PLAY ME or TRADE ME

I’m writing this preamble dockside on a lake in Maine, early morning sunshine firing diamonds of light off the water. The temperature is mild and the bugs have yet to arrive for their fleshy feast. I’m in a good frame of mind–no curmugeonly thoughts or clever bon mots at the ready. All is tranquil. I point this out as so you’ll know there is no overarching agenda, no negativity anywhere in the vicinity of the words that follow.

There are some subjects I know very, very well; schooled, practiced and tested (and often get well paid for sharing this expertise)–delivering material that clearly rings with the tone of an expert. Maybe a notch below, my experiences and knowledge is pretty fair but I wouldn’t dispute a point with a respected expert–my words would only be a well-informed opinion. At the lower end of this taxonomy would be informal knowledge, reading fiction, opportunities gained from traveling, mixing and working with other cultures, present in discussions with all sorts of pros in all areas of interest in many different areas and general information resulting from a long life with open eyes and ears. I am lucky to have very broad, if not exceptionally deep, smarts in common and arcane subjects. I suppose this taxonomy is true of many people and I’ll bet—in an unscientific survey—more typical among consultants than many other groups.

Let’s concentrate on the very top of the pyramid—deep knowledge, significant experiences, expertise at all levels of work, and exposure to problems that required a significant amount of original thought and intellectual rigor—in the service of clients with specific problems to be solved.

The conundrum, which is the point of this brief article, is one that has me scratching my head in disbelief more often than I’d like. And listen, I don’t have much cushioning up there so this is a dangerous behavior! Why do many companies engage consultants for their expertise and then challenge either what we offer or ignore it in favor of some hybrid solution? Even more maddening is the person, team, or organization that attempts to change our minds about the very expertise for which we were contracted to deliver. Astounding, but true.

But hold on—that’s not quite my point.

In baseball, even a passing fan has heard the term, “play me or trade me.” Very apropos as an example of the fallout from management that pays for our services and then undermines our ability to get the job done the way we know it should be. As a ballplayer, if you are ‘on the bench’ you cannot ply your trade. Therefore, you will not have the opportunity to raise your batting average, make an impact on a game, impress scouts from other teams, and learn new skills from coaches and ballplayers who are in the game. When it comes time to to negotiate a salary, most likely with another team, he has few statistics with which to impress the general manager.

So, a double loss. The player cannot improve his skills by playing every day, nor can he provide a resume of accomplishments trying to make the roster of the next team.

A professional consultant, particularly in the learning field, is in exactly the same situation. Of course, education is much more subjective and in that way every problem solved, skill learned, profit enhanced, talent improved, etc., has fewer stats from which to judge the impact the consultant has made. Nevertheless, the parallel is darn close. Not only will the learning designer, et.al. have less chances to enhance their skills, knowledge and perhaps most importantly their reputation, there is no product to which they can point and add to their portfolio.

The message is this: Before you sign on the dotted line, don’t assume the latitude you will have, nor the breadth of your influence on the final project unless it is clear to the organization, the people with whom you will be working and most importantly yourself. Being a good questioner up front will help create not just a better working/scoping document, but a smoother working environment where you are in the game, if not as the manager than as a valued player. Don’t forget to listen to your intuition–some of us–hungry for work–tune out our internal radar. Influencing the solution for which you can legitimately claim credit means at engagement’s end, you’ll have a portfolio piece that will demonstrate not only new knowledge, skills and technologies but how you have used your powerful expertise to influence what will become an impressive resolution.

Baking the Cookies: Hiring Learning Consultants to be Successful

So many words have been written about dysfunctional organizations, if weighed would easily capsize…oh, say an aircraft carrier. Those who work in cubicles are often victims of enterprises that are so inefficient and in some cases borderline dysfunctional it’s stunning anything of value is created.  If you want to smell the enticing aroma of fresh baked chocolate chip cookies, then follow the directions on the box.

Take the case of a senior manager, having been apprised no one on the staff has the skills or time to fulfull a critical assignment, brings in a consultant to address the problem.  She believes the functions have been clearly defined and deliverables understood by all.  Confident one problem along the critical path is sewn up in response to the needs expressed by the requesting manager, she moves on to other matters.  And never reviews the work product again.

Except – the immediate manager modifies the assignment/methodology/direction, and/or the support promised – everything from equipment to people resources is neither available nor provided.  The consultant somehow muddles through or cannot possibly deliver neither fast nor good enough.  The immediate manager reports the consultant is failing or has failed.

Every time I complete a contractual assignment, I’ve taken some time and distance trying to synthesize what all too often seems to be a virus unique to large enterprises.  I think I’ve come upon a way of looking at these deficiencies.  As I see it, they fall into 3 general categories:

1.       Preparedness
One should be safe in assuming there has been agreement among both senior, middle management the consultant is needed, and his function, deliverables, and schedule defined and agreed upon.  Too often that’s not the case.  During the recruiting/hiring process the consultant is introduced to the task and deliverables—and agrees to the project parameters only to find the resource or equipment, access, etc. will not be forthcoming.  Later, like after a week.

Also, in too many cases, companies are not ready for the consultant, who arrives ready to work only to find IT hasn’t stripped last user’s material, a server file or location created, a name and password generated, no plans made to get a parking spot, security key card, policies and procedures never formally reviewed. The cube hadn’t been cleaned since Hannibal crossed the Alps.  I recently had my name misspelled and entered into the server, but had to begin working realizing of course if my name were to be ‘fixed’ all settings and defaults would require reconstruction.

2.       Clarity
One-step more granular than preparation in the absolute assurance everyone on the inside is truly on the same side.  That is, from the top manager to the immediate supervisor there are procedures, processes, controls, and risk management in place for not just the next hire but the many who follow.  I have yet to see – at any company – and I mean the Fortune 100/500 a document outlining the intake procedures for consultants.  Now, it may exist, which should leave even more red faces as obviously it’s regularly ignored. I believe there should always be a risk management component.  In this context, if the consultant is not delivering, a conclave should be convened where the problems and solutions are vocalized.  If difficulties persist, the consultant has to go – even if the company is at fault.  Not to be too paranoid but that’s generally an indication some internal enemy is plotting away.  Neither has the consultant time, nor the political juice to do much that won’t end in termination anyway.

3.       Behaviors
This is so commonsensical it should never have to be said.  The difficulty faced by a consultant in any capacity is akin to a well-paid indentured servant.  He has neither power nor influence to bend people even when it might be in the company’s best interest to learn of economies, efficiencies, technical issues and so on.  The consultant knows that going above the immediate supervisor to le grande frommage for any reason short of harassment is signing his own visit to the guillotine.  So the smart move by any consultant is practice muteness, silencio, and that goes for getting to chummy with anyone on the staff.  Cordial, yes.  Friendly, OK, bull sessions about the company the boss or fishing around for information staff believes you have (and you doing the same) is a big, fat, no.

So…how to make sure working with a consultant will yield great results.

Paper.  A smart recruiting firm and especially a smart organization should develop a checklist – it need not be biblical in length – but clear and focused that does the following:

1.       Describes, in broad terms, the nature of the project
2.       Describe the deliverables in detail – the more clarity here the easier to define the type of individual required for hire, his skillsets, subject matter knowledge, and experience
3.       Ensure expectations for time on task, volume of work and schedules are clarified
4.       Determine and state with clarity if there will be support by internal experts, technical or supervisory staff, especially those who know the project/program/product – and how much time they will be available
5.       Milestones for a review of progress and product
6.       A daily check by the immediate supervisor to ‘take the temperature’ of progress
7.       Procedure for escalating developing problems: Will there be coaching or remediation if the consultant is underperforming or      summary dismissal

This document should be used by the interviewer(s) as well – both parties know what expectations the company has, and can this candidate meet those requirements and agree.

Ensure all administrivia is completed:

1.       Security, parking spot, building layout, etc., is ready for the consultant
2.       Is the workspace prepared: cleaned, free of left over detritus from the former inhabitant?
3.       Is the hardware, software, files naming protocols, file saving protocols, accessible printers, available, all demonstrated on the first day to allow for a rapid ramping up
4.       What is the protocol for phone and email usage
5.       Can the consultant utilize tech support directly or through, by example, a manager
6.       The consultant should be introduced to staff working in the immediate area and his role made clear to everyone

I’m not sure I’ve hit on every point but this is a good foundation from which you will enhance the likelihood that the best consultant for the work will be contracted, the hire will be capable of meeting expectations, and an agreement of understanding between the consultant and the organization makes clear who and what responsibilities are met.  As a former mentor said, blame paper, not people.  With documentation, few problems will reach even the remediation stage; the workflow will be smooth and people assets aware of their responsibilities.  A quality, on time result follows.

Now I can eat those cookies.

Treacherous Business Words Used in Learning

I caught an interesting article about the twelve most dangerous words in business.  I thought, twelve.  That’s it?  Then I realized how they apply to learning and the pain they can cause.

I won’t hold back the suspense

1.      Just

Defined in business to dial down a big request.  “Could you just complete this (2-hour) course by Monday?  This is followed by a set of specs that led Columbus astray.  When you try to get clarity, the requestor says that’s the only information I have — Hey, thanks. We know in learning building the back-story – that is the actual objectives, resources, assignments, deadlines, critical path, and such are ridiculously compressed.  More often than we’d like to admit the resulting course has two-fold results: It is used, maybe, if it actually answers a need for which you thought it was made but never fully understood (shooting in the dark syndrome) or if it is delivered, the results are never exposed to any metric for measurement.

2.       But

If you hear ‘but’ everything said prior is meaningless because everything said after is what counts.  BTW, mother’s are great at this.  (At least mine) Vut brigns with it a  criticism, an excuse, or camouflage for someone to hide behind.  This is deadly in learning simply because it usually comes after an enormous amount of time and effort has already been expended.  Prepare to reboot.

3.       From

A modifier in ninja black that pretends to help by putting a stake in the ground – a starting point.  Seems innocent enough until it begins to move, uprooted by some other higher ranking influencer: ‘Wouldn’t it be great if we could do this?’  Or, ‘I know we started from here – let’s try starting from here instead.’  This is a sneaky one.

4.       Might

Actually, this makes three appearances on our list.  As a negotiating strategy, your boss says he might be able to help you if…Next, it suggests you will have to compromise something to achieve your goals – see, it’s a snarky tradeoff based on power.  Of course, the last utilitarian application is post project when blame is being distributed ‘You know we might have done this if (Insert name of person, conditions, restrictions, etc.) might have (a two-for-one zinger) been somehow different.

5.       Only

Another modifier designed to relieve the speaker from responsibility by diminishing the scope or effort you’ll need to put out there.  I love this when it shows up after storyboards are going to production and ‘only one minor change’ would really be helpful.  GRRRR.

And the last for this morning…

6.       Important (and Urgent)

Stephen Covey separates these two as completely different elements.  For our purposes, it inflates how critical a project is and – by fiat – how vital your role will be.  Further it suggests this is a high profile assignment being viewed from up on high.  So, you had better give it your very best effort.  As if…

Instructional Techniques – Quick Takes – 2

Picking up from yesterday, you’ll recall I had one unfortunate learner act as a victim for the cohort, drawing all the attention that-a-way.  Whew, everyone else sighs.  But no one evades as we go round the room and, if a bit more superficially, dissect each person’s book until everyone knows the method.  And that’s critical because it’s from here we depart.

Remember, the idea of this whole concerto is to ensure learners can get past the first right answer.  One of the most direct ways of using the children’s books is to change the elements, certainly taken for granted as the author envisioned it.  What happens we you look at a problem from a completely new perspective?  So we took some liberties and rewrote the story with some changes.

The ‘hero’ or protagonist in each story would become his/her diabolical opposite.  For instance, little Johnny is transformed from a nice schoolboy to the “Here’s Johnny,” Jack Nicholson character in The Shining.  The gorilla takes on some of the characteristics of King Kong.  Of course, this one change is quite profound – the tale, the moral, the lesson of the story now changes, too.  Moreover, do the relationships – alliances and antagonists emerge?

Now tell us the story as if Stephen King had written it.  Heh, heh.

You had to describe the weather in the original book.  What would happen in the story if the weather becomes a violent storm of significant proportions.  The Wizard of Oz, or Twister.  The main driver of the plot.  How does the book change?  Well, the plot is now driven by a natural and capricious antagonist – capable of any kind of behavior at any time.  How would this affect not only individual characters but how they interact?  Because of the vagaries of the weather will the moral or lesson change – or be shaped differently.

Finally, change the era or location of the story.  Not to the next street over, but to a wildly different environment.  A jungle or the south of France.  Outer space aboard a vehicle hurtling towards an unknown planet.  Or inside a dinosaur nest.  Regardless, struggle to keep to the original plot, but inject the story with a feeling of the place – technical or scientific terms, local slang, and descriptions of appearances, people, and places.  Think ‘Back to The Future.’

Most of the time this happens over 2 sessions, lasting at least 3 hours on consecutive days (with 10 participants).Using those guidelines it’s rare one learner can adjust to all three episodes.  And while the writing needn’t be in finished form, it should be clear enough for the narrator to communicate clearly.

A number of useful results are observed by everyone who participates.  You can imagine how the stories were interpreted by the others – and that is a change too.  In the end, it’s the ability for everyone to see the same reality and then, once viewed from a different lens, the perspective of the entire story can change.  The final lesson – the takeaway – is when you begin your projects, look at the ‘givens,’ the requirements, the parameters, and begin to shape a different way of respecting those constraints but interpreting their meaning and influence quite differently.

In addition, I can safely say, it’s challenging and its fun.

Instructional Techniques – Quick Takes – 1

During the days when I had occasion to work with adult learners face-to-face  I knew early on, even with corporate adults, I needed a hook or activity, (in education terms sometimes called an anticipatory set) to quickly address the temperature in the room, open minds to accept new concepts willingly, and maybe most critically relieve tension to prevent an alpha student from capturing the class with his (and it was always a man – sorry – and congrats to the ladies) negativity.

Here’s what I did. Oh and caveats. A good instructor/leader/teacher with a bit of theater or ham, will enjoy the best results. Yes, and this works with small (up to 10 or so) adult learners for beyond that it gets too cumbersome and potentially sucks up too much time. However, as a foundational activity – just like in construction – if the base is level what stands on the 30th floor will be plumb.

I asked each learner to bring in a child’s book, like the one they would read to their 3-year old (this can vary) that included a narrative (the storyteller), dialog and pictures. On their time, before the next session they were to write a synopsis of the book,  detailing the plot, a description of the characters and of course, the lesson or truth learned — in a paragraph or two. Setting up these parameters eliminates books that demand too much interpretation (so long Dr. Suess). Instead in virtually every case, the books that were brought in, and the synopsis’ were terrific. (Demonstrating great love for their children — or grandchildren, too).

Requesting a volunteer (or selecting an individual who would set the tone I desired), I asked s/he to read the book to the class, and then run through their synopsis.

Then I did a little tweaking. “So was Ralph the Gorilla a hero or a victim?  Why were his friends so quick to abandon him in the schoolyard. Why did the author — with so few word with which to work — describe the weather two times? At which point did the story pivot and turn towards the ‘lesson.’ Was it a completely happy tale, or something else – and if so, what?”  Finally pronounce the moral or lesson demonstrated by the authors manipulation of the material. Immediately the book owner had to make choices and assign roles – some, depending on the book were obvious, others exposed some hesitancy and were clearly guesswork. Now remember this is a book for an eight-year old, 3rd grader  (+ or – a year) who might be able to read the book unaided but choose an adult to read it aloud (sometimes my cohort was freely outspoken and agreed it was ritualistic).

At this point I’d invite anyone else to corroborate whether the reader’s interpretation seemed accurate , even perceptive, or share a different take on the readers interpretation.

Stay tuned for part two tomorrow. Before then, I  invite you to try this yourself with your significant other as the audience. A discussion will absolutely ensue.