CRZY APOCALYPSE — 4.1 WORKPLACE ELEMENTS TO HELP YOU SURVIVE.

Yes, they are all around you. Can you see them, hear them, smell them? Recognize the danger early—you’ll save yourself and your enterprise. The CRZY-MKRs haven’t erupted from the earth, half-dead as decomposed zombies coming for your life force. Worse, they’re coming for your mind. Ultimately, such destructive individuals are most capable of harming the most fragile commodity in any company: the creativity of a person, persons, and inflicting fatal wounds on the organization. No successful entity can move forward without people willing to take risks that demand out of the box thinking and have a tolerance for failure, especially if it keeps them on the path to achievement. A CRZY-MKR can very easily undermine this type of employee—wearing them down with distraction. Since creative work is always ahead of the status quo, it is visible and vulnerable, fragile. In the short and long term, these two disparate things, creativity, and CRZY-MKRs are inextricably linked: the designer and critic, the theoretician and the dinosaur, the what if and the status quo. Businesses can only thrive when they eradicate CRZY and encourage risk safely—in thought, action, and deed.

Who are the CRZY-ONEs?
In large organizations they are at every level dispersed like a virus, in small organizations, they are a sneeze—even closer and perhaps more deadly. They have very poor or underdeveloped emotional intelligence. We are not alluding to gossip mongerers – that may be one trait of a CRZY-MKR but just part of their toolset. Most importantly – and we’ll tackle this later—it’s imperative for individuals and organizations to deal with CRZY-MKRs in a decisive way before they habituate behaviors that chip away at employees emotional security. An exodus of talented individuals who succumb and bolt for the exits may hijack a whole organization and render it toxic.

When referring to CRZY-MKR personalities we might classify them as CMI (CRZY-MKR Intelligent) & CMDK (CRZY-MKR DK).

CMI: We need keen observation and vigilance to uncover this behavior. An individual who presents a composite series of traits that cause others to distraction or dysfunction is often described as intelligent, cognitive, and even meta-cognitive—but venal—is CRZY-MKR Zero and might indicate they are on a socio-pathological spectrum.

CMDK: Alternatively, we could examine an individual who is relatively unskilled or less knowledgeable. Their delusional personality prevents them from recognizing their own incompetence and this cognitive bias leads to inflated self-assessments and illusory superiority. They don’t know what they don’t know but see their reflection as chimeras. (The Dunning-Kruger Effect – 1999). We’ll refer to that person as CMDK (CRZY-MKR DK).

Summing up this section, the intelligent person knows what they don’t know and works to their strengths while learning to make up for their deficiencies, whereas the less skilled and incompetent hides deficiencies by inflating their own sense of intelligence and achievement—lying to themselves while projecting their fake accomplishments to the social order. One is a CRZY-MKR who is smart and competent but totally self-absorbed. And have poor emotional intelligence.

They often exercise power to undercut someone they see as a threat (or for kicks – if they truly are on the CRZY spectrum) ; or in the latter definition a CRZY-MKR is an incompetent harboring a composite of traits that seeks to ratchet up their own self-image by diminishing others thus, by comparison, appears competent, clever or smart.

1. Find Them Out in the Open – or Zombies who Strike in the Dark

These actions are applicable to either CMI or CMDK individuals.

 Recognize them by what they do.

  • They make you second guess what you know to be true
  • They impede your progress on projects by drawing you to off-task tangents
  • They sow the seeds of doubt
  • They are Me- rather than We-Centric
  • They are caffeinated conversants who manage to say nothing while sounding smart and sane
  • They pretend to listen but really only care what it is they are saying – then accuse you of not listening
  • They traffic in he said/she said stories ensuring you have to look over your shoulder to make sure no one is coming at you
  • They suggest you have made an enemy in the organization and you’re unaware, naïve and blind
  • They are so convinced they are right they will go to any lengths to ensure their one right answer is the only acceptable one
  • They use whatever real power they have to push you off your working methodology and accept theirs – doubling your efforts by forcing you to learn new ‘formats’ while you are simultaneously solving problems
  • They will steal or chip away at your productivity
  • They will dole out compliments and kudos and a nanosecond later ask why you did THAT!
  • They will triangulate even so far as to have a colleague replicate your project to instill competition instead of cooperation—then broadcast this as important “news”
  • They weaken the total organization by unbalancing individuals, teams, projects, ideas.

2. Characteristics of CRZY-MKRs

They can be colleagues, equals in rank and maybe even a work buddy, but most employees exhibit some form of CRZY when they lose control of their better nature – or fearful for their own future. Or maybe they were just born or raised to be vindictive. They became insidious saboteurs. Learning on the job to get ahead by kneecapping others is not a hard lesson to learn – but the truly dangerous CRZY-MKRs are subtle, selective and have acquired an amazing sense of timing. Thus, their stealth goes undetected except for the inevitable effects on others. It’s an excellent technique for ramping up their targets’ paranoia.

In the natural world, a lion shakes off its torpor when a gazelle is limping along just a little bit – or when the millionth particle of blood in seawater is vacuumed up by a great white, or a furtive assassin knows the victim’s schedule and vulnerabilities. An employee saboteur knows the soft underbelly of today’s target – trouble on a project, a rift between team members, sour negotiations with a vendor, an experiment hobbled by blind alleys. They’ll make sure management knows. Then they’ll let you know, that they know, and how they’d be glad to help you get on track.

Now that we have defined whom and what CRZY-MKRs are here’s a few examples:

Let’s start with the most dangerous CRZY-MKR – a superior, supervisor, employer. We assume they are intelligent so consider them the lion and you the gazelle.

3. The Case of the Sleeping Consultant

A consultant is hired to resolve a communications problem the senior executive has neither the time nor skills to complete. The executive is very smart but in specific sectors of business – a typical CMI – and believes he has excellent people skills.

  • A price is agreed upon aligned to a deliverable somewhat defined (Error #1 inviting in CRZY – and these are failures of the consultant to call the executives behaviors in to question).
  • The consultant is shown an example of the type of deliverable required gets confirmation from the executive and produces a proof of concept.
  • The POC is rejected as the executive says the content is wrong—as is the design.
  • The executive says hold up until we can get aligned. Two days pass—freezing the consultant from taking on other work. (Error #2 – No recognition or consideration of the consultant’s time)
  • The executive then calls the consultant after producing a configuration of what he is looking for. The consultant attempts to gain an understanding of what exactly will meet the specification. Yet the deliverable still has vagaries (Error #3 Failure to get final clarity).
  • The executive says, just look at my work, and follow it.
  • The executives’ examples do not meet the spec either; however, the consultant does complete all the written material and examples of a solution.
  • The executive once again rejects the work – even though his specs were not only unaligned, neither well defined, nor prove to be an exemplar or model to replicate. The executive is clearly frustrated – saying he does not have the time to provide an example.
  • The consultant makes it clear he has dedicated many hours to the project to which the executive replies, essentially that’s impossible; HE could do it in an hour! When the consultant suggests they get on the phone together, spend 45 minutes producing a perfect model, the executive says it will take him 2 ½ hours to complete. The consultant is now fully suicidal. (Error #4 – Obviously the executive is a CRZY-MKR and the consultant should have recognized this earlier)
  • The executive issues an edict: “Finish the project or you won’t get full payment.”
  • The consultant says if you provide an example, I can do that.
  • The executive says he does not have the time.
  • The consultant says, “I’m billing you for the work I have completed.”
  • The executive says, “Complete the project and I’ll pay you the full amount.”
  • The consultant replies that unless he has an example – which the executive will not provide – he cannot.
  • The executive says, “Finish the project and I’ll pay you the full amount.” (CRZY). “If you don’t, I’ll pay your bill but do not expect more work from me.”
  • The consultant – accepts he is dealing with a CRZY-MKR says,” Pay me what you owe me and have a good life.” Then he stops wasting his time and captures another client.

In the end, the consultant should have been more alert to the signals sent by the executive and acted to extract himself from the situation earlier. You can hear the control needs, the superior power position, and elevated threats. A key signifier and most detrimental element to an achievable solution is the vacillation of the executive back and forth – a clear sign this is a CRZY-MKR in Technicolor. Nevertheless, the other lesson is the gazelle needs to run faster and be more alert to survive the lion, and despite the big cat’s power, usurp control from the executive with the forcefulness of a positive NO! (William Ury – The Power of a Positive No., December 2007). Clearly, the contract will be lost: better a small piece of business than the billing hours lost trying to extrapolate the actual specs from a power broker who would not cooperate. Remember, thinking and discussing takes time which costs the consultant money.

4. The Case of the Jealous Mentor

A very experienced long time employee volunteers as a mentor. Once vetted by management she is assigned to work with a novice customer sales representative, recently graduated from 14 days of training, to improve and assist her use of CRM templates, product knowledge, and sales skills. The mentor has worked in this sector with these products, her entire career. New to the field, the novice, who has experience in other sectors, eagerly cleaves to the mentor for guidance, advice, and coaching. They are seated adjacent so the mentor can listen in on calls made by the novice.

During the first ninety days the following occurs:

  • The novice listens in on the mentors’ calls
  • The mentor guides the novice through the templates and completion of the CRM fields
  • Eventually and slowly the novice begins to take calls, enters information into the CRM
  • Turning to the mentor when at a crossroads, or not sure of next steps, the novice is still somewhat reliant on the mentor.
  • As the ninety-day period ends, the novice is knowledgeable, skillful and has the added ability to manipulate her voice to meet the customer at their comfort level.
  • Eventually, at one hundred twenty days, the novice is steady, capable of making independent, quality decisions, applies practices and knowledge learned in former positions and has a cadre of customers with whom she has cultivated positive relationships.
  • As the quarter draws to a close, the former novice’s sales are equal to that of the mentor.
  • The mentor, during one lunchtime walk with her closest work friend, suggests she is worried about her mentee and is making errors that management is failing to catch.
  • Her friend shows concern: such behaviors can reflect poorly on other reps and the company
  • The mentor decides to send an email to their supervisor asking if her mentee has had extensive sales experience with other product lines dissimilar to the companies.
  • The supervisor has now been called in – and begins informally, to recheck the mentees work history and further instigates a schedule to listen in on a random sampling of phone calls made to customers by the mentee.
  • The mentee grows in value to the organization earning rewards from human resources for quality communications and from her sales division head for capturing new customers – and holding to full price.
  • The mentor asks the supervisor what became of her findings. The supervisor is forbidden to share information about one employee to another but mentions she is watching closely.
  • By this time the mentee, once growing in confidence, is aware he former mentor no longer banters with her, nor does she provide guidance unless specifically asked.
  • Aware her intuition is calling to her executive brain, the mentee approaches the supervisor inquiring if there is a problem with her performance of that she should be aware.
  • The supervisor suggests she do two things: work more closely to company policy and not rely so much on her past knowledge and skills but ‘stick to the company script’ and work harder at building better relationships with her
  • The mentee is confused. She has been successful in every dimension of performance and has never received any formal nor even informal assessment and, further, senses she is now viewed with a negative bias.
  • She decides to elevate her concerns approaching the HR head in the section. She is told essentially, what her immediate supervisor said to do. When asked if there are problems with her results or behavior she is was only told, again, to ensure her activities meet company guidelines and then dismissed with a ‘not to worry about it’.
  • After a few weeks pass, the supervisor calls the former mentee to her office for a ‘chat.’ The mentee is told her phone calls while resulting in a fair return on business, were not as strong as they could be – and deviating from a specific script was to stop. The mentee knows from experience that at this and other companies a representative must veer from the script if the customer’s needs are not being met. The supervisor suggests that continuing to ‘free-lance – is upsetting other reps and if it becomes known she has special dispensation then all reps will begin to ‘wing it.’ Realizing further conversation would lead to a more heated discussion, the mentee leaves. Of course, she asks herself how the supervisor knows of calling language, and even if listening in, could not know everything she has done. Someone is spying and sharing her activities sabotaging her reputation by mischaracterizing her use of other knowledge and sales techniques.
  • She immediately goes to her cubicle and starts refreshing her Even though is leading in sales entering the new quarter, her position at this company is no longer tenable, nor a good fit.

The result here is the company loses a quality individual because of hearsay and innuendo. With kindling provided by her former mentor – a well-respected and senior individual – then fanning the spark into a fire when the supervisor asks seemingly innocent questions. This touches the supervisors need to run a smooth operation and finally HR who believes they may have a long-term problem within the department if the mentee is retained. They were moving to make a case for dismissal when the mentee suddenly resigned. Others in the department were mystified—and ask amongst a large cadre—why would someone so successful bolt from a position where she was very successful, well liked and socially inoffensive. Each individual rep is now left with a touch of paranoia – since no reason is provided by the supervisor nor HR for a talented rep’s resignation – particularly one who exceeded expectations, received awards for performance and was well-liked by customers and other personnel.

By now, you know why. A CMDK with seniority was threatened. With her length of time on the job, knowledge of products and the CRM, she fell behind her own trainee in all aspects of performance. Soon, she felt, questions would be asked of her and with little outside experience knew if she lost this job, finding another similar position would be difficult. Instead, she felt the tug of the lion and proceeded to strike at the mentee in her soft underbelly. With less seniority, lack of experience is this sector and reliance on other techniques—not necessarily endorsed by the company—such examples will be enough rationale for saving herself in the guise of protecting the company.

5. Summation

A CRZY-MKR particularly adjacent physically in a cubicle type office or within your department or team is relatively easy to diffuse, unmask, and defang especially if you are not the only one to recognize their charade. CRZY-MKRs are like serial killers: they need to act out often to be satiated. The chances are high she has done this before. Had the mentee known that she might have formed trusted relationships with a few other reps and without much prompting, heard the ‘war stories.’

Your objective, if a target, is to call out the negative behavior, confront the individual revealing that you know what is going on. Then label the individual a CRZY-MKR. Fortunately, a CRZY-MKR has more than one target so communication among ‘victims’ leading to a definitive unmasking, and, if quite toxic, bring to management for corrective action or termination. But the best result you might want to seek – by letting this person know you have discovered this nefarious, habituated behavior, is to get them to accept behavioral change—now and in the future. And the closer to the ground – that is on your level in the organization – prior to alerting higher authorities might gain a positive result simple by keeping it local. Bear In mind, however, few if any CRZY-MKRs have poor emotional intelligence and will view an attempt to ‘correct’ them to be tantamount to a declaration of open warfare.

If the CRZY-MKR is a manager you should know there is always someone he or she reports to. However, have your evidence codified: a diary of events and examples, detriments to working conditions, emotional and actual damages to you, your ability to satisfy tasks and state of mind. With the corroboration of other similar targets, you will alert management that this is not a personal vendetta, rather a systematic condition requiring inoculation or extermination. Awaken complacent or unaware management to minimize blowback or payback – subtle or public. Quality leaders will know it’s time to address cultural norms to save the company. If not, you have to leave.

The 4.1 Workplace Elements for Survival

Manage Expectations
Like a great quarterback, who knows every player’s assignment on every play or a superior actor who knows, not just his/her lines but everyone else’s, you need to manage the expectations the company has for you, within your team, division, the organization as a whole. You have to demonstrate you can not only exceed at your job but also be known as the reliable, steady playmaker who goes the extra mile to improve performance, make the atmosphere pleasant, add to the positivity of the workplace. Know your job, your supervisors’ jobs, and their superior’s job. No one dares ‘go zombie’ at an employee who has built a reputation of legitimacy.

Accumulate Leverage
In this case, leverage is empowerment you’ve earned and like money in the bank can be cashed in when you need to achieve a goal, get assistance, or seek protection from a CRZY-MKR. To gain empowerment you need to give to get. Helping out others, doing small – or large favors – jumping in to assist on another project outside your normal working tasks, being present to support or add effort to meet a deadline, make a sale, improve UX/UI, lend your talents where needed in situations where that talent is not present in the organization are ways to show you are a team player. Even bringing in small gifts for holidays is like money in the corporate piggy bank. These efforts have great visibility and the immediate interest you will earn. The more people who see you participate the higher your value goes earning thanks and a reputation what others will remember and most will gladly return. For our purposes, it makes a CRZY-MKR realize you have no soft underbelly or if so, have enough value to question anyone who cast aspersions at you.

Promise and Deliver
Nothing earns favor more in teams, divisions and entire companies than a person who says what they will do and then does it – on time, on budget, satisfying internal and external customers, completing your leg of a finish-to-start project. Consistent dependability earns mind space in the executive ranks; that is you’re known as the man or woman who gets it done – sometimes when no one else can. Taken for granted this way is a plus – no manager will climb on your back or question your capacity to deliver if your history proves it’s unnecessary to think about you at all – in this case, a good thing. Better still – who would ever come after you with innuendo, question your methodologies or intelligence if your production goes unquestioned. Well, a CRZY-MKR might get miffed and start a sabotage routine but it’s they who will be sharply questioned about their motivation. You are kryptonite to a CRZY-MKR. They’ll seek out a weaker target – a slower gazelle.

Think Through to the Endgame
Today’s achievements have the shelf life of milk. Success is built brick by brick over periods of time. Immediate wins are great, but if they are that easy, some might say we expect even more from you. Smart employees at any level look over the horizon about what they need to do now to get to where they want to be in the future. That includes getting on projects that don’t have quick payoffs but could shift the direction of the entire company. Contributions to a far-off goal demonstrates you have staying power, continually offer ideas, fill voids, pick up the slack, think out of the box, invent, create and model behaviors that will go noticed. So if there is no pat on the back today – you must believe – with your help – the end will justify the effort you have put in. Sometimes low hanging fruit even if eaten today has worms – on the higher branches ripening in the sun and rain are the tastiest apples, peaches, and pears. What this means is simply think long term. As long as you are contributing, you are most likely appreciated and inoculated from CRZY-MKRs. Of course, there might by such a person on – or leading this endeavor. In that case, continue to be indispensable whether that individual recognizes it or not. Most likely, everyone else will.

And finally…
Make the Shift to Offense

If you find yourself in the crosshairs of a CRZY-MKR and you have successfully identified that individual and what they have accomplished to your detriment – at that exact moment invite him or her to lunch. That’s right – buy the person lunch. Here, away from his or her defensive fortress layout what you know or even suspect. Ensure the CRZY-MKR, even if that person is your boss, understands there are consequences to this type of behavior. Be emphatic – no matter whether they deny it or not – assume they are lying and layout your attack strategy. Your armaments should consist of: a diary of what you have done on the project(s) they are critical of, suggest your colleagues know of this situation, another supervisor is on notice this behavior is ongoing and your future steps including HR or even an outside organization or that your attorney is ready to come in to play. End by stating emphatically – “This ends now,” and go back to that person or persons you spoke with about me and apologize saying you got it wrong.” Give them a timeframe – short – for you to hear from them how much you are appreciated. Then suggest you can play at this as well but you have more important things to do… and senior executives need to hear about. Regardless of how you spin it the message is: I know what you did. You need to reverse field. I expect proof it has been done. If not expect an asymmetrical response from me which will be worse than you can imagine. Then get up and walk away.

Lastly, here are a few freebies I gladly pass to you. I learned by experience, though I read all the business books and still do since changing careers from public education to the corporate world 22 years ago and over 40 years in all sorts of trenches – sometimes digging them. Other times planning their layout and in other cases having them designed for my approval:

  • Colleagues are not friends.
    Nope, sorry. That guy you play handball with, barbecue, or golf will turn on you in one second if the economy or reorganization comes and personnel cuts are likely. We all want to pay the mortgage, eat, buy cars, take vacations or just squirrel away money and retire early. If you are in the way of that or on the same ladder as are they, loyalty goes out the window.
  • Stay current.
    Particularly now, in times of rapid disruption in virtually all fields, today’s information is historical and the future built on virtual blocks you can’t even see. Its incumbent upon anyone on a career track learns everything and anything even if tangential to your field. Moreover, keep in mind the tiptoes you hear behind you is the next generation of workers who were brought up already knowing this stuff. Whether learning on your own or taking a course – get and stay smart and contemporary.
  • Hone your intuitive and listening skills
    What else needs to be said here? Well, I still get one deaf to my intuition and it’s been to my deep regret and injury. I hear it sometimes but fail to take heed. Practice with mind games – there are so many online. Turn off the TV and teach yourself to think differently and you’ll open up new neural pathways and your inner vision will improve. The good Lord gave us two ears and one mouth – use them in proportion. And I mean active listening – taking notes, listening for the message behind the message. As we said at one company after receiving news, always look under the rock. Sharpen up your EQ. Think about your thinking – meta-cognate and listen the same way. In addition, make sure any speaker knows you are listening by a gesture, verbal agreement, or subtle movements.
  • Broadcast your successes quietly inside the organization but publish to social media like a demon on fire.
    Become indispensable by cultivating an audience of followers, offering your knowledge and experience from which others in your field will benefit. Become a thought leader, a guru – but do not bring it back to the shop. Let others at work tell you they saw your article online – let them tout you while you remain your humble self.
  • Keep a daily journal
    Even if only holds a few jottings it has to include what you did, accomplished or spent time doing PLUS any intuitive or substantive CRZY-MKR smells you grabbed out of the ether. Notate those well – they will be crucial when the time comes to be proactive and shut down that person or provide a pathway to a defense with all your reference markers to people and evidence you might require.

So, that was a long story and I hope you stayed with it, or bookmarked and will return later to digest it in bits. I have lived, or known about every moment of every story I have shared first hand – of course not every success nor failure but enough examples demonstrating the scars I have from a working life lived as an educator, administrator, consultant to NYS State Dept of Ed – to startups in three distinct fields, 2 published textbooks, an eBook on Amazon, a long career with multiple companies as a learning executive, a marketing SVP, and inside too many companies to name — as a consultant called in to save the day as a change agent and turnaround specialist, addressing production issues, inventing learning solutions, designing collateral materials and negotiating with customers, prospects and internal executives, as well as my own CEOs, through good economies and bad – superior mentors and bosses and those who inspired the concept of the CRZY-MKR.

Of course, such people exist on all levels in every endeavor when more than one human being is involved. Knowing that, we all should be prepared before we are a targeted by an early warning system, and smart enough to have a process to deflect or terminate such an attack, ultimately a nuclear response to ensure these evil doers last view will be the exit sign on their way out to the parking lot.

 

CORPORATE INSTRUCTION IS STILL DISCONNECTED FROM MILLENNIAL LEARNING STYLES – A LIST BASED ON OBSERVATIONS IN THE WORKPLACE

By this time we all know the tropes that define who millennials (M) are, how they act and their fundamental personality characteristics. You’d think with all of this proven—and nowhere is it more evident than in large corporations—that learning programs would have been adjusted to align instruction with M proclivities for workplace education.

Having just spent some time at an F100 company I can affirm with great certainty, most instruction is still a series of bland courses and in some cases long and winding webinars. It bears remembering we are in business of transmitting only three things: knowledge, skills, and behaviors. I saw few instances where any modifications to training accommodated the ways in which young employees would spark to, tolerate, let alone benefit from anything being taught unless it was compulsory. And of course, pushing training down to a M will just shut down their attention. So, with a grudging acceptance of what had to be learned, skills absorbed only if they had immediate utility, and behaviors, well…let’s just say the millennials I was working with and around were not among the receptive.

jane-nervous

You can refer to two articles I had written back in 2014 about multi-generational learning and see even then, there was a clear rubric and tactics for reaching millennials. Unfortunately, making a case to adjust corporate learning programs and actually rewriting and modifying delivery are at polar ends and still out in the frozen tundra. [Overcoming Generation Differences When Building Learning: Part 2

NOW EVERYONE WINS: OVERCOMING GENERATION DIFFERENCES WHEN BUILDING LEARNING]

So, what to do. CLO’s it seems, unless really enlightened, have not passed down by policy the need to make learning aligned to what will soon be their largest contingent (25%) of employees. The company I just left dictated to the CLO that webinars would be the mode of choice for sales enablement and product knowledge – and they were level set to be 60-90 minutes. For sales staff! A double whammy there, right? A young millennial in sales is being taught essentially in the exact opposite learning style that would yield useful results.

A LIST OF WHAT MIGHT ATTRACT AND DELIVER USEFUL LEARNING TO MILLENIALS

  1. Learning has to be in small bits and any of these learning elements I’ll mention need not be delivered in any particular order– but they will be repeated in what I call a multi-touch ecology. Hyperconnectivity is baked in to millennials as is multitasking. Millennials are 2.5 times more likely to embrace and use new technology. This approach has elements of microlearning but it benefits the learner because it is repeated in other modalities & technologies.
    • For instance, in a short form course, organizations might deliver one or two elements of knowledge, skills or behaviors, make it interactive and/or with gamification and require responses. Consider collaboration within the methodology. Those responses are recorded and then the course is revisited for learners to rectify any incorrect responses. Nothing radical here except for the amount of time on learning – short attention spans will be honored.
  1. Learning with multi-modal exposure. Consider the power of a short, sharp podcast (or many) accessed and aligned to courseware – further amplifying recently introduced content.
    1. Questions posed in the podcast might be pushed out to mobile devices where, once again responses would be entered and tabulated.
  1. We’ve just laid out three modes: a short course, a podcast, and mobile learning. Let’s not forget dedicated pages on Facebook for content, polling and collaboration, and Twitter or SnapChat for instant feedback. Short videos right off Smartphones – 10 seconds worth – carry incredible power to influence, to convince, to give testimony. New tech must serve the learning purpose and be considered ‘cool.’ Finally, a mentor or coach would have the opportunity to not only work with the individual millennial but also learn what modalities worked best – and what components of this ecology yielded both cognitive results and emotional commitment. Multiple touches of the same knowledge, skills and behaviors are vital to retention and even more so for sales staff.
  1. These elements have all the benefits of autonomous learning, can be collaborative if so designed and tend to be informal. All three criteria are in the personality set of younger employees.

joeerica

Multiple touches—that is delivering the same content over different methodologies and modalities are essential for millennials. Learning is short – but repeated with multiple touches

  1. Learning can be collaborative
  2. Learning is couched inside compelling technologies
  3. Learning is interactive
  4. Learning is delivered on demand
  5. Learning is multi-modal
  6. Learning has digital with human feedback
  7. Learning is autonomous
  8. Learning content while repetitious is tolerable with multiple modalities
  9. Learning with multiple touches will be the norm
  10. Learning will be put to use because it happens over time – not a one sitting – therefore it will always be top of mind

As I looked around the work floor, I noted my millennial colleagues who, to a person were hard working, committed and extraordinarily helpful to an older geezer like me. Nevertheless, they also shared the frustrations they had with long, drawn out courses, for instance during onboarding, that might have been produced in 1999. That’s no way to motivate people who come predisposed to do good work. When learning is delivered to their particular learning characteristics, they become empowered, more loyal and see the corporate culture as honoring their personal temperament. That’s a lot of big wins. It’s up to the corporate masters to commit to modify learning, reach, and reach out to the millions of new workers whom they will be leading and managing now and more so, in the very near future.

guypointingcasualsmall

Learning Design: The Great, The Good and The Good Enough

This could be a story about buggy whips. You might know the classic management tale of the craftsman who was proud of building the most handsome and useful whips to spur on carriage horses at the turn of the last century. Unfortunately, as you you probably know the tale, carriages once replaced by the automobile rendered his lovely product useless.

I have watched from the trenches and sidelines as classes of learning professionals are now being divided —again by technology into two camps; those who know how learning should be constructed and craft it and those who can manufacture, at time and cost savings, the actual product.

Learning designers strategize how to solve problems to achieve performance improvement applying theory to fact and constructing course elements, flows and production processes. They gain agreement with stakeholders about content, audience, time on learning and assessment and the larger components of an experience. They scaffold the project so each step falls into place in a logical progression. In some cases, the learning designer will offer a narrative reflecting the content back to the stakeholders to ensure the critical content is captured. Additionally they might also write the actual storyboard incorporating the elements including the interactive and experiential (as well as social) elements that will make the course interesting if not compelling. The best and greatest courseware, the most inventive and exciting depends on a designer who can sculpt content into a story, then work with an interactive and/or graphic designer to sharpen the user experience across multiple platforms finally passing the work to a developer to program—as designed—for implementation.

Background3

Developers are those folks who know how to use the tools chosen by the enterprise to express content online in an effective and dynamic format. For the past number of years, while learning theory and ideas about making courses exciting have evolved growing with the speed and bandwidth available for elements like video, developer tools have been refined exponentially. Think of the industrial model—build an assembly line, now improve the assembly line and the tools—then make better products. However, this works well only when everything being made is a replica set to standardized requirements. Learning is not like that. Even when producing multiple courses with similar content, the opportunity to breathe excitement into each one is more present when designers do what they do best and developers express it. No template, no matter how sophisticated can allow for all the shadings required by great learning. Instead developers take the tools and either use them out of the box or, as I saw in a number of organizations, create, and in most cases struggle to build work-arounds expressing the designers intent while trying for hours to keep within the constraints of the software. An entire industry has been built around PowerPoint (by example) as the foundation for programs like Articulate. And the tide is with them since money flows downhill from big corporate enterprises and their subordinate constituencies. Better, faster, cheaper. And good enough.

The precedent for this was the explosive improvement in desktop publishing more than a decade back; once an associate learned the software they could generate print materials. The problem—and the connection to the current argument, is simply that these folks were not trained as graphic designers. The results spoke for themselves; a lot of bad design, quickly produced and reproduced. Moreover, when it was accepted by many managers as ‘good enough’ the die was cast for the attitudes we see now in learning design and development.

Here lies the collision and connection: In the hopes that ‘rapid’ eLearning cannot only reduce the time to create courseware the tools, ever more nuanced, allow developers to become designers as well. It’s seductive; managers cut down head count, more work can be pushed out the door by learning groups under pressure to deliver fast changing content, and costs drop when the designer, a more highly trained, often senior and knowledgeable resource can be set aside or redeployed. I don’t believe there has been a study conducted on performance improvement or even a Kirkpatrick view of which types of courses yield intended results. But I do know anecdotally that learning designed courses, where each professional works to their strength always seem to have an A-ha factor. Most other courses—those of the template kind—are utilitarian and though they might satisfy the requirements or outcomes, learner satisfaction cannot compare. This is dangerous and grows more so every day as multi-generational learners want different kinds of learning experiences.

ATT00091

The facts are there is room at the learning table for both types of development. However, there is no real lobbying group or organized industry to support the learning designer model. My fear is that learning and instructional design preparation will move even further towards the industrial model, templatized learning produced by individuals whose preparation has introduced them to a fair amount about learning…and the skillsets demanded to operate the tools. Unfortunately, there is too much complexity and uniqueness in learning to allow for excellence when this mashup becomes the status quo.

Those of us who have grown up in the era of learning design are more than ever segregated from access to development. Even with HTML5 used by great developers who can customize components to meet learning design objectives with wonderful precision, I see a rending of the system that will soon go the way of the buggy whip. So much of life today, from the professional sphere to just everyday life seems to be populated by people who figure that good enough is just that. Time is precious, financial strains are everywhere, the speed of life is overtaking the human ability to sustain its own sense of equilibrium in a world of instant everything. So let it go and accept the outlier will be the customization of learning only when absolutely defended by insistent clients with the budget and care to desire excellence. Otherwise, wait for tools to exhibit their next iteration, artificial intelligence.

 

Overcoming Generation Differences When Building Learning: Part 2

When we last visited this topic about a week back I promised to create a visual—a chart of sorts—to encourage learning and instructional designers to consider how generational bias in training delivery. Just looking to start a conversation.

A Quick Review
You might want to pop back to the original article: http://tiny.cc/qpsrax

We know we’re engaging three distinct groups in today’s workplace, Baby Boomers, Generation X, and Generation Y (Millenials). Each has specific preferences for general communication and they carry over in training as well. Whether creating a training program when all three groups are in the room or accessing courses online demands the learning designer incorporate specific ways of delivering information with the appropriate assets, techniques, and technologies. Initially, we would hope learners, right from the first word or screen, slide or handout, would buy-in and see value; a predisposition that his will be a good experience. During the training, we build formative experiences to keep all groups interested and motivated to continue, committed that the investment in time is worthwhile. Finally we would want participants to exit the training experience appreciating it was translatable into their work life. If this is accomplished, the next training experience will be viewed much more favorably and meet with less resistance.

Acknowledging their generational age, and considering their technological age (how savvy are they to tech) as well as comfort with social media, influences how they will respond to courseware. Though there are three distinct groups, many learners exhibit the preferences for learning outside the generational ‘norm’. These people are to be commended for either learning new technology, appreciating other ways of ‘seeing’ learning or just curious enough to drop a toe in the fast flowing stream of change. We need to depend on these folks to help convert those who tend to be inflexible.

Caveats abound:

  • This is not a fully scientific approach nor based on academic, androgogical research
  • It is the product of crowdsourcing, anecdotal research and discussion with hundreds of learning/instructional designers and clients not to mention intuition
  • My professional experience over thousands of hours of course building across more than twenty verticals and five geos and over 25 years of design have informed these findings, too

I am fully prepared to hear from all quarters. It’s a living document—a work in progress— so send your ideas to rshadrin@wonderfulbrain.com. I’m hoping criticism will help improve this instrument not merely tell me where to get off or how narrow-minded, oblique or stupid this exercise is.

Anyway, someone had to put a stake in the ground. Apparently me. I hope it doesn’t end up in my heart.

Ultimately, the learning designer has to make everyone happy if information transfer is to take place. Elements that ‘favor’ one group more than another will always be necessary. If knowledge, skills and behaviors are to be transmitted, absorbed and used than instructional design should seek balance. Occasionally this compromise is not appreciated nor well tolerated across the generations. Nevertheless, it is absolutely necessary to honor each aspect of the generation’s learning preferences and mitigate those that irritate others. Skillful designers know how to navigate these choppy waters and subtle mixtures of learning preferences can always be developed. Can the design ever be perfect. Well, no. But reasonable learners in all generations can recognize when attempts are made to entice them into a learning experience. And the organization expects each generation, besides tolerance, adapt as necessary to improve performance and solve problems through learning and training experiences.

GenCon

LEADERS ARE TOO FAR UPSTREAM TO EFFECT CHANGE—TALENT MANAGEMENT MUST BE FOCUSED DOWNSTREAM ON MANAGERS

Who hasn’t been the recipient of the exhortations of motivation? It seems everywhere; used to suggest, cajole and inspire workers. Indeed exhort all of us to get out in front of a task and get going. I remember, I think, a professor or mentor of mine in the education business who consistently said that motivation, a mental state, is not what we want to create. No, he said, what we really want is movement.

Movement is measurable, while motivation lies within us affected by a variety of mental attitudes and internal prejudices. Whereas movement can be evaluated against expectations or scales of achievement, motivation is opaque to the organization seeking its presence.

This may not be news, but in the context of leadership and management, the misapplication of either motivation or movement in an opposing context can often lead to problems. Furthermore, with the push towards the nurturing of talent; talent management as its referred, it’s worth a look at how these states might be aligned to justify the effort, time and resources placed in readying current employees for more responsibility.

The End of Motivation?
No discussion of motivation can take place without clearing up the idea of incentives. Leaders continually seek ways of extracting more or better from their minions, only to find most systems never seem to yield consistent results. Incentivizing workers of any level with rewards, extrinsic or intrinsic seems to work only when there are simple goals to achieve and solid rules to guide performance. The problem of if-then reward schemes is a narrow focus on the task at hand. In many studies, incentives have been shown to effectively kill creativity. In sales and mechanical tasks, incentives may work but only sometimes, and not for long. However, as Daniel Pink has noted, as soon as performance requires any additional cognitive skill (e.g. reasoning) even a larger reward leads to decreased performance. He notes that the London School of Economics has found financial incentives can result in a negative impact on overall performance. And not to be overlooked, robotics are increasingly eliminating the types of work for which incentives would prove even marginally valuable.

So what to do? Firstly, let’s accept motivation for movement lies in the realm of management and distinct from leadership. The traditional definition of management says if you want compliance then create a linear system of compartmentalized tasks and add people adequately skilled to so function. Then stand back and measure, doling out cash to the top performers. The disconnect between this conceit and the new working environment fails to account for the types of problems so prevalent now—devoid of a clear set of rules, or a single solution or only one right answer. More often than ever before, business problems demand more right brain, conceptual activity. When challenges are mystifying and abstract, if-then reward systems/incentives don’t work. Since most jobs that demand compartmentalization and linearity are so easy to outsource (or robotize), tradition bound incentives, or motivation through rewards are useless. Nevertheless, what about managers who must raise the performance of workers, achieve cost/time/efficiency savings, another top, or bottom line positive changes?

Science and Business
There is a mismatch between what science knows and business does. For instance, we know, and studies show when people want to succeed because the problem matters, because it’s important or interesting or because it is bigger than themselves, they require no external rewards to perform at high levels. An operational paradigm that recognizes mastery, autonomy, and purpose will encourage workers to respond with energy to the types of business challenges in today’s workplace. If managers want workers to perform up, then the challenges and types of work that must be solved have to be designed to respond to these human factors. Is it the job of managers who require relatively simple tasks to be executed to re-form the jobs not into compartments of interchangeable elements but to something more interesting? The answer is yes. If we need new managers capable of thinking this way than that’s where talent management learning might start. Remember it’s not the manager who does the work…but managers need to set conditions where others can and do to their utmost abilities. Some might say this is starting to sound like leadership. But leaders themselves are too far distant from actual work.

Why Managers Need to be Leaders
The 20th century business model erects a formidable wall between management and leadership. Yet in this century it should be clear anyone in authority—having the responsibility to move (not just motivate) people to perform must embody both managerial skills and leadership qualities. When companies speak of talent management they still, in most cases, make distinctions among the types of employees who earn or receive the types of learning that prepares them for one role or the other. That distinction might best be obliterated. If managers are incapable of leadership perhaps they should not be managers. Not to be harsh but given the types of conceptual as well as practical business challenges that will engage enterprises big and small if there is no leadership in management (and the converse it true) success will be most difficult. Workers as people are different; those who guide their tasks had better be aligned to their ways.

Leadership Is Too Far Upstream
We know leadership has two distinct functions particularly in large enterprises; imbuing the business mission with vision and tone and setting priorities and policies. However to change performance I suggest unless a leader is in total control—think Jack Welch or Steve Jobs—they are too distant—to far upstream from the action to make a difference in how people move and their commitment to performance. Even Jobs, perhaps the most hands-on of any modern executive even with supreme governance required intermediaries, subordinates…managers to transfer his visions into reality.

Without direct control of how problems are phrased and scoped, organized and aligned, leaders may exude all the power their words can muster but won’t help a local team produce better or faster solutions.

Here’s a descriptive chart breaking down leadership and management from different perspectives:

    Leadership   Management
Core Art Science
Visionaries Technicians
Process Upstream–Strategic Downstream–Tactical
Personality Driver Charismatic Pragmatic
Foundation Situational Empirical/Formulaic
Modality Front, top, prior to action Within or during action
Structure Ideas, theory Hands-on, get it done
Action Thinking Scheduling
Metric KPIs FTEs
Skill Motivation Movement

The Talent Management Function
There’s no question leadership is vital to any enterprise. In addition, leaders can come in all shapes and sizes, talents, strengths, weaknesses and deficits. Many companies thrive with lousy leadership—but none can survive without skilled managers, especially those who can meld some of the qualities of leadership into the organizing behaviors of managing.

I suppose the final tally of all the characteristics in the chart can be boiled down to the simple idea that talent management learning programs should be less focused on building leadership and more attuned to managerial competence. Bringing management into a 21st century paradigm will directly encourage people to do great work. Employees will move towards excellence when problems support autonomy, permitting their own way of working out a problem, provide opportunities and tools to allow mastery to flourish and offer a clear purpose that serves the greater service. Incentives, no matter what type are contradictory to this type of cooperative milieu. Managers who are skilled in creating this type of work situation, who have received the education and training they need to create such an environment will be the backbone of every successful enterprise. Shifting resources from building leadership qualities for leaders only to ensuring hands on managers have the skills and knowledge, techniques and tactics they need, will lay a foundation to ensure the survival of the enterprise even as leaders wash in and out with the tides.