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.

 

The Learner, 70:20:10 and Customer Experience

iStock_000008801928SmallMore so than in other efforts learning demands a careful balance of content and context. Many courses or projects chock a block with great information never quite achieve the results intended because of the way the information is delivered. Still too many learners won’t or cannot stay engaged. And it’s not for lack of effort by designers. Neither dynamic media, nor learner engagement exercises, even all the bells and whistles designers build on can always keep the learner riveted. Moreover, it’s not the pacing nor structure of events nor even the implied threat the learning or training is a job requirement. When learners are asked about courses a range of answers emerge, from I liked it but it meant little to me in my job, it was just not interesting, it was isolating, dull, the same old thing. So, if you believe, as do I, there is a missing element, hang on, I may have some insights.

Firstly, it’s important to clear off the Kirkpatrick levels. Not dismiss, just set them aside. Traditional learning and development is about pushing out information. What I suggest is a different way of thinking about the learner perhaps reflected in Kirkpatrick but not aligned to its grid like way of organizing learner uptake. Rather the lens through which we should start is Charles Jennings’s 70:20:10 approach.

Looking back to the original premise, that courses even with great content are bashed on the shore of rocks of delivery and contextual modes, than Jennings realization about how learning works is even more in line with my premise. And not to hold you in suspense, I am advocating we begin to think of learners as customers and every aspect of the learning experience as a customer experience. In the customer experience (Cx), world companies look at their service by way of touchpoints.

Touchpoints are every interaction taking place between the company, product or information—the content—the user or customer of that information and the context or channel used to communicate. Calling your cable company, speaking with a representative offers many touchpoints. For instance, how many rings did it take to get through, did the customer service representative understand the problem, how did she speak to you, could he resolve the problem, how long did it take, or perhaps you got better service using the website. The media, in this case the phone, is referred to as the channel. Companies measure each touchpoint in each channel against criteria in order to examine their process, develop standards and measures to improve customer service and contain their costs.

As learning people, we might take a lesson from touchpoints in Cx. In business, every time a touchpoint is observed, measured, and found lacking, it is improved—called touchpoint renewal. Now think of learning experiences whether virtual or face-to-face. Every interaction with content is naturally in a context (channel). So working online, the UI/UX channel might have been designed with minimal cognitive overhead in a handsome interface so information can be actuated easily. The more interactions, more touchpoints, and more reflective thought by the designer is required. Or in a classroom, instructors who focus on critical content and presents interactively have touchpoints relevant to that context or channel.

Learning designers can think in touchpoints when they build instruction or training. If we begin to think like this courses will improve simply because each action is viewed as an individual, measurable touchpoint. There are two elements, the content and the quality or style with which it is delivered (no matter the context or channel) and the learner (or customer). The smoother, faster, clearer the touchpoint, the easier it would be for learners to navigate and perhaps benefit from the experience. Customer experience thinking does not require a major pivot in the way courses are developed. Instead, it’s a mindset and reminder that learners need to be serviced as customers or even as buyers with a choice. Knowing your learner needs, your customers, and what they must achieve at the conclusion of the experience can help shape designers decisions about what to insert into a learning experience, the style, and the channel.

iStock_000004786684SmallJennings research clearly says most learning, over 80%, takes place in the workplace not the classroom (and I assume not the screen either). He has demoted formal learning to the ’10’. This diminishes the role of the learning designer or at least, as far as I can tell reshapes it. Experiential learning through contact and information with others yields—according to Jennings—better development and business outcomes. A conversation with a colleague in the pursuit of a solution or the sharing of an incident that leads to an A-Ha moment is planned. Keep in mind, these interactions all have touchpoints, too. That ‘20’ doesn’t mean we can easily measure the import of every utterance and seek to improve coaching or mentoring conversations by observing or eavesdropping continuously. However, it’s worth considering just how powerful informal, professional language is and how worthy it might be to bring to daylight the concept that everything one says or does has a value that is measurable in terms of utility and effect. This would include sharing via social media as well. As we know, a useful point made in Twitter, evinces a piling on of like-minded comments. These touchpoints will have extraordinary reach and thus value if the sources are trusted and adds to the validity of the single point under review. Most importantly both Cx and 70:20:10 are performance and productivity focused.

It would seem terribly logical for learning designers, ID’s, courseware, and content builders to become aware of the customer experience. If our product is the transmission of knowledge, skills and behaviors—and we expect change to result from each learning event, than designing with care and scrutinizing each touchpoint is another valuable way to look at and improve learning outcomes. Perhaps the designer’s role will change toward one of director; scripting a full 100% development experience—composed of 70:20:10 where every action or activity plays a role in the education of a learner and the idea of the total customer experience is viewed via touchpoints ensuring all actions are focused on results.

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

NOW EVERYONE WINS: OVERCOMING GENERATION DIFFERENCES WHEN BUILDING LEARNING

During an interview about a week back I asked the project manager about the audience for which the training courseware would be designed. The strongest criteria, emphatically made, was the consultants ability to work out a curriculum for 24 to 70 year olds. She added, by the way, some of them ‘don’t play well with others’ or didn’t want to take the training…and were clearly hostile. I know the second part is actually more enticing to discuss than the first but we’ll save that for a sequel.

It’s far from the first time any educator has faced this situation but it did get me wondering. A good place to start in preparing for such a project would recognize the characteristics of learners in each of the 4 major generational groups in today’s workplace. From that point discover, categorize and develop with some confidence the types of learning each would be most comfortable with then craft an overall rubric to be used when designing courseware for multi-age audiences. Looking around I did find an article where this conundrum was voiced. That solution was to conduct a needs assessment, offer basic training particularly in the technologies for those unfamiliar with online learning, and then take out an ‘insurance policy’ by creating what really was a back up curriculum in case of mass lethargy or a pedagogical mutiny. This answer seemed too superficial and really doesn’t get to the heart of the problem.

The Generations
Although these descriptions may seem a bit broad there is agreement the characteristics of each generation are accepted as real and true.

Baby Boomers (Post WW II, 47-65 years old)
Creating a pleasant work environment is paramount

  • Like steady work and climbing the corporate ladder, consider their coworkers to be their main social network
  • They put work at the center of their life and focus on building the company
  • Viewed as ‘seasoned’, thought leaders, or subject matter experts, has a stronghold on experience
  • If you want something done, pick up the phone instead of waiting on an email or text response

Generation X (Born between 1963-1980, early 30s to mid 40s)
genxfemale

  • Often labeled ‘slackers’, but are the best educated generation
  • Display a casual disdain for authority and structured work hours, dislike being micro-managed, skeptical and embrace a hands-off management philosophy
  • Will put in the hours while maintaining a reasonable work-life balance
  • Incorporate social media seamlessly into their personal and professional lives

Generation Y (Also called Echo Boomers or Millennials, born between 1981-1994, early 20s to early 30s)
millenial

  • Will make up 46% of the US workforce by 2020
  • Expect near universal positive reinforcement from authority figures while seeking job satisfaction
  • Incredibly technology savvy, immune to most traditional marketing and sales pitches
  • Rely heavily on blogs, instant messages, tweets, text messages
  • Demand work-life balance, flexible hours, work-from-home options, and mobile technology

 Generation Z (Soon to enter the workforce, born between 1995-2009)
First generation never to have experienced the pre-internet world. Already technology-focused

Where the Problem Begins
Let’s just back up a bit. School is the common denominator amongst all generations. But the problems that continue to arise in public education are magnified when boomer type instructional modalities are used to pitch information at millennial students. Teachers, the curriculum, methods and even the spaces for instruction are evidence of a generational disconnect. There are many superior older instructors who have made the technological and sociological leap to align content with context to educate their charges. But, in general this divide is not uncommon and where that happens, little learning goes on. Unfortunately many youngsters get patterned and adapt attitudes that, even as adults carry a distaste for learning not in their preferred mode. However these students are now our employees and need to be convinced by example learning can be made meaningful respecting the ways they want to, and best can learn. The question to consider? Are employees of a generation too rigid or overly reflexive in their rejection of training? Put another way, how malleable and adjustable are employees willing to be?

Where is Alignment in the Organization?
In corporate training we expect all generations to make adjustments so courses, training and instruction can be cast from a single or a few uniform models. After all this is the workplace. But that no longer cements an employee’s commitment nor guarantees willing participation. If we don’t honor the fundamental attitudes and proclivities of each generation we risk losing learners at the outset. Often staff, having endured training delivered in essentially a mode akin to a foreign language, have attitudes about training harden into instant negativity every time a required learning experience comes around. The problem that begs a solution is how best to design learning for all  generations.

Organizational Intolerance
Corporate leaders are skeptical  about the costs associated with learning and training believing there is not a high enough dividend in performance change to drive up profits. They would be extremely unlikely to embrace multiple course types to engage each generation in their learning ‘sweet spot.’ Instead corporate education needs to innovate, devising learning experiences to lure employees by offering a variety of ways to interact with information, absorb and most importantly use what they learned to be better at what they do—for themselves and the organization. Enough quality experiences and the fear, inertia or rejection displayed by generations will dissipate replaced by a more optimistic attitude about training at work.

A Way to Look at Instruction with Generational Regard
The goal is to reach every generation in their preferred learning style suggested by their social description. How? Develop learning elements, experiences, and technologies integrated into the content of courseware or training that speaks to each generation. This balanced methodology will engage all learners—not all the time nor in every instance—but enough so each group can sense an invitation to learn has been extended to them. Such an experience might offer elements (scenarios, interactivities, video, animation) techniques (direct instruction and gamification) experiences (role playing and decisions making strategies), assessing for competence (tests, role plays, scenarios, games) and media where learning might be best delivered (live, virtual, online, mobile, mixed), so that every generation can find relevance. Content will be carried forward in multiple modalities; formal, informal, social, participatory, for collaborative teams and individuals. Text, visuals, audio and interactivities will drive information respecting the sensibility of generational familiarity.

And while many employees are archetypes of each generation there are enough who just marginally typify the description of that generation. Of course this does not mean they are outliers, they simply fall into some other generational category.  I believe we can make some reasonable assumptions about the elements that once incorporated into instructional programs will reach every generation in their preferred learning style leaving no one outside the scope of education.

So what would a multi-generational learning plan look like? That’s going to need a well crafted visual. Stay tuned for Part II.

Scenarios Are Mini Dramas…Not a Glorified Q and A.

Contrary to many articles published lately, scenarios are not written questions with a supposition or proposition followed by questions. They are micro dramas that bring learners onto the screen and compel interaction. Once in, learner needs to work his way out.

One my mantras I have consistency followed is that elearning is an analogue to a television drama. Using this core belief, the components that make up a show can be modified to enhance, if not totally structure an online course experience. Too often, I visit learning that is frankly weak even if it has all the requisite objectives, structure, and guiding scaffold, e.g. ADDIE by example. Whether in Captivate, Articulate, or a full-blown Flash/HTML course too many learning experiences are dry to the mind, dull to the eye and dead to the ear. If this indicative of a general lack of imagination on the part of learning designers, ID’s or constraints place by clients it matters not. The results are courses that are outwardly pushed at learners rather than trying to entice learners and pull them in to the story.

In many examples of courseware, scenarios are one component of a learning experience. While there are many interpretations of the word, there are very few differences in how, as a learning technique, it has been applied. So let me tell you what I think a scenario isn’t:

  • Not a series of questions with multiple answers that try to engender thinking
  • Not a brief explanation of a situation and then questions that demonstrate the learner will know what to do
  • Not a grouping of pictures that ask the learner to choose which is the right answer, whether process, action or straight knowledge

A scenario is part of a longer story enriching the experience for learners by placing them inside the course as a full participant. It would be similar to jumping into a movie while it’s being shown and working your way out again by uttering a magic word. Only in the case of learning, it would mean meeting a challenge as a role player and by actions, words, and deeds, demonstrating competence in order to move ahead in the course. When used at its full strength, which I’ll explain next, it is almost in the realm of gamification; the hot thing in learning now.

The Elements of a Real Scenario
Let’s begin where we always should and that’s with the outcomes we are seeking; not just for the course, but for each scenario. It’s imperative to establish very specific outcomes and their key performance indicators (KPIs) in the design brief. The latter are necessary for evaluating variables like degree of success, number of attempts, quality of corrections and other metrics that will determine whether the actor can go on to the next scene or stay on for take 21.

Based on these outcomes we can now get creative by spinning a situation or state of being into which the learner will be placed. We will need a setting and/or space and the other actors in this little drama.

By example, we might start like this:

  1. Establishing a locale, setting or space
    Providing a visualization of a realistic environment is essential. This is the stage where the action takes place. In fact, consider more than one virtual space; activities amongst actors, like in a film rely on multiple sets to help tell and sell the story. Place your emphasis on detail. If you watch ‘Mad Men’ you’ll know the efforts Matthew Weiner goes to establish a real feel for the era by inhabiting a set that goes to the smallest detail; a stapler, pencils, clothes hooks…nothing is too small so the place rings true. You may not need to be that fanatic, but it’s a point to remember. Whether you use static images or illustrations, Flash or movies strive for reality.
  2. The actors in this drama must be typical so they can be instantly recognized as a ‘type’. No need to take this to extremes—not every CFO wears neither a three-piece suit nor every creative thick nerd glasses. But try to stick to type. And this goes for their speaking (VO or audio) which should use appropriate technical or professional speak…with some exceptions. When selling learning for example, resist putting abbreviations in a person’s mouth before it’s made clear. For instance, say ‘instructor led training’ before saying ILT.
  3. The action is moved by dialogue but it starts a problem that needs to be addressed. The best prologues have a sense of urgency and can be spoken by one or more persons. And be specific about stage directions as well. If you don’t know how to direct a camera or the proper terms than learn them. You are, remember writing a drama, and even if the budget won’t allow complete customization the many details can be established in less costly ways.
    • (CFO, Stephen, in his office speaking to his marketing manager) (CU – close up on his face)
      “Bob, we need to get our numbers up to meet projections and our sale people are not closing. I’ve spoke to Rona and she is meeting with her account execs today. What do you think about bringing in some training, live, virtual, or online? We have less than 60 days to turn this around.”
      (MS – medium shot where we see Bob gesturing towards Stephen)
      I agree we can’t let this slide. I’m actually sitting in on the meeting and I’ll drive the conversation in that direction. Frankly, I don’t know if our people are saying the right things about our products or their not selling right. But I’ll get back to you ASAP.

4. Making it real often depends on the media and budget. Another consideration is real estate; how many screens can be appropriated without intruding on time constraints.Here is the hierarchy of scenario media by cost:

  • Low Cost:
    Stock images with voice over. To make this work look for stock images that feature the same people in multiple poses. Moreover, make sure you use a variety of voices as well. All too often, a scenario becomes a simple narration of a scene. If the content would benefit from a narrator, ensure that voice is different from all the others. Also, you can drop actors into different backgrounds (settings, like above) using Photoshop to create a transparent background. Having a good ID with top-notch skills makes this a quick operation. Now you can place actors in the best possible office, or warehouse or field site and approximate reality. Lastly use special effects by moving people across the screen; even if it looks phony, it works
  • Medium Cost. Using an illustrator allows you to design any setting and any look for your actors. While pricier your work can begin to establish a branded look and feel and with voice over’s adding the final touch you can create a unique scenario
  • High Cost. There are stock video places where you might find enough content to tell a real story. However, this technique works best when combined with either of the other forms. Multiple media heightens interest and it compels learners to stay focused on the action.
  • Custom video. Clearly the most expensive but usually the most effective form of scenario building. Actually, you’d be making a small movie only interrupted by questions or other actions. You would design stops in the action and perhaps bring in a narrator, on screen, to describe the action to come or review what has just taken place. The learner relates to the narrator and welcomes him as a guide.
  • Multimedia. Mixing forms of media is very effective. Illustration that fades into actual images of the actors is very powerful, just as static images can turn into live action video. Any numbers of combinations are possible; just remember the objectives set forth in the design brief are the target—with apologies to Marshall McLuhan, the medium in not the message.

5. The basic rules of instructional design should include how to use images in scenarios. There are infinite options about how to place objects and people on the screen. Too often scenarios look like home movies with all the action taking place at the same distance from the screen. Everything is in the middle distance. How boring. Add vitality and interest by pushing faces right into the screen dominating the entire frame while other people or the background appears tiny behind the giant face. On the other hand, start a voice speaking before the person enters the picture; and bring an actor from way back into the foreground while talking to someone who is already in the picture. I can’t possibly go in to all the options but I’m sure you get the idea. Variety with a purpose should by your focus.

Bringing In the Learner
While scenarios are interesting and often entertaining, they are not passive. The best results are obtained through interactive elements. Most often, this works by stopping the action until the learner causes it to start again that results from their completion of specific actions.

Here’s a sample of actions:

  1. Selecting a physical action for the virtual you; go to this office; enter the shipping center, load the truck, inspect the device and ensure it is functioning
  2. Choosing the appropriate phrase, selling point, technical language or procedure
  3. Answering direct questions; correcting an erroneous response
  4. Participating in a discussion and offering a suggestion that brings consensus
  5. Completing a form or using an application correctly
  6. Following the next step in process

Scenarios are essentially rehearsals for real events and offer the practice needed to begin forming good habits. It follows that if the responses are correct, the scenario can move ahead. If wrong, the scenario can branch into a remedial loop where the concept(s) are explained using other examples or rationale. NOTE: If there are multiple correct responses, a scenario can have branches that extend the scenario along different paths too, like a game model.

Finally, the scenario continues until the objectives have been met. Managers depend on the structure of the scenario to know competence has been achieved when either multiple correct responses during the scenario have been achieved, or there is a final, summative problem the learner correctly completes. It is imperative learners take away the knowledge, skills and behaviors they need to be more effective in the workplace.

Too many volumes and guides teaching instructional design relegate scenarios to just another technique to be trotted out in a few circumstances. In actuality, the more dynamic and exciting the scenarios, and the more kinds offered, the more television-like the courseware becomes. And because this is two-way, participatory television it has all the components of good story telling with the participation of the learner as a primary actor. We know when learners interact in multiple ways their immediate understanding is high and the application of what was learned is used successfully on the job. That leads to performance improvement…and that is the ultimate goal of any learning system.