The science of... Appraisals

Look. I had to get to this one eventually. I’ve been pushing it aside long enough. It was us ok? It was occupational psychologists that said: You need to set SMART objectives, you need to do annual appraisals, you need competency frameworks, you need to give effective feedback. IT WAS ALL US. There. I’ve said it. Now, here’s the science...

It’s nothing you don’t know already. You want to recognise and reward performance but how can you do it unless you appraise your staff? It’s a win-win argument. I can review the objectives I’ve set you, review your projects, review your behaviour and appraise how well you’ve done. Then – and only then, can I decide on what level of salary increase you are likely to deserve. The logic is flawless.

The appraisal provides an opportune moment to provide feedback, develop your staff, give some coaching and all in one neat package. HOW COULD THIS FAIL?

Because of complete, total and utter misunderstanding of the truth behind appraisals. An appraisal should only ever be a summary of every conversation you have ever had with your direct report. The annual review was meant to be the one point of the year where you formally sit down and do the review of the collection of your reviews you’ve already been doing.

And that’s where it all started to go horribly wrong. Everyone knows about the initiatives for continuous improvement that came and went. Total Quality Management, Management By Objectives, Competency Frameworks, Coaching. These are all excellent models. The one and only reason they are looked on with such hatred is the piss poor education about how they should be implemented and used.

The best – truly – appraisal I had was a 45 minutes discussion with my first manager in my 3^rd year of working for him. He understood what he was meant to do over the course of the year. We had regular catch ups, he regularly reviewed my work, I regularly received feedback, he would give me coaching when I clearly needed it, and he recognised my work. The annual review was then a formal point to sit down and say “Well, what do you want to do next year?”.

The reason appraisals are given a bad name is because the process is not understood, respective parties aren’t sure what they’re meant to be doing, no follow up is taken, and the review ends up being a 3 hour meeting producing a 15 page review document. I am not exaggerating on any of those things I’ve mentioned. I have experienced all and am shocked by all.

So, where’s the science? It’s in the application of the process. It doesn’t really matter what document you have, what framework or model you adhere to. The important piece comes from understanding the process and engaging with it fully. Seek out training, understand the process, ask questions, find out what’s expected – fully engage yourself with the process. It will make for a much more valid and reliable appraisal process. And that will sing to the heart of every occupational psychologist who came before me, and will sing to every one of your staff who you involve in this truly developmental process.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Ergonomics

Last week I posted 3 pieces in my series of The Science of... Occupational Psychology. I'm going to try and be disciplined and finish them off this week. Next up then, we look at ergonomics.

Ergonomics is all about the design of a physical object and the way we interact with it. For example, take your standard chair. It has a particular design and purpose. The study of ergonomics informs us about what enables good design and what doesn't. This particular topic is not restricted to occupational psychology. It also crosses boundaries with Health and Safety, Art, Architecture, Home Furnishings and even Technology.

So why would an occupational psychologist be concerned with the design and use of an object? Well, when you think about it, one of the outputs of the way we interact with an object informs about how much we enjoy and are pleased with that object. If you have purchased a new chair for work and it is comfortable, aids your posture, and is adjustable to your liking, you will have an association with this object. That association will stay with you until you are convinced the object needs to change.

A lot of research goes into the design of pretty much any object you can see on your desk. Your telephone, laptop, monitor, mouse, chair, pedestal, desk, tray stack, and more, have undergone some level of research and development into identifying the ideal way they can be utilised. What this enables is a pleasant work environment that you are comfortable with and have good memories of. If you consider Herzberg's theory of motivation, where he discusses motivational and hygiene factors, ergonomics is clearly a hygiene factor. Get it right and people will be passe about their interaction with it, get it wrong and you'll have hell to pay.

In the wider context then, this also plays out with how office spaces are designed. Open plan or walled up offices? Same building or remote work spaces? Dedicated desk, or hot-desk? All these play an important part in an employee's state of well-being and engagement. Sure, ergonomics doesn't directly affect all those, but the design and use of the objects that enable all those will have an affect.

I've not gone into the actual science of ergonomics, as this isn't my field of speciality. Instead, I wanted to give an insight into why it's important. Consider for a moment if the mouse you are using were instead oval shaped, you held it by encasing the whole thing in the palm of your hand and the buttons were at your finger tips. How would that change your experience of, interaction with and association with that mouse? That's what ergonomics aims to uncover and provide insight into.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Competency Frameworks

Seems like an apt one to choose seeing I went on a competency framework workshop today. I have an issue with the workshop, but will save that for another post once this series is completed.

So today's post in the Science of... Occupational Psychology is all about competency frameworks. What a beast this is!

Where in the world do I begin with this? Ok here it is, the age old mantra about competency frameworks - You know your staff can do the technical side of their job, and that's measurable, but how do you measure how they behave? With a competency framework!

Ok, so look, I know they can be contentious, but they mean well. Something about the road to hell comes to mind. And, I'm in the middle of developing our own company competency framework. They're not bad. They just get sidelined. But this post isn't about justifying the existence of competency frameworks, it's about how they get constructed. I warn you now, there will be jargon, I can't help it today.

Company Values

The first place to start is to identify and define what the company values are and how these are understood by staff. What this means in reality is to do an audit of how staff define and understand the values. Is it the cleaner at Nasa scenario or is it a blank face?

Once you've got this, you have a fair place of understanding what the competency framework needs to look at. That's to say, is performance the issue? Is it interpersonal skills? Is it communication? Is it development? Is it being fun? Or a mix of these?

Job Analysis

This is the crux of it. This is where it all starts from. Meeting with staff, carrying out focus groups, interviews, workshops, offsites, party's (well not quite). The key questions here are about:

- what are the key activities you do day to day?

- what are the behaviours expected of you at work?

- what are the positive behaviours you see and are rewarded for?

- what are the negative behaviours you understand are not in line with company values?

The responses from those produce rich information about understanding the behaviours cum competencies that staff currently exhibit. This isn't about what management want them to exhibit, it's what they're currently exhibiting. This information then needs to be grouped, or themed to produce the core competencies.

These competencies then form the standard, consistent basis that everyone will be measured against. You then need to produce indicators of those behaviours e.g. "making the right decision" would need a positive indicator such as "able to collect accurate information to make informed decisions" and a negative indicator such as "makes no effort to gather information, making judgements based on own subjective opinions".

This is a lot of work. A LOT OF WORK. While at my last company, a team of us spent 2 weeks doing nothing but producing the competency framework for the client who needed it. It was the bane of my life. But extremely satisfying once complete. If only because it was complete.

Throughout this process though, there needs to be regular reviews with the business to ensure the competency framework is being produced in line with the language, culture and values. If a team does this in solo, you run the very high chance of producing something which might be excellent but simply not fit for purpose.

Education

So it's complete. It's produced. You can now announce to the world you have a new competency framework. Everyone cheers and forgets about it 2 minutes later.

The key thing is to embed the framework in every part of your being as a business. First hit the obvious places - recruitment, appraisals, promotions, objective setting. Those will be the high profile areas that everyone will already understand and then be able to draw the line of sight of how the competency framework will only enhance and strengthen those processes. There will need to be training and roll out of the framework, but this should be with the objective in mind of updating the current processes - not a new way of doing things, an improved way of doing things. What the framework enables you to do is to give structure to all these processes - and that structure comes from staff not from HR. What's the importance of that? It's a business initiative, not a HR initiative.

This will take time. At least a year. Then once you've got that, you can think about other initiatives the competency framework should be used. Talent management, leadership development, business planning, learning and development, culture development, employee engagement - you get the idea? You have a core base from which you are already measuring staff. You're not just taking it further and demonstrating how you can use it strengthen the company culture and brand.

Iteration

How often should it be revised? When managers start to complain en masse about it's applicability to the business. Not 2-3 years, but when you have every department coming to you with feedback that says - I cannot use this anymore we need to update it.

And what do you do in that case? Follow the above process. It's a long, involved process. But once developed and used effectively, it becomes a core piece of the way a business functions.

Is it really objective?

No. It's still based on interpretation of each competency and of each indicator. How does "Making the right decisions" differ from "Ability to discern quality information"? Or "ability to communicate well with all staff" to "understands how to engage actively with others"?

It's objective insofar that it's developed in conjunction with the business. If a sole developer or consultancy or business unit takes charge then it will be subjective as there's no business context that underpins it. It is validated through the business. It's use is only validated when managers actively come back to you and say - "I found it useful to use the competency framework because I got stuck on how to further develop my staff".

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Psychometrics

Yesterday I started a series of posts on: The science of... Occupational Psychology. Today I continue with talking about psychometrics.

You mention psychometrics and people immediately think about profiling, being boxed in, being classed as unsuitable, and a host of other negative associations. It's all hogwash of course. These things are spouted by those who have zero concept about how psychometrics should be used, their value and the insight they provide.

Personality Theory

Where do we start? Well the first thing to understand is that psychometric tests are all about providing an easy to understand frame of reference for personality. This frame of reference is often steeped in two schools of thought. They are either based in trait theory or type theory.

Trait theory is about a scale of behaviour. The theory argues that we all have a range of behaviours, and we will exhibit various strengths of those behaviours. For example, we all have the capacity for 'social boldness' but we may differ the extent to which we display that behaviour. We can have a strength in this behaviour or it can be a weakness. The most popular psychometric that uses trait theory is the 16PF personality questionnaire - distributed by OPP Ltd in the UK.

Type theory is about either exhibiting a behaviour, or not. The theory argues that we will all have preferences for behaviour, and this is the place we will default to in any given situation. We might be able to learn the opposite behaviour, but this does not mean we can do both at the same time. It means that we develop a maturity in our understanding of behaviours and are able to exhibit both types. Thus, we may be extrovert by preference, but equally able to exhibit introvert behaviours when appropriate. The most popular psychometric tool that uses type theory is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator - distributed again by OPP Ltd in the UK.

Types of Psychometrics

As well as personality based psychometrics, there are also other types of psychometrics which are very commonplace - the biggest distributor of which is SHL in the UK.

Aptitude tests and ability tests measure your ability to do a certain task e.g. analytical skills, inference skills, deduction skills, critical reasoning.

Verbal reasoning tests measure your ability to understand verbal instruction.

Numerical reasoning tests measure your ability to understand mathematical problems.

Construction of Psychometrics

The key thing that sets psychometrics apart from other questionnaires such as Belbin team roles or the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles, is that there is rigorous construction of the questionnaires. Every psychometric developed goes through a process of being validated.

This means it has to show to be reliable. That is, if you retake the questionnaire, your answers will be consistent.

It has to also show to be valid. That is, a set of or bank of questions measure what it purports to measure.

A set of norms is produced to enable a benchmark from the results. That is, whatever your results may show from a psychometric, you are measured against an appropriate norm group, and as such your results interpreted appropriately.

Standardised administration is a key part of psychometrics. Instructions on how to complete a questionnaire must be understood by anyone undertaking the test.

Feedback and Interpretation

The most important part of completing the questionnaires is receiving feedback from a fully qualified person. Qualification means they have attended a training programme where they learn about all the things I've mentioned above. Any person claiming they are qualified will have 2 certificates to prove this. One is the ability to administer and feedback results - a Level A qualification in occupational competence. The second is the ability to use, administer and interpret a specific personality tool. This is the Level B qualification in occupational competence.

A qualified person will be able to take your results and provide insight to you based on the answers you've provided. At no point should this be judgemental or profiling. Instead it should be only about feedback and insight.

Once you've received feedback you should always receive a report that explains the results.

Myths about Psychometrics

There are those who will tell you that you can fake a test, or answer it in your favour. The likelihood of you being able to do this is seriously slim. The construction of psychometrics means that the questions are designed to not be faked. that's why you'll often find that the same question seems to be asked several times in different ways. That's done so you answer consistently. You might be clever, and you might think you can fake it, but you can't. Trust me.

There are those who will tell you that you can't change once you've been profiled. Oh that's just nonsense. First you're not being profiled. You've provided a set of answers and based on the information you've provided a set of results are produced. It's totally based on the information you've given. Second - and importantly - you can change your behaviours. Significant life changing events can have profound impacts on us and they do. Death, birth, job change, redundancy, divorce, marriage, all have profound effects on our condition. And they can influence and change your behaviour. It does normally have to be something quite significant though in order for your behaviour to change.

There are those who will claim they can exhibit all behaviours all times of the day. Idiots. As I've explained above, you can learn behaviours, but that takes time and you will default to a way of being in most situations. You can and will learn how to act differently, but this will often be in relation to and dependent on the situation you are in.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Assessment Centres

Is occupational psychology a dark art? Do you know what you're getting when you ask for an occupational psychology consultancy to darken your doors?

Well here's an insight into this weird and wonderful world that I chose to put myself through. I'll be writing a series of informative posts about the variety of topics an occupational psychologist is likely to be involved in.

At it's core, occupational psychology aims to take psychological principles and apply them to the workplace. Concepts such as memory, behaviours, cognitive processes, emotions, communication and many others are fascinating topics. Research tells us truly interesting insights about the human condition ad nauseam.

There are distinct fields that occ psych ventures into: selection and assessment, organisational development, training and development, employee relations, counselling, human machine interaction, ergonomics, performance appraisal and research methods and statistics. Today I'll start with...

Selection and Assessment

This can be broken into 2 categories. The first is concerned the use of assessment centres, and the second development centres. Assessment centres are for recruitment purposes, and development centres for initiatives such as personal or individual development. I'll be dealing with assessment centres today.

For the uninformed, an assessment centre is where you have a day of exercises that are designed to test a variety of skills and elicit behaviours. For example, you might have to take part in a group exercise, an interview, a role related task and a presentation. From each of those exercises, you are 'tested' against criteria that have been pre-defined.

But how do these things get created? You could in all honesty, throw a bunch of exercises together, call a team meeting, decide on criteria to be assessed and Bob's your uncle. I'd recommend you don't do this as fairness and consistency is thrown out of the window.

For excellence though, you need to follow a formula of sorts. The first thing that is done is to do a job analysis of the role you are hiring for. This is done with people who are already in their role within the company. This forms the fundamental basis of the assessment centre. The job analysis provides information about the behaviours you expect someone to be displaying. These then form the criteria for the exercises you are being assessed in.

Once a job analysis is completed, and a list of behaviours drawn out from this, the next thing to do is create a set of exercises that will test the range of the behaviours. This is why there are typically 3-4 exercises in an assessment centre as each exercise will test a specific set of behaviours. You can then see if that same behaviour is displayed in another exercise.

The next stage is probably the most difficult part of an assessment centre - to draw up the competency framework that clearly defines each behaviour expected to be displayed in each exercise. This framework is then tested with incumbents and a group of managers who in effect validate the exercises and the competency framework.

That's not it though! A set of mock exercises need to be carried out with incumbents and typically videoed so that you can deliver effective training to the managers expected to take part. The manager's role on the day is to observe candidates against the criteria and make a judgement at the end of the day if the candidate is suitable or not. The mock exercises and training serve as a platform for consistency and fairness for the candidates and understanding of the exercises themselves.

The final piece is for the manages to understand how to conduct a 'wash up'. The wash up is where you discuss the performance of each candidate once all exercises have been completed and all notes written up. From the mock exercises, there will have been an agreed pass mark, and agreed fail mark, and an agreed discussion mark. The pass and fail marks are self explanatory. The discussion marks are where a candidate has shown some of the desired behaviours but hasn't been consistent with this in all exercises. The managers then need to discuss and decide should they be given a pass or a fail.

And that my dear friends is the science behind assessment centres. I've not talked about psychometrics as that requires a whole post to itself. I've also not talked about development centres as again that will be for another post.

Note, I've not said an occ psych needs to be the one who carries out all of the above. It tends to be occ psychs who are brought in to do all this, but it could equally be done by someone following the process.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

A Call to Arms

I'm watching a YouTube video of Donald Clark delivering his keynote speech at the ALT conference this year (It's an hour long). I want to pick a fight with Donald as I want to show him that there are some L&Ders out there who aren't as bad as he makes out. Unfortunately in the main he's right.

So I have to take issue and blog hoping a message gets delivered.

All you trainers out there - YOU ARE IN AN AGE OF CONSTANT LEARNING - THAT INCLUDES YOU.

What am I talking about here? The trainers who are sticking to their stock and trade and acting like the expert. Get off your high horse, pretentious, misguided sense of expertise and learn how to deal with human beings. There's an excellent post I read last night (written by Joe Gerstandt and courtesy of the HRD) about how Diversity and Inclusivity professionals are still trying to deal with employees as resources and forgetting that we have learned so much about the human condition that we can engage with people in so many different ways, but we're just not getting there.

The tone of this post is angry, and it's 'cos I am! Dammit I try so hard to raise the image of L&D and what the profession is capable of that I don't want stock and traders to be ignorant to what they should be capable of helping organisations achieve.

So this is what it comes to. If you're an L&Der and are either on the road to turning this into your profession, or indeed are claiming this is your profession, take a long hard look at your style of delivery. Are you facilitating? Truly are you? I would bet that I could observe any training session and within the first 5 minutes tell you whether or not the trainer will be a good facilitator. Arrogance? Damn straight it is. I have stupidly high expectations of what excellent training looks like and I will not stand for anything else, least of all from myself.

Want to step up to the mark? Make sure you get involved with the likes of Roffey Park or Ashridge Business School. Those are the Oxbridge of L&D professionals. To be truly excellent in our profession, any L&Der who is worth their salt should attend a workshop or training session or learning event with either of those companies.

Sorry but I don't buy Reed Learning or Hemsley Fraser as being that good. They're good for certain things, but they will not cater for a holistic approach to L&D development.

I won't go into what a facilitator should be doing within a training session, but if you have doubts of what I'm talking about, or don't agree with my assertion then I'll also bet that you're not being as effective a facilitator as you think you are. As an example though, when I deliver sessions, about 50% of what I talk about is the actual content of the session, the other 50% is normally me connecting and forming relationships that enable change.

This is a call to arms. Calling all L&Ders. Forget your own sense of importance and step up to the mark. Show the businesses and organisations you work with or for what excellent training looks like. Make sure you are constantly learning. Make sure you get critical and direct feedback about your delivery style. Make sure you leave your delegates with no doubt that you have given them the tools to be successful. Make sure you provide world class learning solutions that are engaging and evocative.

I'll lead from the front. Any of you I ever come into contact with from this point forward, if I'm not upholding this call to arms, then shoot me down.

Ask the right question for evaluation

Following a tweet today from Stella Collins about a course she delivered, I want to address with the L&D world the contentious issue of evaluation forms and feedback from training. Specifically though with behavioural training. To be clear, behavioural training is all forms of training that isn't technical or a core skill.

I'm not talking about the ROI of training, I've talked about that before. This is about evaluating the training itself.

Why is this question important though? What information does it yield which is so sought after? Is there a Holy Grail in an evaluation form that we're all missing?

Well let's first be clear about what questions get asked in a traditional evaluation form:
- Was the training useful?
- Were the facilities to your requirement?
- How effective was the trainer?
- Was the content relevant?

And you'll no doubt be reminded of others that come into this mix. Well here's the thing. Those questions are useless. They have absolutely no use whatsoever. As a trainer, there is nothing you enter onto that information which I will act on. Ever.

But why?

Because I'm making an assumption that the training I've just tried to provide for you is useful, is beneficial, and will be relevant to you. I'm only looking for answers on the evaluation form to either confirm or validate my opinion of the training course. Even if you were to give me bad feedback, and be descriptive about the specific elements that need to be changed - I wouldn't. Because it's only one person's opinion. There's not enough supportive comments for me to make widespread change to the training.

So what needs to be done?

Personally, I don't bother with evaluation forms. For the very reasons I have mentioned, they produce no information that will produce any change of behaviour on my part at all at any point in the future. And that's what an evaluation form is meant to provide. Meaningful information for the trainer.

Surely they must give an indication of something though?

NO. While delivering training for Ford Motor Co., the training company I was with had to meet a requirement that the average score from each training session did not fall below 3.75 on a 1-5 scale. If it did, the trainer was questioned about their effectiveness, a plan needed to be drafted about the actions that would be taken to rectify the 'problem' and an improvement in the score expected.

The fundamental problem here is the trainer isn't then assessed on how effective a trainer they are, but a variety of factors that either could or not be controlled by the trainer. Of course a trainer is meant to control for things such as training environment, content, delivery style and time management - but if on one day the trainer has a chesty cough, has been moved room at the last minute, the equipment in the room isn't appropriate for the training and the trainer has no other aids to support his delivery style, he's basically fucked (pardon the profanity).

There are formal models of training effectiveness which many trainers will attest to the need for evaluation forms. But I don't believe in them, nor use them.

Evaluation forms may provide a useful foundation from which to prompt questions about the effectiveness of the training. But any good L&Der will know that actually, any change required in training comes from the discussions you actively seek out with course delegates, or from fellow L&Ders who are there to provide you with feedback.

However, if you do want to seek out formal feedback from your participants, make sure you ask the right questions. To my mind, these should be something like the following:
- What new information did you learn from this training session?
- How will you apply this learning back into your daily routine?
- What will you do to ensure you don't fall back into bad habits?
- Did the trainer address your specific need for attending this training?
- Were you presented with information that confirmed or validated the way you are currently behaving?
- Were you given the opportunity to question and probe any areas of uncertainty?
- Were instructions form the trainer clear?
- Did the trainer create an inclusive and open training atmosphere?

Crucially, none of those questions should have a scoring mechanism against any of them. It is in the comments people make, that insight is derived. Obviously the wording may need to be changed for some to allow better comments, but you get the idea what questions are the important ones.

Thank God It's Monday

That Monday feeling. An interesting phenomenon that is ingrained in all of us. Oh shit it's Monday and we have to be at work. Oh shit it's the start of the week and I've got so much to do. Oh shit...

Well as miserable as I'm feeling today all you have to do is read the daily's to see how damned lucky every single one of us is right here, right now. I have the luxury and the freedom to be at work, earning my keep, with the capacity to grumble about having a job, living a full life and with resources at hand such as a computer and the internet.

A couple were freed from pirates at the weekend. Remembrance Sunday was yesterday. A birth happened. Someone died. A fire broke out in France. A 5 car pile up happened 10 minutes before I left with the family for my return journey home.

We get so wound up over day to day stuff we honestly forget that we have so much to be thankful for. Every day events prevent these things from being realised too. Billboards, TV, the internet, work, family, news, they all add to our perceived notion of 'pressure' and 'stress'. I wrote a short post on Friday about how I provoked an issue at work. I'm really anxious about it, but you know what? Thank Fcuk I did. It's shaken me up. It's forced me to consider what I do at work and how I do it. I've found a drive to kick some fucking ass.

There's no moral to today's post. End.

Sometimes being collegiate isn't worth it

I provoked an issue today. I saw something happen and I wasn't happy about it. Normally I'm all about collaboration, effective feedback and generally being collegiate. I threw that book out the window.

It's not often I get this wound up about something, but there's certain things I don't like to see, and today was a prime example. I have no idea how this will pan out. I was careful not to attack the person I provoked. At least I hope I didn't attack them. I was certainly harsh and even rude. I didn't swear or anything like that, but I equally was not kind in my message.

I'm anxious about the outcome. I won't apologise for what I provoked as else I wouldn't have provoked it. Equally though I am hoping that this is a good platform for open discussion.

The closing gap between OD and L&D

This week I put up a post about Organisational Development and my learnings from the L&D2020 workshop held by the Training Journal. Today I'd like to let you know about the actual session itself and the topics talked about.

The Benefits of an OD Approach

Linda Holbeche opened the day's proceedings with an introduction to OD from her research based consultancy the Holbeche Partnership. She spoke about the ability of an organisation to be agile and ensuring the 'right' people are focused on the 'right' things and engaged in collective effort. To support you also then need the 'right' kinds of management and leadership, the 'right' business model, processes, structures and systems.

Linda gave some insight into what constitutes a high performing organisation:

- Adaptable and change-able

- Enable innovation and are knowledge rich

- Boundaryless

- Stimulate individuals to higher levels of performance

- Great places to work

- Values based

From the work she has carried out, her research and exeprience, OD applies to:

- Changes in the strategy, structure and/or processes of an entire system

- Based on the application (and transfer) of behavioural science disciplines e.g. group dynamics, leadership, strategy and work design

- An adaptive process for planning and managing change

- The design, implementation and reinforcement of change

- Oriented to organisational effectivneess; supporting organisation improvement and sustaining organisation renewal

At its core, OD has the following humanistic values:

- Democracy and participation

- Openness to lifelong learning and experimentation

- Equity and fairness - the worth of every individual

- Valid information and informed choice

- Enduring respect for the human side of enterprise

Typical OD applications include:

- designing and delivering L&D interventions

- process improvement

- HR's transformational role

- culture change

- leadership development

- team development

- conflict resolution

- supporting clients in major change and organisation design projects

- generalist system health practitioners; keeping the organisation healthy, ethical and agile to face future challenges

I found Linda's presentation a good introduction to OD and to provide a lot of context to the range of work that OD includes.

Developing Your OD Agenda

Next we had Martin Saville present a fascinating OD model. Martin is an independent consultant and has his own practice - Martin Saville Consulting. The first point Martin raised is that those work in OD don't come from a particular background, instead they have a mindset. That mindset is about looking at a complete organisation and finding ways to ensure each part understands that if a piece of work is to be achieved successfully, other relevant parts need to be involved, and if they're not it has a direct impact on operational effectiveness.

The model he presented is called the Burke-Litwin model which hopefully is presented below clearly.

Okay so apologies for the lack of clarity - my first time trying to add an image to a post (any advice welcome). Essentially you have two broad categories of the way an organisation responds and reacts to change. There are transformational factors which are factors that drive the change. These include - the external environment, mission and strategy, leadership, the organisation culture and individual and organisational performance. Then there are transactional factors which you need in order for the the change to be effective. These include - structure, management practices, work unit, motivation, systems and processes, task requirements and individual and individual needs and values.

Once you take some time to think about an OD challenge you are facing, you can look at the Burke-Litwin model to help you identify what are the factors you've considered and which you do need to pay attention to. Martin admitted the model isn't perfect and excludes some factors such as communication processes but it at least provides a holistic perspective of the factors which will help support and drive change.

The Emergence of the L&OD Function

This presentation was delivered by Lee Sears whom I have spoken about before in the post about the future skillset of L&D. The information he presented was no different to that, and if you're interested, have a read of the post.

What it did help to do was re-surface his findings of how L&D and OD are becoming more and more entwined. Even though they are separate disciplines, the cross-over is becoming more commonplace, and in fact many HR/L&D/Project Management/Internal Communication specialists are all engaged in activities which are in effect OD, but they've just not been exposed to the terminology or processes or structures to help them think of it in that way.

Case Studies

There were some interesting case studies from the civil service and from a housing organisation that offered insights into how OD has helped with real organisational issues. Unfortunately, the decks weren't available and so I can't divulge information as it's history now. From memory though, the housing organisation were reaching a point in their development where a number of mergers and formation of Group status meant OD played an important part in the way very different groups and senior management who had not worked together previously and were now expected to.

The civil service was an interesting case of a department whose resources had been outsourced with the remaining incumbents feeling bereft of responsibility and control over what the outsourcing company was producing and the quality of that work was in question. OD helped to bring this group to accept what their situation is, what they currently do, their responsibilities, and then included the outsourced company in conversations about current and future practices.

Where I've not included specific references to materials, all the above is taken from the respective individuals decks and is to be attributed to them directly unless otherwise stated.

So what is Organisational Development then?

On Monday I attended the last in the series of the Training Journal workshops entitled L&D2020 the future of workplace learning. This session in particular was about the Closing gap with L&D and OD - Organisational Development. The others that I've attended this year have been about understanding how to get ROI from training and the future skillset of L&D. This session was of particular interest to me because I find the world of OD fascinating.

The first question to answer then is what is OD. Here's the definition from Wikipedia:

Organization development (OD) is a planned, organization-wide effort to increase an organization's effectiveness and viability. Warren Bennis has referred to OD as a response to change, a complex educational strategy intended to change the beliefs, attitudes, values, and structure of organization so that they can better adapt to new technologies, marketing and challenges, and the dizzying rate of change itself. OD is neither "anything done to better an organization" nor is it "the training function of the organization"; it is a particular kind of change process designed to bring about a particular kind of end result.

That's a very good definition but it is long-winded. L&D is about the upskilling of staff across technical and behavioural skills. OD has a broader remit than that and is about looking at wider business needs to ensure the business is geared up to deliver on the strategy and KPIs. This can look like a variety of activities and initiatives from Onboarding programmes to employee engagement surveys to talent management programmes to grad programmes to competency framework development. And that's a shortlist of activities.

Where does OD sit then? More and more it's the case that OD is its own department and normally reports directly into the CEO. But who is classed as an OD professional? Now this is the interesting piece. Although conventional wisdom may suggest it sits best with HR or L&D, in actuality the people involved in this line of work can come from Operations, Exec, Project Management, Strategy or HR. It's not about a specific person as such that is best suited to OD but more a mindset.

What yesterday helped me to realise is that I'm good at L&D. I've spent the last 8 years of my career perfecting this art and I'm doing a bloody good job of it. If i want to start expanding my role - and that's what this is about, I need to start developing my understanding of OD theories and methodologies. I have an introductory understanding of some of the methodologies and of the range of activities or initiatives that require an OD approach. I think I'm starting from a good place, and from here on in it's only about continuing my own learning on this and helping my business with both L&D and OD initiatives.

I'll be posting another blog this week about the actual session itself and the key messages from the different speakers and case studies.

'Ers' when presenting are NOT evil

I'm designing some presentation training that's actually pretty advanced stuff. I'm looking at things like how to understand the psychology of your audience quickly, spending time to rehearse in front of a highly critical group, how you develop your ideas, what presentation aid you should be using. This is exciting stuff and I'm looking forward to rolling this out.

But, in the midst of this, and in the reading around the subject I have to dispel some myths. What irks me - massively - is the way presentation 'gurus' / trainers / experts claim you can deliver a perfect presentation without any hiccups.

STOP RIGHT THERE BOZOS.

Let's take a step back and re-frame what we're trying to achieve. Someone is trying to develop their presentation skills because there is a need to deliver messages to a group. There will be varying levels to which the message needs to be delivered, but in essence what we're trying to achieve is getting the person to be able to deliver that message in a way which means that the audience are receptive to it.

Well I tell you what - I can bet my bottom dollar that's not where a lot of presentation trainers are starting from. They're typically starting from - you're broken, let me fix you. The absolute incredulity of it all. The trainer will often have had no experience of their delegate before, but they can fix them so quickly?

I laugh in the face of this audacity. Presentation training is about getting the presenter to understand their own state of mind, how to accept their foibles, and then how to not let those be an issue. I've seen presenters who are very nervous. So much so that they physically shake when presenting. With careful development over a course, and coaching, I've been able to help them accept that being nervous is fine, and shaking is fine, they just need to be in a different state of mind and not focus on those nerves.

It's not easy, and that's why I'm such a harsh critic when I watch programmes like Apprentice or Dragons' Den where these people are meant to be at the peak of presenting excellence. But equally I do not allow myself to fall into the same traps. I'm incredibly critical of my own presentation abilities. I actively seek feedback which picks up what I need to do to improve. I do this because I have to be able to understand a full range of emotions and anxieties that come with presenting.

So, don't fall over yourself, or be critical of others if they say 'er' or any host of other behaviours that you may think are negative. First, observe. Not just the presentation but the whole person. Then question to understand what they're trying to achieve and how they think they're going about it. Then demonstrate what the behaviour looks like. Get them to practise again bearing in mind the feedback. Be critical and supportive. Ultimately you want to find their motivation for doing well. Once you've identified that, you need to build on it.

This really isn't easy. The psychology and training into helping develop presentation skills is of vital importance. You can't be fixed of your foibles, nor should you be sold this. You can learn how to deliver a message authentically, and this is what you should be sold.

I'd like coaching please

I want to provide a look at how you should be planning your management training for your organisation. There's a lot of iffing and aahing about what constitutes good management in today's world. There is structure you can and should have in place and all it takes is a bit of planning.

The first thing I have to talk about is whether or not you go external or internal. That's to say should you bring in an external trainer or have someone internal deliver the training? The answer to this lies in where your budget lies and how you choose to spend it. There are some very good external trainers who will do a stellar job of training in this field. Just please, whatever you do, get some 'free' or 'taster' training first as you don't want to pay £oooo's for someone only to realise the training has been dead pan. To further this, if you have used a particular external trainer you're happy to recommend to others please let us know in the comment section below.

Also, I'm not getting into defining leadership over management. In truth, the two terms are so interchangeable that it only really makes a difference to those concerned with titles.

Ok so there are 5 categories of management training you need to give thought to.

1) Management Essentials. This is about giving the managers who are in their role anew or within a 18-24 month old a core look at the things they need to know. Policies, procedures, core management skills such as objective setting, feedback skills, performance management, basic coaching skills, some models on motivation, delegation and flexible management styles. These are the core things that any new manager just has to know. Without this they'll forever be lost in the sea of management and never know if they're on the right path.

2) Effective Management. This should be for managers who are experienced in their role, have had teams to look after and need to know what more is expected of them. At this level they should be exposed to a psychometric tool of some sort to raise their own self awareness and give them insight into how other personalities are likely to either support or clash with one another, including their own. There should be some further development of actual management models such as Situational Leadership or a Coaching model such as GROW, better description of techniques surrounding motivation either delving into studies from Gallup or Roffey Park, and some form of business insight or business acumen development from leaders in the business.

3) Emotional Intelligence. This should be for managers who are growing in their role to a senior role and need to be able to understand how to work with a wider group of people and increase their influence across the business. Emotional Intelligence is a much disputed area of management devleopment in recent years. To be honest since competency frameworks were introduced, EI is the last big model introduced in the last 20 years. The dispute arises from the fact it's mainly credited to Daniel Goleman. If you can get over that, there are many good EI models developed by practitioners who are credible and very reputable. Namely Dr Reuven Baron or work doen by Consulting Tools. This should also include a proper 360 survey tool to truly unravel an indicidual and allow for genuine personal development.

4) Global Management Effectiveness. In an increasingly global world, this level of manager needs to be aware of cultural differences, how to get the best out of teams in other countries, how to deliver on projects that involve global clients, effective multi-national communication. This is a truly difficult topic to handle and needs someone with experience in this field to deliver this.

5) Leadership Excellence. This is for those at senior levels within a business who are looking to find out what it is they're missing. Training at this level is often about how to inspire teams, deliver a strategic vision, deliver powerful messages, operating at a level where you're thinking about the future and long term development of the business.

So where does Coaching fit into all of this? Honestly? At every single point. But that's a whole other blog post. In essence coaching should only be utilised if you are certain of the goals and purpose. If you think you need it because you've been hearing lots of great things about the great work Bob has been doing with other people similar in a role to you then you've got the wrong idea about where your personal development needs to be.

And you can take the categories I've named above and give them any other title you want to change them for. This is intended to provide a framework for overall management development. There are other considerations I've not given them time of day to such as succession planning or talent management. To be honest though you can take those concepts and adapt the above to fit those.