world than ever -- and your best managers and executives may be the ones snapping at each other's throats.

Executive coaches and others say that high anxiety in corporate America is causing co-workers to be more competitive, often in harmful ways.

"August is the biggest month I've had in 25 years," says Anna Maravelas, a coach and author of How to Reduce Workplace Conflict and Stress. "I've had human resource directors calling me up, they were hyperventilating over the state of their executive teams. They say, 'Our teams are dysfunctional, the executives are hostile to each other.'"

Maravelas, founder of the St. Paul, Minn.-based firm Thera Rising, which focuses on team building, conflict resolution and leadership development, says co-worker competitiveness has significantly increased over the past year -- a situation she attributes to the downturn in the economy.

'When people's economic security is at risk, their behavior deteriorates, " she says. Among the most serious problems among managers and executives are "backstabbing and avoidance," she says. "You do something that annoys me, or I don't agree with, I don't bring it up. I don't ask for explanations when things aren't going well in your division."

Eventually, she says, executives will stop offering each other a head's up about imminent problems -- "Or worse, they'll set you up to fail."

There are other signs co-worker competitiveness is growing. A recent survey of 150 senior executives from large U.S. companies found that nearly half (46 percent) believe employees are more competitive with their co-workers than they were 10 years ago.

But, just in the past year, the competitiveness has been accelerating, says Dave Willmer, executive director of OfficeTeam, which commissioned the survey. The Menlo Park, Calif.-based staffing firm, a division of Robert Half International, places professional and customer-service professionals.

He also puts the blame on the economy.

Competition among co-workers can be healthy, and can benefit companies when times get tough, says Willmer. But HR leaders need to be on the lookout for competition that becomes unhealthy -- which can lead to poor morale, lower productivity and difficulty in retaining good employees.

Employee often feel more anxious about their jobs when they don't get enough recognition, says Willmer. "If recognition is unfairly distributed or not distributed, people become competitive to seek that," he says.

Competitiveness among co-workers also increases when companies don't communicate with their employees well -- not only about where things stand with the company's health, but about where an employee's career stands. "When you don't know, you tell yourself, 'I have to do whatever I can,'" says Willmer. "But that may not be a healthy thing."

Joseph Koob, author of Succeeding with Difficult Co-Workers, says he's seen a growing competitiveness over the last five or six years, as companies have cut back and eliminated entire levels of management. "They're leaner and meaner, but that creates more work and takes away a fair amount of advancement, " he says.

"Mid-level and senior executives are working tremendously long hours, which puts pressure on everybody," says Koob, founder of Metacoach, based in Lansdale, Pa.

At the same time, he says, there's less loyalty to companies, and people are jumping from one to another -- which means "you have all these people floating around who are really good." That gets managers and others worried about their own job security, which creates even more angst and competitiveness, he says.

Co-worker competition can be good when it helps people to do their best, but becomes unhealthy when employees are so unhappy they leave, says Koob. "That eventually undermines the whole organization, " he says.

How can a manager or executive tell when competition has moved from healthy to unhealthy? Koob suggests that leaders walk around and talk to people. Among the signs: "People will be complaining about other people, pointing their fingers. They'll be blaming others. They'll be whining about their own situations."

Like other experts, Koob says that if employees feel appreciated, they're less likely to worry about their jobs and engage in harmful competition. "It comes down to how people are treated," he says. "If a manager makes an effort to understand who they are, and appreciate who they are, then competition is fine."

Maravelas, of Thera Rising, offers these suggestions for keeping competition from getting out of control:

1. Acknowledge the contributions of your direct reports and other divisions daily." She recommends inviting leaders and employees from other departments to staff meetings and publicly thanking them. This helps everyone feel appreciated.

2. Eliminate performance measures "that reward employees and leaders for sacrificing the needs of other divisions for their own gain" such as a sales-compensation structure "that drives wedges between groups and leaders."

3. "Build the consistent message that we don't throw people under the bus here. As soon as you see a person disrespect or target another person or group, you shut that down."

by Bill Noonan

Catching wind of an undiscussable in your organization can be a disheartening experience. The announcement isn't broadcast in the company newsletter, but you can be assured the word has spread. There is a moose on the table, an elephant is in the room or a 900 lb. gorilla has taken up residence.

Everyone knows what is going on except for those who are the subject of the undiscussable. They remain oblivious and have a version of the story that is guaranteed to be different from the others.

As in the case of a large animal that stays too long in a closed room, the presence of an undiscussable can create a toxic work environment if left unattended. Something needs to be done, but what? It is not as easy as pointing to the moose on the table, asking the 900 lb gorilla to step aside or showing the elephant in the room the door.

Handling an undiscussable requires an approach similar to how one would greet any formidable creature -- use caution, show respect and exercise skill. Here are a few tips for how to approach the moose, gorilla or elephant in your organization.

1. Use Caution: Avoid Reckless Engagements with the Undiscussable

Telling someone or a group of people to have a difficult and candid conversation about a company's undiscussable is the worst possible advice to give. Like poking a dangerously large creature with a pointed stick, it will only create agitation and the result is usually disastrous.

Too often, human resource executives and consultants call together a dysfunctional team or division and tell them to get everything out on the table. Soon, everyone lets it rip and there is blood on the floor. The aftermath of sore feelings, escalated tension and further entrenched views only serves as a confirmation that the undiscussable should remain undiscussable.

People don't share what is undiscussable with those directly involved largely because of the highly charged emotional assessments they hold about the other person.

The assessments consist of private explanations about why others do what they do, attributions about each other's motives and the coup de grace, how the other person is accountable for the difficulty. These thoughts are held with a high degree of certainty. When they are uncorked, look out for an emotional explosion.

2. Show respect

Undiscussables, or what business theorist Chris Argyris refers to as defensive routines, arise in organizations through a combination of human behavior and a limit of human awareness where we fail to see how our interactions are part of a system of unproductive behavior.

Respecting an undiscussable is not an exercise in politeness or withdrawing in deference to its presence. Respect is an acknowledgement of the daunting task any human resource executive faces when approaching the parties involved in a defensive routine. How one mentally approaches the task can make all the difference.

Human resource executives often fall into two mental traps when encountering an undiscussable.

Human resource executives often think that they have to play the referee who makes sure that everyone plays fairly and by the rules. Even though they listen to both sides of the story, they end up feeling caught in the middle or accused of taking sides. The neutral position is desirous, but is ultimately not sufficient.

3. It is Not Something to be Fixed

The second trap is thinking that an organizational defensive routine is something to be fixed. It is not a mechanical problem, but an interpersonal one. There is no sure-fire method of dealing with them by reorganizing, instituting policies or replacing people. They are a product of our thinking and acting together played out in the arena of intergroup or interpersonal conflict. Any intervention requires people sitting down to talk. How the conversation goes largely depends on how all parties are thinking about each other.

4. The Aura of "Externality"

Any interventionist, be that an outside consultant or internal human resource expert, will bump up against what Argyris calls the "aura of externality. " The most tenacious aspect of an organizational defensive routine is the perception that it is external to one's self and range of influence.

Seeing the problem as "out there" is a hard perception to shake loose. When viewed from one's own perspective, what one sees is how others are behaving badly.

The first successful move toward unlocking organizational defensive routines is a shift of thinking away from seeing others as the problem and discovering how everyone's thinking and behavior contributes to the creation of the defensive routine.

5. Be the Puzzle Master

It helps to think of organizational defensive routines as puzzles and one's role as a puzzle master. A puzzle master surveys the pieces looking for how the pieces fit together -- the interlocking shapes come together to form a complete picture. Seeing the whole picture means understanding how all the players are interacting together to create a defensive routine.

6. Get Curious About Unintended Results

A good place to start is with the unintended results of a defensive routine. Whether it is an organization- wide, team or interpersonal defensive routine, it is most likely a tangle of relationships gone bad -- a result no one intentionally desired. Ask the question, "If no one intended these results, how did our thinking and acting together create this result?" Following this line of inquiry can spark self-reflection and curiosity.

7. Exercise Skill

Actually discussing an undiscussable requires an ample amount of patience and skill. When the time comes to hold a discussion, the chances of success increase when all parties are able to see how their thinking and actions contribute to the difficulty at hand.

Getting to that point requires a full use of the skill set described as Model II or Mutual Learning by Argyris and Donald Schon, another influential business thinker, who has a long collaboration with Argyris. Whether the intervention is conducted by the internal human resource staff or and external consultant, the interventionist needs to be proficient in following skill set:

a) Ability to ask high-quality inquiries in order to understand how people are thinking, what they are up against and what led them to act in the way they did.

b) Help others to separate intention from an action's impact, so as to understand how people inadvertently contribute to the defensive routine.

c) Use the Ladder of Inference as a means for helping people express their views, provide concrete illustrations and understand how they jumped to their conclusions. The Ladder of Interference, developed by Argyris and Schon, helps guide users through their reasoning process as they collect data, select and interpret the data, reach conclusions and take action.

It didn't take a day for an undiscussable to take shape, so it won't disappear after one meeting.

Even if the first round of an intervention doesn't go as smoothly as hoped, after-the-fact reflection is likely to occur. Individuals walk away thinking about what was said, review regrets and are willing to take a different tact if given the chance.

Double back and check on how things sit after discussing an undiscussable. Ask all parties, "What did you learn from our session?" or "What would you have said or done differently? "

No human resource executive can unlock defensive routines single handedly. The challenge is assembling people with the sufficient skill to help those stuck in defensive routines. Even then, a successful intervention will depend on how well all parties are able to reflect on their own contribution to making critical issues undiscussable.

By Richard Stengel

No. 1
Courage is not the absence of fear - it's inspiring others to move beyond it

No. 2
Lead from the front - but don't leave your base behind

No. 3
Lead from the back - and let others believe they are in front

No. 4
Know your enemy - and learn about his favorite sport

No. 5
Keep your friends close - and your rivals even closer

No. 6
Appearances matter - and remember to smile

No. 7
Nothing is black or white

No. 8
Quitting is leading too

A Customer-Driven Approach to Molding Tomorrow's Leaders
by Frank R. Lloyd, Ph.D.

To cultivate exceptional leaders, CLOs must seek changes in the delivery of executive education and collaborate with academic institutions to develop custom course content that is beneficial to both parties.

According to conventional wisdom, 70 percent of employee development happens on the job, 20 percent through formal and informal relationships with bosses and mentors and 10 percent in the classroom.

However, we are seeing a new dynamic emerge, one that suggests that 50 percent of employee development takes place through challenging job assignments, 30 percent in the classroom and 20 percent through community involvement. This theory suggests that powerful learning experiences are available everywhere and that experiential classroom instruction can be tied more closely to the job than ever before.

As a result, CLOs can no longer assume that what is in the business school brochures is all that's available for meaningful management education. Businesses and executive education providers must work together to design and develop course content and delivery formats.

Many CEOs and CLOs remain skeptical of business schools' ability to change and deliver programming in executive education that promotes high performance in industries, organizations and teams. They seem to believe schools are restricted to the ABC method of instruction that has been used since teaching began:

A. An educational institution offers courses according to curricula that convey subject matter knowledge in the amount and timing needed for the school to bestow various credentials.

B: An instructor has a predeveloped syllabus for the presentation of course content for each individual course.

C. Each course is presented according to that outline.

Naturally, instructors feel comfortable in that structure because it's theirs. But if businesses are going to receive the relevant education they need to compete and succeed in the face of demographic challenges, global competition and the accelerating pace of change, it's going to be the responsibility of CLOs to seek out changes in the delivery of the educational product and the responsibility of educational institutions to listen, question, challenge and advocate. In other words, it's up to academic institutions and businesses to collaborate in developing and delivering content in a way that will have an immediate and lasting impact.

At first blush, this sounds like a revolutionary concept. But all it really means is that we have to communicate with each other. CLOs need to be clear about their needs, scope and parameters, and educational providers need to understand CLOs' needs and buying criteria. They have to establish honest, business-like relationships based on two-way communication.

Once this is achieved, businesses can access a university's research-based content and a learning environment that provides a safe place to think and act differently. More importantly, they can access instructors who facilitate participants' learning using their own experiences, as well as external perspectives - instructors who challenge participants to think broadly and innovatively, enable them to reconnect with fundamentals and a wider set of purposes and promote reflection and reassessment.

All this fosters courage and openness to change, which after all is what businesses are looking for to survive. But schools also need this interaction. When CLOs and university providers can communicate well, business schools serve the business community in immediate as well as long-term ways, and this contributes to the schools' relationships, reputations and revenues. I have seen this put into practice where the school and its business client become reinvigorated by the possibilities.

Learner-Driven Teaching Methods
One executive education provider offers a number of leadership courses designed to teach future managers in corporations how to be successful. A pharmaceutical company that sent many of its employees through these leadership courses came to its partnering university and asked for something "a little different." This company wanted a two-day program that would change the way its managers thought. This is the essence of education, and it's very different from the training in specific tasks or specialized knowledge that most companies think to provide for their employees through a school or college.

The educational institution accepted the challenge even though its leaders knew it was a departure from what they had done in the past. This approach had to do with promoting new ways of thinking within a specific organizational culture, not how to think within a specific intellectual discipline. To make this program successful, the institution had to ask the instructors to be facilitators more than teachers.

They would have to pose open-ended questions to students without having any idea what the answers might be and then respond extemporaneously to the questions posed. This made the professors participating in the program understandably nervous, but this approach was necessary to explore the thought patterns of the employees.

Through this relatively unstructured program, the strangest thing happened: Between the first and second sessions, the professors digested and analyzed the answers they received during the first open-ended discussion, developed relevant teaching points around that analysis and on the second day offered insight and expertise that spurred additional discussions.

A day after the program ended, the two professors said they couldn't remember the last time they were so intellectually stimulated and sought out opportunities to teach similar classes. This approach turned out to be beneficial for both the business and educational provider.

Flexible Delivery Schedules: "Spatial Learning"
Time is another reason CLOs must partner with academic institutions to develop the delivery of their learning programs. Although many companies have high-potential employees who would benefit from customized educational programs, these companies also realize they are limited in the amount of time these employees can spend away from the job in learning activities. The company's bottom line depends on their on-the-job performance.

An executive education department at a private university's business school faced just such a dilemma with a high-profile, high-pressure financial institution. This organization desired a leadership development program for its up-and-coming managers. The university's representatives outlined the many programs the school offered in this area, everything from an advanced leadership program that met regularly over a nine-month period to short one- and two-day programs.

"But you don't understand," the company's learning officer said. "We can't spare two days, let alone nine months."

"OK," the university representative replied. "How much time can you spare?"

"Two hours. Max."

Undaunted, the executive education department devised a concept called "spatial learning" in which curricula were developed that could be delivered in the two-hour periods the company had allocated. Then the school formed "sunrise breakfast sessions," during which smaller groups from the company gathered to talk about the practical applications of the theories that had been presented during the general class session. These breakfast sessions helped the university supply the company with a complete course in a time frame that suited the needs and demands of that company.

Critical Mass and Global Reach
There is a high demand for leadership programs these days because companies are looking to develop a critical mass of talent ready to assume leadership responsibilities at enterprise, business-unit and top functional levels. Not only that, they also are looking for these groups of officers, executives and high-level managers to be in alignment with the organization' s overall mission and strategy and to mobilize their respective departments around the world in this endeavor.

This is another area in which CLOs and executive education providers can profitably collaborate - if they will communicate well. Here is how one firm collaborated with a business school provider to achieve the necessary critical mass, alignment and global reach:

Two years ago, a worldwide retailer of travel products and a provider of distribution and technology solutions for the travel industry enrolled seven high potentials into a yearlong advanced leadership course offered by the executive education department at a nearby university. Based on their positive experience in the public program, the company seized the opportunity. It formed a partnership with the university, in which the executive education department developed a leadership program specifically designed for one of the firm's major operating units and the company's corporate culture.

The university sent faculty members to the company's headquarters so they could learn firsthand how that culture operated within the overall organizational framework. Then the faculty members designed a program that dealt exclusively with developing leaders within that organizational culture and taught it at the company's headquarters, not the university's campus.

Was it a success? Apparently so, because the company has since asked the university to formulate a similar program for all its units for delivery at locations in South America and Eastern Europe, each with its own specific cultural anomalies.

Specifically Tailored Course Content
The human resources department of a large company recently asked an executive education department to design a course for its personnel that had nothing to do with HR skills. It wanted a program to teach department personnel the languages of finance, accounting and marketing. Why? Because only then, the HR department head reasoned, could his personnel understand their places, their roles and their effects on the corporation' s balance sheet.

He wanted them to know where they could find the costs of such things as recruiting, hiring, training and turnover on the balance sheet and how investments in these areas would pay off. Then they would be able to determine how the changes they proposed would affect the firm's overall success.

But why marketing? The HR director said that nine times out of 10, when the human resources department wants to initiate a new program or change an existing one, it is met with resistance. The marketing aspect of the executive education custom course was designed specifically to teach the HR professionals within that organization how to brand their offerings and effectively communicate the HR value proposition to internal customers.

Immediate Application
Whether we are talking about learner-driven teaching methods, flexible delivery formats, critical mass and global reach or developing skill in the language of business, the ultimate test of collaboration between a CLO and a business school partner is the application of new learning for the benefit of the company and the participant.

Many custom executive education programs do this by embedding projects into the program structure. The CLO needs to be clear about the firm's overall business situation, the management development implications of its business challenges and the resulting learning agenda for the company. The business school provider must listen, question and challenge to identify and structure tangible business issues into effective learning vehicles.

When this communication occurs, a company can achieve immediate benefits from the application of learning to specific projects, as well as long-term benefits as the participants continue to apply their learning to new situations.

For example, a regional beverage distribution company wished to develop general manager skills among its sales and operations managers. The participants were divided into teams, and each was assigned a company challenge in areas such as overtime, route optimization and implementation of new information systems.

The teams had one month to research the topics and return with formal recommendations. Program instructors and the company's top management accepted and implemented the teams' recommendations, saving thousands of dollars and reallocating resources to new initiatives.

Using business projects as part of a customized learning experience makes it easier to assess the effectiveness of a program and the company's return on investment. For example, it is easy to identify the number of program projects that "go live," retain executive sponsorship and achieve their business metrics.

Getting Tomorrow's Leaders Today
What are the leadership traits corporations need to be looking for as they enter the second decade of the 21st century? There is no one correct answer to this question. Each corporation has the right to define the characteristics of its leadership team and then turn to its educational partner and say, "Make this dream a reality."

This is how the CEO of a Houston-based energy company defined it. She asked her executive education partner to develop a program unique to her company that would help in "developing the skills and talents required of tomorrow's leaders." She was very specific in what she wanted and outlined her requirements in a letter to her educational partner.

"Our culture looks to create an environment where leaders must be willing to be questioned, demonstrate vulnerability and not take things personally. In other words, good leaders need to be able to embrace change and overcome failures," she wrote.

"Our leaders also must be able to demonstrate passion, energy, and be ruthlessly disciplined. While discipline, execution and safety are key ingredients to our success, this must be balanced with a thirst for creative ideas and a willingness to challenge the status quo."

An off-the-shelf, straight-from- the-catalog business school course open to all will not meet the needs of this CEO or others who want to establish their next leadership generation. It is incumbent on corporations and business schools to collaborate and develop and deliver custom executive education programs that develop leaders who will assure the ongoing success of their firms.

This means CLOs must clearly articulate need, scope and outcomes, and providers must clearly express their capability, compatibility and commitment. When such open, two-way communication happens, companies can access the rigor of the academy, and business schools can access the relevance of the workplace. Together, they can develop and deliver customized educational experiences for executives that impact immediate business success and long-term business survival.

The Manager's Responsibility for Employee Learning
by Jeffrey Berk

To have a lasting effect on employees, learning programs must receive buy-in and support from an organization' s managers. It's up to the learning function to make sure management professionals understand their critical role in employee development.

Some time ago, I listened intently to General Frank Anderson of Defense Acquisition University (DAU) explain how a lot of new knowledge and skill is obtained from DAU but may not be optimally applied on the job because managers don't assume the responsibility they should when their direct reports are sent off to training. He coined the term "scrap learning" to describe the phenomena.

I thought about Anderson's remarks again when I heard Dr. Robert Brinkerhoff - known for his Success Case Method of learning evaluation - give a presentation earlier this year. Brinkerhoff gave an Oscar-worthy performance when he illustrated the three types of learners to the audience:

Learner 1: Attends training because he or she is told to do so.
Preparation involves knowing where to go and at what time.

Learner 2: Attends learning because he or she loves the experience. He or she will take any new training that's available.

Learner 3: Attends training when needed. He or she is prepped by the manager about expectations when returning to the job and therefore comes with a realistic and specific focus for what needs to be learned and how it should be applied.

When Brinkerhoff asked the audience of 100-plus how many had Learner 3 in their training programs, less than 20 percent raised their hands. It is a sad state when high-quality and highly effective training programs have a lot of Learners 1 and 2.

Brinkerhoff' s remarks prompted me to study some benchmark data. I mined the KnowledgeAdvisors database of learning evaluations and benchmarks to gain a better understanding of Anderson's scrap learning and Brinkerhoff' s Learner 3.

Here is what I found:
a) Sixty percent of learned knowledge and skill stops being applied on the job 90 days after learning ends (or sooner). This means there is 60 percent "scrap." It also means there are many of Learners 1 and 2 participating in training.

b) Fifty-two percent of respondents not applying training on the job said they didn't use it because they had "no opportunity" to do so. Sixteen percent cited other priorities as their reason for not using training on the job.

c) There was a 1.04 point difference between learners who said the materials provided by learning were adequate as opposed to their feedback on how managers helped them determine use of the training back on the job. This means there is a significant drop-off in what the learning function provides as support versus what employees' environments provide as support.

Best Practices for Manager Responsibility
As a result of this data, I reached a simple conclusion (admittedly, one many people have known for years): For any learning program to be successful, no matter how good or bad the program, there must be manager responsibility and involvement to maximize the impact on the job. Below are my top 10 practices for manager responsibility. Unlike the David Letterman list, it is not in any particular order, nor is it especially humorous. But I hope you will find it useful in engaging managers' sense of responsibility for learning.

1. Conduct a pre-assessment for strategic, visible or costly programs. Also, when participants register, send the assessment to the manager to get the following information:

a) Awareness that the employee enrolled.
b) Expectations to be set with employee prior to learning.
c) Resources provided to employee to apply learning.
d) Specific projects to apply post-training.

2. Build into any on-boarding program the responsibilities of managers when approving employees to attend learning initiatives. Focus on awareness, expectation setting, resource provisions and alignment of projects with proximity of training.

3. For any strategic, visible or costly program, managers should approve the learners going to the program.

4. Prior to attending training, managers should be encouraged to have a brief meeting with the employee, review the course objectives and align those to specific job tasks and business results. During this exercise, managers should set appropriate expectations of the employee. For example, the employee is expected to give a presentation to the rest of the department on the key learning themes from the training and how this will be applied to the job.

5. Managers should be encouraged to provide ample resources to not only attend the training but to apply it optimally on the job. The manager should review monetary, time, physical and people resources to assist the employee in applying the learning.

6. Managers should be encouraged to provide specific projects in which the employee can apply the training within a reasonable time frame. For example, if an employee learns a new sales strategy, he or she should build it into the next negotiation they conduct on the job and - assuming it is executed correctly - be encouraged to do so in subsequent negotiations.

7. Managers should create an environment that is conducive to learning. This is done by encouraging employees to seek out learning opportunities and creating an environment that spreads knowledge sharing and learning. Creating rewards and incentives to learn, and to share and apply what is learned on the job, should be encouraged.

8. The learning department should present managers with data on scrap learning within their organizations. Using questions from surveys, learning managers can aid line managers in understanding where scrap learning is taking place and why. Also, data can be an objective way of rooting out the causes of scrap learning.

9. The learning function should evaluate managers and participants 60 days after training and look for evidence of management support and use of training on the job. At a minimum, it is a reminder to the manager and employee that they should be applying the learning.

10. Learning representatives should meet with managers prior to a major program and discuss how the learning event can impact a business result. The business result should be tracked and linked to the development initiative. Linking learning to business results can show managers the criticality of training.

Measuring and Decreasing Scrap
The old adage, "You only manage what you measure," contains a great deal of truth. That is why you must measure the scrap learning/management responsibility issue. It's actually easy to do.

A first step is to ask the right questions on evaluations to determine quantification of scrap and where sources of scrap can be found. Questions include the following:

1. What percent of learning actually was applied to the job?
2. When did the learner apply the learning (e.g., time-to-job impact)?
3. What are the major barriers to applying the learning on the job?
4. Did you set expectations with your manager before the learning event?
5. Were you provided adequate resources to optimally apply the learning?
6. Did you determine specific uses for the training after it took place?

For example, if you just ask on a follow-up survey, "What percent of the new knowledge or skill learned was applied to the job?" that can benchmark against the 60 percent scrap learning indicator cited above. So if you have a response that averages around 40 percent applied, that's consistent with the 60 percent not applied, or scrap.

The goal is to elevate a metric such as this to the learning dashboard and place a goal against it to root out the scrap. Find out where it is more prevalent. It is likely a lot worse in certain areas than others. If you can reduce it by 10 percent, that may mean thousands of dollars in saved costs. More importantly, it could mean thousands of dollars more in increased impact and business outcomes because more people are applying what they've learned on the job to make a difference.

Here's a short case study to illustrate this point: An insurance company asked a question about managers setting expectations before the training and then determining specific use afterward. They ran the data against lines of business (finance, HR, claims, underwriting) . Finance was the lowest of all the groups.

The learning function showed the findings to leaders throughout the organization. It eventually was determined that the finance group had a negative experience working with learning on a Sarbanes-Oxley learning program a few years back and decided to created its own training. As a result, finance managers discouraged or did not legitimize or support the learning-sponsored training, preferring their own. The net effect was to stop the duplication of effort and collaborate. The data helped not only to pinpoint the scrap, but also cultivated a nonemotional and objective idea exchange to overcome it.

Managers have responsibility when employees go to training. It is learning's responsibility to highlight this. Using metrics to do this is an objective and nonemotional way to do it. Following the metrics with some practices to obtain and maintain manager involvement changes the culture. In a culture that supports it, learning will thrive in the form of impact and outcomes. That's good for L&D, the manager, the employee and the stakeholders of the business.