To those of you who visit and read my blog, a heartfelt thanks. I've been throwing out a fair amount of stuff on here this year and you've all been kind to read, tweet about and in some cases mention my posts in your own.
Blogging and Twitter for me have opened up a whole community I love being part of. In an earlier post I talked about finding your Third World, and for me, this is my third world. I can be myself on these platforms, if I'm judged for it that's fine, if it passes you by that's fine too, and if you engage with it then I'm simply honoured.
With the Xmas break fast approaching, many people I enjoy talking with will be going quiet which means I'll be genuinely anticipating the New Year so fires can be lit, battles can be fought and arguments had.
Nothing else to say except for thanks.
Friday, 17 December 2010
Sunday, 12 December 2010
The Myth of Gen Y
So the title of this post makes the content fairly self evident. But why am I concerned about exposing the theory of Gen Y? Essentially because I think we've been lead to believe something which is only a half truth. A lot is being said in the sphere about how we have to prepare for and understand Generation Y. Here's the thing, I'm not convinced.
Over the years, there have been many a workplace theory that we have meant to give due consideration to. But there are some basics which have always been true. Management has always needed to understand what makes a good leader/manager. Giving your employees a range of benefits has always been an important retention strategy. Having a corporate social responsibility strategy that you actually follow through will always provide a strong brand image.
This theory on generational differences suggests that this Generation Y is meant to be a force of change in the workplace that we cannot ignore the importance of. There's a lot of information regarding Generation Y and what defines them, a lot of which I won't bother going into and will assume my readership is either aware of what the theory suggests or knows how to use Google.
It's really only over the last few months that I've had some niggling doubts about what is being suggested about Gen Y. I don't believe we need to change our approach for this Gen Y. I think we've been dealt a red herring.
I believe that although Gen Y do present a difference in attitude to work, this is by no means unique to them. Gen X presented an equal challenge to attitudes to the Baby Boomers. Gen Y are not a special bunch. They're approach to the work environment and their expectations about what they can achieve are perfectly in line with what they have been lead to believe.
Global economic crisis and subsequent actions aside, Gen X have laid out a very bright picture for any ambitious Gen Yers. In doing so, the playing field that is a career is now a very different beast. 2-3 years in post and people think about moving on. That's not unique to Gen Y, that's national commerce saying - there are a vast array of opportunities that await you, and you can cherry pick any of them. We'll take on the best - not just Gen Y. The level of connectedness technology now offers means you can build networks like never before. That's not something Gen Y naturally know how to utilise - they still rely on guidance from Gen X on how to do it. The information available at your fingertips means you can go forth and make yourself a knowledgeable contender in any market. Gen X have provided all that information, and are the ones who know how to manipulate it so that Gen Y can access it.
Before I follow that track too long, this isn't a rant against Gen Y, it really isn't. Instead it's a rant against generational theory. I believe that in fact what we're witnessing is the beginnings of a new way of working for everyone - and it's all due to the advances in technology. Not the attidude changes of generations - that will be a constant every generation will have to face.
This is still a working theory but it goes something like this. Those who will be successful in the age we are in now, will be those who understand digital, how it connects to daily life, and how to make each of those interactions meangingful and beneficial for mankind. They will have an appreciation for the need to help people not only in their own country, but the world - because they either see the moral benefit of doing so, or because they can grow an ethical business that achieves this. Brands will no longer determine what messages to believe, they'll respond to the messages they're being given. Marketing will take on a whole new meaning - technology means you can now see someone's Foursquare check-in and as such send them direct and relevant offers that they will respond to. Workplaces will continue to experiment and find different ways of providing a flexible working lifestyle - opportunities aplenty for fresh thinking and innovation about the way we work. Politics will continue to be faced with challenges of power and greed, and no amount of goodwill will take away this powerful draw.
I don't believe any of that will be provided by Gen Y. Gen Y are of course important for the successful future of business and life, but they aren't the Messiahs of the future. There may be the minority who will make unexplainable and unbelievable success. Just look at Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Three very different people of their generations, and today three of the most well known influential figures ever. Okay Gates is technically a Boomer, but he's close enough in age to be a Gen Xer.
What I'm trying to say is, we shouldn't be catering for Gen Y as they provide nothing new. We should be catering for a new way of interaction and engagement. I'm going to suggest some ways to think of this with some names that come to mind presently:
- Traditionalists - these are folk who are not interested in accepting change, the cynics of society who claim global warming is a myth, that social media is a fad and that green is not a feasible way of living. They'll be used to the changes in technology and society but only because they have no choice. They won't care about moving careers because they don't believe in careers.
- Digital Heroes - these are folk who get and understand the best way to use all things digital. They're acceptant of what's changing in the world and how to adapt to that. Life is about engagement, fulfilment and positive behaviour. They will care about progression and success.
- Mavericks - these are folk who will challenge society and everyone they come into contact with. Life is about intellectual pursuits and a truly beautiful future. They won't accept the status quo because they won't believe that we're truly being innovative or producing anything which pushes boundaries. Careers will be insignificant for them.
Sure I'm being no better than the generational theorists or palm reader or horoscope writer in making claims about the future and how to interact with different people, but I do believe that what I've described above is a more accurate and meaningful way of thinking about the way we currently work and will likely work in the coming years.
UPDATE:
I've seen some other posts today that resonate with my post today very strongly. It seems, this may truly be a bit of pop science which has very little research to be meaningful. The interesting thing for me is this. It seems consultancies and Gen Y advocates are just as guilty of over-generalising as the businesses that are believing the hype. Yes, the attitudinal differences between generations are vast, no this isn't new, in fact we should be more worried about what's going to happen with email compared to social networking tools.
Here are links to sites blogging about the same thing:
From Mervyn Dinnen on The Original Flexible Workforce
From Flipchart Fairy Tales on Millenial mumbo-jumbo
From TheHRD on Generation Y
Over the years, there have been many a workplace theory that we have meant to give due consideration to. But there are some basics which have always been true. Management has always needed to understand what makes a good leader/manager. Giving your employees a range of benefits has always been an important retention strategy. Having a corporate social responsibility strategy that you actually follow through will always provide a strong brand image.
This theory on generational differences suggests that this Generation Y is meant to be a force of change in the workplace that we cannot ignore the importance of. There's a lot of information regarding Generation Y and what defines them, a lot of which I won't bother going into and will assume my readership is either aware of what the theory suggests or knows how to use Google.
It's really only over the last few months that I've had some niggling doubts about what is being suggested about Gen Y. I don't believe we need to change our approach for this Gen Y. I think we've been dealt a red herring.
I believe that although Gen Y do present a difference in attitude to work, this is by no means unique to them. Gen X presented an equal challenge to attitudes to the Baby Boomers. Gen Y are not a special bunch. They're approach to the work environment and their expectations about what they can achieve are perfectly in line with what they have been lead to believe.
Global economic crisis and subsequent actions aside, Gen X have laid out a very bright picture for any ambitious Gen Yers. In doing so, the playing field that is a career is now a very different beast. 2-3 years in post and people think about moving on. That's not unique to Gen Y, that's national commerce saying - there are a vast array of opportunities that await you, and you can cherry pick any of them. We'll take on the best - not just Gen Y. The level of connectedness technology now offers means you can build networks like never before. That's not something Gen Y naturally know how to utilise - they still rely on guidance from Gen X on how to do it. The information available at your fingertips means you can go forth and make yourself a knowledgeable contender in any market. Gen X have provided all that information, and are the ones who know how to manipulate it so that Gen Y can access it.
Before I follow that track too long, this isn't a rant against Gen Y, it really isn't. Instead it's a rant against generational theory. I believe that in fact what we're witnessing is the beginnings of a new way of working for everyone - and it's all due to the advances in technology. Not the attidude changes of generations - that will be a constant every generation will have to face.
This is still a working theory but it goes something like this. Those who will be successful in the age we are in now, will be those who understand digital, how it connects to daily life, and how to make each of those interactions meangingful and beneficial for mankind. They will have an appreciation for the need to help people not only in their own country, but the world - because they either see the moral benefit of doing so, or because they can grow an ethical business that achieves this. Brands will no longer determine what messages to believe, they'll respond to the messages they're being given. Marketing will take on a whole new meaning - technology means you can now see someone's Foursquare check-in and as such send them direct and relevant offers that they will respond to. Workplaces will continue to experiment and find different ways of providing a flexible working lifestyle - opportunities aplenty for fresh thinking and innovation about the way we work. Politics will continue to be faced with challenges of power and greed, and no amount of goodwill will take away this powerful draw.
I don't believe any of that will be provided by Gen Y. Gen Y are of course important for the successful future of business and life, but they aren't the Messiahs of the future. There may be the minority who will make unexplainable and unbelievable success. Just look at Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Three very different people of their generations, and today three of the most well known influential figures ever. Okay Gates is technically a Boomer, but he's close enough in age to be a Gen Xer.
What I'm trying to say is, we shouldn't be catering for Gen Y as they provide nothing new. We should be catering for a new way of interaction and engagement. I'm going to suggest some ways to think of this with some names that come to mind presently:
- Traditionalists - these are folk who are not interested in accepting change, the cynics of society who claim global warming is a myth, that social media is a fad and that green is not a feasible way of living. They'll be used to the changes in technology and society but only because they have no choice. They won't care about moving careers because they don't believe in careers.
- Digital Heroes - these are folk who get and understand the best way to use all things digital. They're acceptant of what's changing in the world and how to adapt to that. Life is about engagement, fulfilment and positive behaviour. They will care about progression and success.
- Mavericks - these are folk who will challenge society and everyone they come into contact with. Life is about intellectual pursuits and a truly beautiful future. They won't accept the status quo because they won't believe that we're truly being innovative or producing anything which pushes boundaries. Careers will be insignificant for them.
Sure I'm being no better than the generational theorists or palm reader or horoscope writer in making claims about the future and how to interact with different people, but I do believe that what I've described above is a more accurate and meaningful way of thinking about the way we currently work and will likely work in the coming years.
UPDATE:
I've seen some other posts today that resonate with my post today very strongly. It seems, this may truly be a bit of pop science which has very little research to be meaningful. The interesting thing for me is this. It seems consultancies and Gen Y advocates are just as guilty of over-generalising as the businesses that are believing the hype. Yes, the attitudinal differences between generations are vast, no this isn't new, in fact we should be more worried about what's going to happen with email compared to social networking tools.
Here are links to sites blogging about the same thing:
From Mervyn Dinnen on The Original Flexible Workforce
From Flipchart Fairy Tales on Millenial mumbo-jumbo
From TheHRD on Generation Y
Thursday, 9 December 2010
L&D? That's not what I do.
A few things over the last couple of days have inspired me to re-think what I'm trying to achieve professionally. In reading the December issue of Harvard Business Review, a lot of articles in their resonated strongly with me about the need to look at the way a business functions and building the right support networks to help those needs. Be it a wellness programme, how to use social media to engage with your customers, whether or not your staff are allowed to use social media, or looking at what leadership looks like in your organisation, there's clear discussions that need to be had about the best ways to enable any and all of those.
I shadowed an external trainer yesterday to gain an understanding of what he was helping a group to understand and achieve. The topic matter was straightforward enough and in fact we are well placed as a business to deliver this same topic ourselves internally. He used a few models and exercises to provide context and direction, but it's nothing new or licensed to the trainer, he just saw a few good models from his career and is using them in training. Nothing wrong with that.
And I watched a video post by Nick Shackleton Jones about Affective Content and how we're really only open to training when the right motivations are in place. This is a fascinating post about how ineffective learning is - be it traditional stock and trade, or be it e-learning. True learning for most people takes place when the emotional need is highly motivated. For example, when you start a new job, we often describe it as a steep learning curve, because we are literally engaging the brain to learn a new way of behaving. After a given amount of time though, this will plateau and any learning after this point will most likely come from on the job experience.
So what is it I need to be doing? Become a business consultant and advise how an organisation should be structured? Hunt down external trainers who charge obscene amounts of money for training that could be facilitated internally? Wait for employees to self-realise that they need to engage in some learning and then come find me?
Although facetious, those are serious and searching questions. L&D is now no longer about training, or about developing courses, or about how good a facilitator you are. It's about sharing knowledge. Businesses are so busy in this day that a lot of departments have become siloed and worried about staying alive. Businesses have always been guilty of that in fariness, there just seems to be a greater lens on it at the moment. And that's where L&D needs to really come into its fore. I don't know everything, and I shouldn't know everything, but I do know how to get the knowledge from Bob to Bert. And that's what I do.
I shadowed an external trainer yesterday to gain an understanding of what he was helping a group to understand and achieve. The topic matter was straightforward enough and in fact we are well placed as a business to deliver this same topic ourselves internally. He used a few models and exercises to provide context and direction, but it's nothing new or licensed to the trainer, he just saw a few good models from his career and is using them in training. Nothing wrong with that.
And I watched a video post by Nick Shackleton Jones about Affective Content and how we're really only open to training when the right motivations are in place. This is a fascinating post about how ineffective learning is - be it traditional stock and trade, or be it e-learning. True learning for most people takes place when the emotional need is highly motivated. For example, when you start a new job, we often describe it as a steep learning curve, because we are literally engaging the brain to learn a new way of behaving. After a given amount of time though, this will plateau and any learning after this point will most likely come from on the job experience.
So what is it I need to be doing? Become a business consultant and advise how an organisation should be structured? Hunt down external trainers who charge obscene amounts of money for training that could be facilitated internally? Wait for employees to self-realise that they need to engage in some learning and then come find me?
Although facetious, those are serious and searching questions. L&D is now no longer about training, or about developing courses, or about how good a facilitator you are. It's about sharing knowledge. Businesses are so busy in this day that a lot of departments have become siloed and worried about staying alive. Businesses have always been guilty of that in fariness, there just seems to be a greater lens on it at the moment. And that's where L&D needs to really come into its fore. I don't know everything, and I shouldn't know everything, but I do know how to get the knowledge from Bob to Bert. And that's what I do.
Tuesday, 7 December 2010
It's been a year
It's been a year! Always keen to know what others think I'd like you to complete a survey on my blog. If you think the survey questions below don't capture what you want to say effectively, then please contact me through Twitter or email me.
Thanks for the 1st year folks.
Thanks for the 1st year folks.
Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world's leading questionnaire tool.
Friday, 3 December 2010
The science of... Occupational Psychology
I did it! Yay me! A complete look at the Science of... Occupational Psychology. The purpose of the series of posts has been simply to provide some better insight into the methodologies that occ psychs use. L&D is my heart and soul, and long may it continue. I enjoy what occ psych has to offer though, and I don't know if I'll venture back into that world proper, but it is a fascinating world. Not least because some smart folks identified a need for a new type of consultant and produced this new profession!
Cynicism aside, occupational psychology will continue to be the specialists that organisations seek to help produce the structures I've mentioned because they've got a business to worry about. HR teams will know these things are needed, but often have so many operational and strategic tasks that need to be achieved, that there's no wonder consultants are sought.
So that's it. There's no more. I'm tired of 2 weeks of posting. Gonna take a break for a few days and go back to my infrequent posting and ranting. It's much more fun. For me, at least. I thank you :)
A great and obvious suggestion from Martin Couzins. Here's a list of the 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... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
Cynicism aside, occupational psychology will continue to be the specialists that organisations seek to help produce the structures I've mentioned because they've got a business to worry about. HR teams will know these things are needed, but often have so many operational and strategic tasks that need to be achieved, that there's no wonder consultants are sought.
So that's it. There's no more. I'm tired of 2 weeks of posting. Gonna take a break for a few days and go back to my infrequent posting and ranting. It's much more fun. For me, at least. I thank you :)
A great and obvious suggestion from Martin Couzins. Here's a list of the 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... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
Wednesday, 1 December 2010
The science of... Learning and Development
HA! I could really fall flat on my face on this one if I don't get it right. Especially after many of my self-righteous rants over recent weeks. And here it is. The truth about L&D. Let's dance.
Learning and Development has been around for a long time. You could argue anyone involved in delivering knowledge is an L&Der. You could also argue that L&D is not restricted to sitting in HR. You could argue that L&D should be lead by business leaders. You could argue that L&D is a mickey mouse department in a company. We're not here to argue who should be involved in L&D. We're here to discuss the mechanics of providing an effective L&D function.
Business Needs Analysis
Typically referred to as Training Needs Analysis. I've left the 'Training' piece off the subtitle and called it 'Business' as I don't believe L&D is restricted to 'training'. Purpose of the function aside, the place to start is by identifying what are the needs of the business. This doesn't mean looking at the business objectives and then drawing a line of sight to L&D objectives. It also doesn't mean analysing appraisals to identify what training has been requested.
It's about looking at the way the business operates and identifying the areas where support is needed to develop further. For example, a production line may be efficient at the number of units it produces in an hour. It may not be efficient though at highlighting issues with machinery and reporting these. Or, a project team may work well according to instruction and direction from the project manager, but may not work well together. Or, an individual in a lone role may know how to network well and spread knowledge through a business but time management may be a crucial issue in delivering projects.
By looking at the way the business operates - and that's the only objective place you can gain the information - you can confidently target the L&D intervention needed.
Design and Development
So you've identified the business need. Then comes designing and developing the appropriate intervention. This sounds like it's the easy part. But you have to consider so much when designing an intervention. Be it e-learning, blended learning, training course, workshop, facilitated discussion, coaching, mentoring, job shadowing, accreditation, qualification based, or some other form of intervention there are some basics to be considered.
First comes understanding about the way people learn. There's a lot of research on learning styles, memory (both short term and long term), models about change, the learning process, human behaviour, and it's all relevant stuff. The intervention has to consider whether or not it has considered these variants, and how it will be inclusive of most if not all of them.
Then comes considering whether or not you've actually developed an appropriate intervention. What's the best way for the group to learn the required skill? Is it what you've decided or what the business needs? You may well have a belief that a particular methodology is the best approach, but it may not be appropriate for the group. Take the production line example. Taking them offsite for in-depth case study review and training on risk management may work and be effective, but might be easier if it's done on the job and with real life management of the situation.
Importantly, the design also includes the collateral. Workbook? Handouts? Deck? Flipcharts? Branding? These are all important and although may go unmissed, if done well add to the learning experience.
Delivery
Ah the best part of the job. Well for me anyway. Standing up and showing off your knowledge and being the centre of attention (not like me at all *coughs*). The person delivering has a lot to learn about how to engage with a group on so many levels.
Do you get body language? Not just eye contact, nodding, pacing, proximity, boredom and obvious behaviours like that. But things like - curious looks, note taking, the tone of voice someone takes, the way one person reacts to another, and more - these are the key behaviours that need to be understood, so that they can be responded to.
Do you get language? It's easy to miss the essence of what someone is asking if you just take it at face value. Have you listened to the way the question has been phrased? What about how they're responding verbally to others? And the way they're commenting on what you've said. It's vital to be tuned in to these things so you know in what direction the conversation needs to be lead.
If it's a course, then you may also need to consider the use of exercises. Should they be practical? (Yes) Can they be theoretical? (Possibly) What about role plays? (only as a last resort) Should I use case studies (If appropriate) What about theoretical? (Again, if appropriate). The aim of any exercise should be always to raise awareness of a missing skill that needs to be learned. Through the exercise there should be learning that says "this is how you do it".
Evaluation
The oft missed piece of any training. I blogged about this a couple of weeks ago. Essentially though what you're looking to confirm is - was the training effective and helped improve a skill or not? Read my previous post for more info as I'll just be repeating myself.
And that's the heart of any L&D function right there. I don't think I've missed anything. I may have skimmed over certain bits, but this is all about looking at the science of it. The science piece here is about the process identified above. Pull me up if I've missed something and be sure to add your own stuff in the comments.
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... Appraisals
The science of... Occupational Psychology
Learning and Development has been around for a long time. You could argue anyone involved in delivering knowledge is an L&Der. You could also argue that L&D is not restricted to sitting in HR. You could argue that L&D should be lead by business leaders. You could argue that L&D is a mickey mouse department in a company. We're not here to argue who should be involved in L&D. We're here to discuss the mechanics of providing an effective L&D function.
Business Needs Analysis
Typically referred to as Training Needs Analysis. I've left the 'Training' piece off the subtitle and called it 'Business' as I don't believe L&D is restricted to 'training'. Purpose of the function aside, the place to start is by identifying what are the needs of the business. This doesn't mean looking at the business objectives and then drawing a line of sight to L&D objectives. It also doesn't mean analysing appraisals to identify what training has been requested.
It's about looking at the way the business operates and identifying the areas where support is needed to develop further. For example, a production line may be efficient at the number of units it produces in an hour. It may not be efficient though at highlighting issues with machinery and reporting these. Or, a project team may work well according to instruction and direction from the project manager, but may not work well together. Or, an individual in a lone role may know how to network well and spread knowledge through a business but time management may be a crucial issue in delivering projects.
By looking at the way the business operates - and that's the only objective place you can gain the information - you can confidently target the L&D intervention needed.
Design and Development
So you've identified the business need. Then comes designing and developing the appropriate intervention. This sounds like it's the easy part. But you have to consider so much when designing an intervention. Be it e-learning, blended learning, training course, workshop, facilitated discussion, coaching, mentoring, job shadowing, accreditation, qualification based, or some other form of intervention there are some basics to be considered.
First comes understanding about the way people learn. There's a lot of research on learning styles, memory (both short term and long term), models about change, the learning process, human behaviour, and it's all relevant stuff. The intervention has to consider whether or not it has considered these variants, and how it will be inclusive of most if not all of them.
Then comes considering whether or not you've actually developed an appropriate intervention. What's the best way for the group to learn the required skill? Is it what you've decided or what the business needs? You may well have a belief that a particular methodology is the best approach, but it may not be appropriate for the group. Take the production line example. Taking them offsite for in-depth case study review and training on risk management may work and be effective, but might be easier if it's done on the job and with real life management of the situation.
Importantly, the design also includes the collateral. Workbook? Handouts? Deck? Flipcharts? Branding? These are all important and although may go unmissed, if done well add to the learning experience.
Delivery
Ah the best part of the job. Well for me anyway. Standing up and showing off your knowledge and being the centre of attention (not like me at all *coughs*). The person delivering has a lot to learn about how to engage with a group on so many levels.
Do you get body language? Not just eye contact, nodding, pacing, proximity, boredom and obvious behaviours like that. But things like - curious looks, note taking, the tone of voice someone takes, the way one person reacts to another, and more - these are the key behaviours that need to be understood, so that they can be responded to.
Do you get language? It's easy to miss the essence of what someone is asking if you just take it at face value. Have you listened to the way the question has been phrased? What about how they're responding verbally to others? And the way they're commenting on what you've said. It's vital to be tuned in to these things so you know in what direction the conversation needs to be lead.
If it's a course, then you may also need to consider the use of exercises. Should they be practical? (Yes) Can they be theoretical? (Possibly) What about role plays? (only as a last resort) Should I use case studies (If appropriate) What about theoretical? (Again, if appropriate). The aim of any exercise should be always to raise awareness of a missing skill that needs to be learned. Through the exercise there should be learning that says "this is how you do it".
Evaluation
The oft missed piece of any training. I blogged about this a couple of weeks ago. Essentially though what you're looking to confirm is - was the training effective and helped improve a skill or not? Read my previous post for more info as I'll just be repeating myself.
And that's the heart of any L&D function right there. I don't think I've missed anything. I may have skimmed over certain bits, but this is all about looking at the science of it. The science piece here is about the process identified above. Pull me up if I've missed something and be sure to add your own stuff in the comments.
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... Appraisals
The science of... Occupational Psychology
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)