I began by seeing this article as a series of rather patronising statements of the obvious but ended up thinking that it does still offer some useful insights. Though there will not be much new knowledge for the experienced Learning & Development person, it does provide a checklist and some interesting pointers around the skills required for success.
The central argument is that the key skills required by the Learning & Development person are those of negotiation and collaboration with those in other functions. The authors break this down into a number of specific skill requirements, including listening and questioning skills, particularly when dealing with senior management who may not have thought through their needs as carefully as they should. In this case, knowledge of the company’s KPIs and their main drivers is critical. The authors emphasise the ability to challenge assumptions and dig deeper as being critical to success.
All this is perhaps rather obvious and could just as well apply to those in other business partnering roles. The more interesting success factor comes next; the ability to create and maintain good relationships with subject matter experts, both inside and outside the business. This requirement matches very much our own experiences when dealing with Learning & Development people around the development of finance and business programmes. Those where the conversations go well are those who have an excellent relationship with financial colleagues and either know enough about financial and business issues to hold their own or bring such colleagues into the discussions at an early stage.
There is also interesting coverage of the importance of external relationships with providers who provide specialist expertise, and the need for mutual trust. We may be biased in this respect but I know that we design and deliver much better programmes where this mutual trust exists and where there is an ongoing and balanced relationship. Where the relationship is transaction based and you are only as good as your last course, the commitment, challenge and strategic advice are all bound to be at a lower level.
The article closes by stressing the importance of fostering a learning culture over the long-term rather than just delivering training programmes. It is always interesting to see the response of Learning & Development professionals when we ask the question - what is your learning culture? The quality of the response and the insight provided is usually a good indication of the calibre of the Learning & Development professional.
Overall this is an article that will be more helpful for the person just entering Learning & Development but with a few thought-provoking insights for everyone.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-12-01-make-the-most-of-life-on-the-inside/
Thursday 16 December 2010
‘Make the most of life on the inside’ by Don Hutson and George Lucas, Training Journal, December 2010
‘A bumpy ride that’s far from over’ by Andrew Saunders, Management Today, December 2010
The ‘bumpy ride’ in the article’s title refers to the roller coaster environment that UK companies have been coping with over the last twelve months as they try to emerge from recession. As I reviewed the league table of admired companies looking for MTP clients, I saw that one company could claim to have been bumped more than any other; BP have dropped from 7th to 113th as a result of their problems in the Gulf.
Rankings of this kind are only valid if the methodology is rigorous and this survey seems at first sight to pass the test. The magazine works with Birmingham City Business School and the rankings are based on the votes of peer companies within each sector, combined with the views of City analysts. There were nine different criteria as follows:
- Quality of management
- Quality of goods and services
- Quality of marketing
- Ability to attract talent
- Value as an investment
- Community responsibility
- Financial Soundness
- Use of assets
- Capacity to innovate
It would have been good to know what the response rate was and who within the companies was making the ranking, but this information was not offered.
So the most admired company of all? This was MTP’s biggest and longest serving client, Unilever, rising from a position of 11th the previous year. It was a surprise to see Serco coming second as the service sectors in which they operate are not high profile and they are hardly a household name. Less surprising is Shell in third place. It is more useful to look for the big movers rather than the absolute positions and it was particularly interesting to see Barclays - regaining some of the banking sector’s lost reputation - and Ryanair moving to 32nd and 45th respectively, having been outside the top hundred last year. Surprising losers were Marks & Spencer, from 20th to 70th and GlaxoSmithKline from 5th to 37th.
Though it is great to see our biggest client as the most admired company, I found myself unconvinced of the purpose, despite the admirable attempts to arrive at a valid methodology. An examination of the separate criteria shows that it is possible to achieve a high position by being ‘OK’ in all nine areas without being number one in anything. Does this justify the title of being ‘the most admired company’? I was left wondering whether maybe this is just Management Today’s way of getting a few headlines and filling a few pages.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1042694/britains-admired-companies-bumpy-ride-thats-far-over/
Rankings of this kind are only valid if the methodology is rigorous and this survey seems at first sight to pass the test. The magazine works with Birmingham City Business School and the rankings are based on the votes of peer companies within each sector, combined with the views of City analysts. There were nine different criteria as follows:
- Quality of management
- Quality of goods and services
- Quality of marketing
- Ability to attract talent
- Value as an investment
- Community responsibility
- Financial Soundness
- Use of assets
- Capacity to innovate
It would have been good to know what the response rate was and who within the companies was making the ranking, but this information was not offered.
So the most admired company of all? This was MTP’s biggest and longest serving client, Unilever, rising from a position of 11th the previous year. It was a surprise to see Serco coming second as the service sectors in which they operate are not high profile and they are hardly a household name. Less surprising is Shell in third place. It is more useful to look for the big movers rather than the absolute positions and it was particularly interesting to see Barclays - regaining some of the banking sector’s lost reputation - and Ryanair moving to 32nd and 45th respectively, having been outside the top hundred last year. Surprising losers were Marks & Spencer, from 20th to 70th and GlaxoSmithKline from 5th to 37th.
Though it is great to see our biggest client as the most admired company, I found myself unconvinced of the purpose, despite the admirable attempts to arrive at a valid methodology. An examination of the separate criteria shows that it is possible to achieve a high position by being ‘OK’ in all nine areas without being number one in anything. Does this justify the title of being ‘the most admired company’? I was left wondering whether maybe this is just Management Today’s way of getting a few headlines and filling a few pages.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/features/1042694/britains-admired-companies-bumpy-ride-thats-far-over/
‘Learning difficulties’, Science and Technology section, Economist, October 14th 2010
This is the shortest article I have ever reviewed for the blog but one of the most surprising and counter-intuitive. Research at the highly respected Ivy League University of Princeton shows that the typeface used in printed material has a major impact on the student’s ability to learn.
In what seems to be a valid series of experiments with volunteers between the ages of 18 and 40, half were given material in an ‘easy to read’ font (actually Arial Black as used in the heading above) while the other half were given more ‘difficult to read’ fonts, more like the one being used here. The surprising result was that the retention of information was far better when the ‘difficult’ fonts were used.
There was also a follow up study with high school teachers and the results were confirmed; the more students have to struggle to read the words, the harder they work and the more they retain. The conclusion is that text books should be made harder to read if they are to be effective.
I was not entirely convinced of the general principle but can use this as a rationalisation of our long-standing use of Times New Roman, and our restriction of Arial Black to headings!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/17248892
In what seems to be a valid series of experiments with volunteers between the ages of 18 and 40, half were given material in an ‘easy to read’ font (actually Arial Black as used in the heading above) while the other half were given more ‘difficult to read’ fonts, more like the one being used here. The surprising result was that the retention of information was far better when the ‘difficult’ fonts were used.
There was also a follow up study with high school teachers and the results were confirmed; the more students have to struggle to read the words, the harder they work and the more they retain. The conclusion is that text books should be made harder to read if they are to be effective.
I was not entirely convinced of the general principle but can use this as a rationalisation of our long-standing use of Times New Roman, and our restriction of Arial Black to headings!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/17248892
‘The best business films never made’ by Amy Duff, Director, December 2010
This is a tongue in cheek article that is rather typical of the Director Magazine’s approach to business topics. It is however quite thought-provoking and entertaining to read and makes a nice follow up to my reviews of the theatre version of ‘Enron’ and of the recent film ‘Social Network’. These productions showed how real life stories of conflict in business can make great entertainment, though it has to be admitted that the Enron and Facebook stories have more dramatic features than most.
The article suggests ten possible stories ranging from Rupert Murdoch’s battle with the unions at Wapping to the rise, fall and rise of Steve Jobs at Apple. Because I cannot get enough of books about conflict and drama in business, I was left thinking that every one of the ten stories quoted would make a great film and why hasn’t it been done much more? The Saatchi Brothers losing control of the company they built, Gerald Ratner destroying his company’s value in one speech, Richard Branson taking on BA and winning most of the battles; these all seem sure-fire hits.
So why aren’t there more films about business? Maybe it’s because not everyone is as fascinated as me; maybe it’s because the laws of libel make it too risky (I still don’t know how they avoided litigation from Facebook); maybe it’s because the average filmgoer prefers fiction to fact. But the overall conclusion from this article is that business can produce compelling drama that is often stranger than fiction; and that we can always learn from the stories of success and failure.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2010/11_December/business-films_64_04.html
The article suggests ten possible stories ranging from Rupert Murdoch’s battle with the unions at Wapping to the rise, fall and rise of Steve Jobs at Apple. Because I cannot get enough of books about conflict and drama in business, I was left thinking that every one of the ten stories quoted would make a great film and why hasn’t it been done much more? The Saatchi Brothers losing control of the company they built, Gerald Ratner destroying his company’s value in one speech, Richard Branson taking on BA and winning most of the battles; these all seem sure-fire hits.
So why aren’t there more films about business? Maybe it’s because not everyone is as fascinated as me; maybe it’s because the laws of libel make it too risky (I still don’t know how they avoided litigation from Facebook); maybe it’s because the average filmgoer prefers fiction to fact. But the overall conclusion from this article is that business can produce compelling drama that is often stranger than fiction; and that we can always learn from the stories of success and failure.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2010/11_December/business-films_64_04.html
‘So far and yet so near’ by Glynis Rankin, Training Journal, October 2010
I chose this article because it combines two issues of great interest to MTP; the use of virtual classroom technology and the ongoing challenge of transferring learning into actions that add value.
The article starts off by quoting research by IMD in Lausanne that showed that, following business school executive education programmes, only 4% implemented the changes to which they had committed. Cynics might say ‘that high?’ and ask whether it is something to do with the academic approach and generic content of typical business school courses. But that would be to deny the fact that lack of learning transfer is a problem that we face for all learning programmes, however tailored and action focussed these may be.
The second part of the research is more interesting and surprising. The traditional excuse that this is due to an unsupportive work environment was not confirmed by the research; in fact only 3% suggested this as the main problem. The respondents seem to have been unusually perceptive and accountable; the most common cause was their own attitudes and resistance to change. The second most quoted cause was lack of time due to routine commitments.
The author then makes the big, and some might say self-serving, jump to offer coaching as the way in which these attitudes can be overcome. And not just coaching but remote, online coaching because of its greater practicality and cost effectiveness. I would have liked to see more justification for such a jump but can nevertheless see the potential benefits if competent coaches are available and, most crucially, participants buy into the idea. Certainly this is more likely if they have admitted that it is themselves rather than outside forces that are the reason for lack of follow through.
The article then goes on to suggest that, in some respects, online coaching is not only less costly, it also has benefits compared to ‘face to face’. There is the suggestion that managers will often be more open and less defensive when discussing failure to perform with a remote person online. One problem here is that no distinction is made between remote contact with a coach who is already known to the ‘coachee’ and someone that they have never met face to face. This relates to the other important issue; the credibility and knowledge of business context that can be demonstrated by the coach, which our experience suggests is critical to likely success.
Instead there is a lot of coverage of the importance of providing a robust coaching structure which seems to me less important that the personal dynamics of the two parties, which receives limited coverage. There is some discussion of whether visual contact through a webcam adds value and the importance of this being handled effectively, and the benefits of virtual classroom technology to share information on-line. Our experience of the technology for more formal sessions is that value of the former is questionable but the latter is important to success.
The article makes a convincing case for giving this idea a try, if there is a supportive culture and sufficient coaches available. If resources are a constraint, we would not confine this to ‘one to one’ contact; we see the potential for online review sessions in small groups where participants share progress with a coach or facilitator to support the process.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-10-01-so-far-and-yet-so-near/
The article starts off by quoting research by IMD in Lausanne that showed that, following business school executive education programmes, only 4% implemented the changes to which they had committed. Cynics might say ‘that high?’ and ask whether it is something to do with the academic approach and generic content of typical business school courses. But that would be to deny the fact that lack of learning transfer is a problem that we face for all learning programmes, however tailored and action focussed these may be.
The second part of the research is more interesting and surprising. The traditional excuse that this is due to an unsupportive work environment was not confirmed by the research; in fact only 3% suggested this as the main problem. The respondents seem to have been unusually perceptive and accountable; the most common cause was their own attitudes and resistance to change. The second most quoted cause was lack of time due to routine commitments.
The author then makes the big, and some might say self-serving, jump to offer coaching as the way in which these attitudes can be overcome. And not just coaching but remote, online coaching because of its greater practicality and cost effectiveness. I would have liked to see more justification for such a jump but can nevertheless see the potential benefits if competent coaches are available and, most crucially, participants buy into the idea. Certainly this is more likely if they have admitted that it is themselves rather than outside forces that are the reason for lack of follow through.
The article then goes on to suggest that, in some respects, online coaching is not only less costly, it also has benefits compared to ‘face to face’. There is the suggestion that managers will often be more open and less defensive when discussing failure to perform with a remote person online. One problem here is that no distinction is made between remote contact with a coach who is already known to the ‘coachee’ and someone that they have never met face to face. This relates to the other important issue; the credibility and knowledge of business context that can be demonstrated by the coach, which our experience suggests is critical to likely success.
Instead there is a lot of coverage of the importance of providing a robust coaching structure which seems to me less important that the personal dynamics of the two parties, which receives limited coverage. There is some discussion of whether visual contact through a webcam adds value and the importance of this being handled effectively, and the benefits of virtual classroom technology to share information on-line. Our experience of the technology for more formal sessions is that value of the former is questionable but the latter is important to success.
The article makes a convincing case for giving this idea a try, if there is a supportive culture and sufficient coaches available. If resources are a constraint, we would not confine this to ‘one to one’ contact; we see the potential for online review sessions in small groups where participants share progress with a coach or facilitator to support the process.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-10-01-so-far-and-yet-so-near/
The other side of innovation by Vijay Govindarajan and Chris Trimble, published by HBR
I decided to review this book after it was mentioned recently in the Schumpeter column in the Economist; the article suggested that this book contained some new thinking on innovation so it seemed worth pursuing. It also has the stamp of Harvard through its publishing division, though the authors are from the less prestigious Tuck School of Business.
Though the book makes a few interesting points, it is difficult to see it as breakthrough thinking. There is none of the challenge and original ideas of ‘Fast Second’ by Markides and Geroski which challenged the conventional view that there is always merit in first mover advantage. The central assumption of the book – that there is a fundamental difference between creativity and innovation – is hardly new and the book makes heavy weather of the fact that innovation is a journey that requires very different qualities, in particular discipline and persistence.
The authors’ view is that innovation requires a well selected team with a balance of qualities and that this team must operate apart from the ‘Performance Engine’ that drives day to day activities. The team has to have its own model and culture which stops it getting sucked into the ongoing routine, while still being able to work in partnership with the mainstream.
The book starts well and has good examples, though these are all big American companies which makes one doubt whether these principles would extend elsewhere; isn’t the book just telling you what has to be done to break down the resistance to change of US Corporations? The book also gets bogged down in too much jargon and theory in the middle when it talks at great length about ‘observations and recommendations’ of the team.
I did like the emphasis towards the end on the ‘search for truth’ - the removal of self-serving bias in innovation teams - because I have seen many examples of such bias causing projects to go on far longer than they should. I also liked the style - if not all the content - of the easy to read conclusion; ‘ten myths and truths about innovation’.
The last two of the ‘truths’ rather give away the bias that the authors are showing; ‘innovation must be closely and carefully managed’ and ‘many of the world’s biggest problems can be solved only by large, established corporations’. This is so out of step with the views of many other writers and so poorly justified by the research presented, that I ended up totally unconvinced.
Click here to buy the book.
Though the book makes a few interesting points, it is difficult to see it as breakthrough thinking. There is none of the challenge and original ideas of ‘Fast Second’ by Markides and Geroski which challenged the conventional view that there is always merit in first mover advantage. The central assumption of the book – that there is a fundamental difference between creativity and innovation – is hardly new and the book makes heavy weather of the fact that innovation is a journey that requires very different qualities, in particular discipline and persistence.
The authors’ view is that innovation requires a well selected team with a balance of qualities and that this team must operate apart from the ‘Performance Engine’ that drives day to day activities. The team has to have its own model and culture which stops it getting sucked into the ongoing routine, while still being able to work in partnership with the mainstream.
The book starts well and has good examples, though these are all big American companies which makes one doubt whether these principles would extend elsewhere; isn’t the book just telling you what has to be done to break down the resistance to change of US Corporations? The book also gets bogged down in too much jargon and theory in the middle when it talks at great length about ‘observations and recommendations’ of the team.
I did like the emphasis towards the end on the ‘search for truth’ - the removal of self-serving bias in innovation teams - because I have seen many examples of such bias causing projects to go on far longer than they should. I also liked the style - if not all the content - of the easy to read conclusion; ‘ten myths and truths about innovation’.
The last two of the ‘truths’ rather give away the bias that the authors are showing; ‘innovation must be closely and carefully managed’ and ‘many of the world’s biggest problems can be solved only by large, established corporations’. This is so out of step with the views of many other writers and so poorly justified by the research presented, that I ended up totally unconvinced.
Click here to buy the book.
‘Working Together’; why great partnerships succeed’ by Michael Eisner and Aaron Cohen, published by Harper Collins
This is another book mentioned in the Schumpeter column and I chose it for review because I had previously read about Eisner and his roller coaster career as CEO of Disney. The book is easy to read and the quality of the writing leads one to believe that maybe Eisner provides the name while Cohen does the work.
Yet despite the quality of the writing and the interesting stories of ten successful business partnerships, this comes over as a rather lazy book; one factor is that there is no index but more important is the lack of any ongoing theme or theory. Similar books have concluding chapters that provide insights but this is missing here, apart from a short and inconclusive epilogue which leaves you wanting more.
The book starts off with a description of Eisner’s own successful partnership with Frank Wells at Disney, ended by Wells’ tragic death in a helicopter crash. Eisner no doubt feels this loss even more strongly because it was the beginning of the end for him at Disney. He failed to create such a relationship with anyone else and famously fell out with Jeffrey Katzenberg, the genius behind Disney’s success who moved on to even greater fame and fortune with Dreamworks. This story does not mention what I remember from another book about Disney; how Eisner’s close relationship with Wells was one of the factors that drove a wedge between him and Katzenberg.
This first story rather sets the scene and makes you wonder if the other nine have also left out some of the negative aspects; it is an interesting collection over a range of different sectors but all are American based and there are relatively few household names. As I went through I tried to pick up some common factors and ongoing themes; it was interesting to me that more than half - including Eisner, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates - had one partner who was prepared to stand back and let the other partner take the limelight.
It is also true that every partnership achieved success, which is obviously likely to be the case from the title of the book. But just as - to quote an Australian cricket captain - ‘team spirit is something you say you have when you’re winning’, maybe great partnerships are maintained and perpetuated by the mutual joy of success. There are few examples in the book of coping with failure along the way so one wonders how these partnerships would have withstood the battering of adverse circumstances.
Two other factors that were mentioned but not sufficiently pursued were the importance of partners delivering different but compatible qualities to the table and the need for them to have similar moral values and ethical codes. Also obvious from the stories was the importance of personal chemistry which is probably the factor that overrides everything else. It certainly seemed to me that it was the single ongoing and consistent theme. But it would have been good if the writers had provided more help for readers to arrive at this conclusion.
Click here to buy the book
Yet despite the quality of the writing and the interesting stories of ten successful business partnerships, this comes over as a rather lazy book; one factor is that there is no index but more important is the lack of any ongoing theme or theory. Similar books have concluding chapters that provide insights but this is missing here, apart from a short and inconclusive epilogue which leaves you wanting more.
The book starts off with a description of Eisner’s own successful partnership with Frank Wells at Disney, ended by Wells’ tragic death in a helicopter crash. Eisner no doubt feels this loss even more strongly because it was the beginning of the end for him at Disney. He failed to create such a relationship with anyone else and famously fell out with Jeffrey Katzenberg, the genius behind Disney’s success who moved on to even greater fame and fortune with Dreamworks. This story does not mention what I remember from another book about Disney; how Eisner’s close relationship with Wells was one of the factors that drove a wedge between him and Katzenberg.
This first story rather sets the scene and makes you wonder if the other nine have also left out some of the negative aspects; it is an interesting collection over a range of different sectors but all are American based and there are relatively few household names. As I went through I tried to pick up some common factors and ongoing themes; it was interesting to me that more than half - including Eisner, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates - had one partner who was prepared to stand back and let the other partner take the limelight.
It is also true that every partnership achieved success, which is obviously likely to be the case from the title of the book. But just as - to quote an Australian cricket captain - ‘team spirit is something you say you have when you’re winning’, maybe great partnerships are maintained and perpetuated by the mutual joy of success. There are few examples in the book of coping with failure along the way so one wonders how these partnerships would have withstood the battering of adverse circumstances.
Two other factors that were mentioned but not sufficiently pursued were the importance of partners delivering different but compatible qualities to the table and the need for them to have similar moral values and ethical codes. Also obvious from the stories was the importance of personal chemistry which is probably the factor that overrides everything else. It certainly seemed to me that it was the single ongoing and consistent theme. But it would have been good if the writers had provided more help for readers to arrive at this conclusion.
Click here to buy the book
Tuesday 30 November 2010
Website Update
The MTP website has just been relaunched. Take a few moments to look around to see examples of the programmes we run for some of our long-standing clients such as BP and Unilever, an overview of the learning methods we employ, our latest events, publications and find out more about our tutors.
Tuesday 2 November 2010
Writing Training Products with Punch, by Rob Ashton, Training Journal, September 2010
I was drawn to this article because it is closely related to my current role at MTP - the production of learning material. Even though the writer is in the very different business of developing generic training products, many of the principles apply to the more interactive and tailored programmes that we design.
The article starts by providing a useful reminder of research findings that tie closely to the principles of programme design followed by MTP; it is suggested that learners only retain:
- 20% of what is heard
- 10% of what is read
- 70% of what is discussed with others and
- 80% of what is experienced
Having got off to such an excellent start, the author then slows things down by quoting some rather basic and obvious points about questions to be asked before material preparation is started. He also states a rather old fashioned opinion that early design preparation should be done ‘with pencil and paper’. Though this is a practice that I apply for certain types of preparation, I think that the younger generation, brought up on clipart and PowerPoint, may well have a different view.
Much of the rest of the article is confirmation of principles that many business writers would see as common sense, but which may be helpful for those with less experience. The author is in favour of bullet points in the right context but only in moderation; and, whilst he warns against too much jargon, he also makes the point that it can be used to advantage, to reinforce and show understanding of the learner’s familiar terminology.
The author also shares my preference for frequent subheadings and suggests snappy titles that make people want to read on. Though he quotes research evidence on the importance of visual appeal, he also makes it clear that this does not apply to everybody and that some learners will be more responsive to words and sounds.
There is more interesting research data which suggests a maximum sentence length of 34 words (must be careful to count!) but the author does not mention my own way of solving the length problem - the use of semi colons. (Sorry, that last sentence was over the limit). He also puts forward his own recommendation of one idea per sentence with a limit of 20 words, which seems to me to encourage too many short staccato sentences within a paragraph.
My own differing views perhaps illustrate the problem of being too prescriptive in this area; a lot depends on personal style, content and the nature of the audience. Also, despite the earlier reference to the research on learning retention, there is little mention in the article of the importance of interaction to learning design. Perhaps this is because the author specializes in the writing of ‘one-way’ material; however the fact remains that, if you believe his quoted research, only 10 per cent of what he writes is likely to be retained.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/writing-training-products-with-punch/
The article starts by providing a useful reminder of research findings that tie closely to the principles of programme design followed by MTP; it is suggested that learners only retain:
- 20% of what is heard
- 10% of what is read
- 70% of what is discussed with others and
- 80% of what is experienced
Having got off to such an excellent start, the author then slows things down by quoting some rather basic and obvious points about questions to be asked before material preparation is started. He also states a rather old fashioned opinion that early design preparation should be done ‘with pencil and paper’. Though this is a practice that I apply for certain types of preparation, I think that the younger generation, brought up on clipart and PowerPoint, may well have a different view.
Much of the rest of the article is confirmation of principles that many business writers would see as common sense, but which may be helpful for those with less experience. The author is in favour of bullet points in the right context but only in moderation; and, whilst he warns against too much jargon, he also makes the point that it can be used to advantage, to reinforce and show understanding of the learner’s familiar terminology.
The author also shares my preference for frequent subheadings and suggests snappy titles that make people want to read on. Though he quotes research evidence on the importance of visual appeal, he also makes it clear that this does not apply to everybody and that some learners will be more responsive to words and sounds.
There is more interesting research data which suggests a maximum sentence length of 34 words (must be careful to count!) but the author does not mention my own way of solving the length problem - the use of semi colons. (Sorry, that last sentence was over the limit). He also puts forward his own recommendation of one idea per sentence with a limit of 20 words, which seems to me to encourage too many short staccato sentences within a paragraph.
My own differing views perhaps illustrate the problem of being too prescriptive in this area; a lot depends on personal style, content and the nature of the audience. Also, despite the earlier reference to the research on learning retention, there is little mention in the article of the importance of interaction to learning design. Perhaps this is because the author specializes in the writing of ‘one-way’ material; however the fact remains that, if you believe his quoted research, only 10 per cent of what he writes is likely to be retained.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/writing-training-products-with-punch/
Schumpeter; Money and Power, Economist, 2nd October 2010
Again we find that this relatively new column in the Economist discusses a topical theme in a thought-provoking way. It makes the point that business people and business skills rarely transfer into the political and public service environment, whether it is the USA, UK or the rest of Europe.
The article starts by describing the most recent examples of business people going into politics, both female; Meg Whitman, founder of EBay and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard are both spending some of their fortunes on political ambition. Whitman is trying to displace Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and Fiorina to secure a Senate seat.
Schumpeter also quotes the UK’s new coalition government and their decision to bring in high profile figures like John Browne and Philip Green to work in government. However it is early days to evaluate these moves and it might have been more relevant to describe the failed transitions into politics of successful industrialists like Archie Norman and Digby Jones, who could not cope with - or tolerate - the very different pressures of political life.
The article confirms that, in general, the transfer of business skills to the public sector is not easy and should not be assumed. In the USA there have been a few honourable exceptions - Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York is mentioned - but many more failures, the most notable of whom were Paul O’Neill and Donald Rumsfeld from the Bush regime.
The reason for the majority of failures is that very different skills are required in the public sector environment; bosses tend to be more protected in the private sector and can make better use of their leadership charisma; also they are less constrained by regulation and employee resistance. Schumpeter argues that, rather than trying to make these difficult transfers, it would be better to make the public sector develop more choice and competition in its decision making. However, this begs the question - who else is likely to introduce these disciplines, apart from business managers?
As often happens with Economist articles, the reader is left wanting more and I would certainly have liked to explore the above question further. It would also have been interesting to explore whether, after the relative success in politics of Schwarzenegger, Heston and Reagan, could it be that the skills of a film actor are more transferable to politics than the skills of a business person?
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/17147638
The article starts by describing the most recent examples of business people going into politics, both female; Meg Whitman, founder of EBay and Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett Packard are both spending some of their fortunes on political ambition. Whitman is trying to displace Arnold Schwarzenegger as Governor of California and Fiorina to secure a Senate seat.
Schumpeter also quotes the UK’s new coalition government and their decision to bring in high profile figures like John Browne and Philip Green to work in government. However it is early days to evaluate these moves and it might have been more relevant to describe the failed transitions into politics of successful industrialists like Archie Norman and Digby Jones, who could not cope with - or tolerate - the very different pressures of political life.
The article confirms that, in general, the transfer of business skills to the public sector is not easy and should not be assumed. In the USA there have been a few honourable exceptions - Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York is mentioned - but many more failures, the most notable of whom were Paul O’Neill and Donald Rumsfeld from the Bush regime.
The reason for the majority of failures is that very different skills are required in the public sector environment; bosses tend to be more protected in the private sector and can make better use of their leadership charisma; also they are less constrained by regulation and employee resistance. Schumpeter argues that, rather than trying to make these difficult transfers, it would be better to make the public sector develop more choice and competition in its decision making. However, this begs the question - who else is likely to introduce these disciplines, apart from business managers?
As often happens with Economist articles, the reader is left wanting more and I would certainly have liked to explore the above question further. It would also have been interesting to explore whether, after the relative success in politics of Schwarzenegger, Heston and Reagan, could it be that the skills of a film actor are more transferable to politics than the skills of a business person?
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/17147638
Designing e-learning for business impact, by Lars Hyland, Training Journal, September 2010
This is an article that makes a number of good points but appears out of date in its thinking. It starts by a strong advocacy of e-learning as the way of achieving ‘productivity gains and tangible business improvement’ during these hard recessionary times. This seems to me to ignore an important point; that the recent development of live on-line sessions, led by a facilitator, can often provide more effective learning at lower cost than traditional - and less flexible - e-learning solutions.
The author has developed a rather clever pneumonic to describe his ‘IMPACT’ framework, though I confess to a certain suspicion of such convenient word matches. IMPACT stands for:
- Interaction
- Multimedia/Multimodal
- Personal
- Actionable
- Challenging
- Timing
It would certainly be difficult to disagree with any of these headings but the subsequent content of the article does not always match the chosen words. I certainly agree with his emphasis on interaction; there are still many e-learning packages that are merely ‘text on screen’ and add even less value than a text book. Multiple choice questions and short exercises are essential ingredients of effective e-learning, particularly in the areas of business and finance where we operate.
I was curious about the term ‘multimodal’ but it turns out to be another term for blended learning (perhaps this was rejected as there is no B in impact!). I would also like to have heard more about the practical implications of making learning ‘personal’; one of the limitations of the early e-learning packages was the need to make them generic, because of the high initial investment and the extra costs and complexity of tailoring. It would have been good to have the author’s views on the extent to which self-design packages like Adobe Presenter have solved this problem; our own concern is that these do not do much more than add voice and a limited quiz facility to PowerPoint slides.
Under the heading of Challenging it is suggested that too much e-learning is simplistic and does not challenge the learner. Whilst accepting that this is true in some cases, there are some advantages in ‘easy questions’, particularly during the early stages; it makes sense to start with some simple content to build up confidence and then gradually increase the challenge. There is as much danger in being too challenging and frightening the learner away, as there is in being too simplistic.
My final concern about the article is a weakness that is typical of those who write on this topic, a reluctance to accept that e-learning is better suited to some subjects than others. It is fine for knowledge-based topics with clear content and accepted right answers; it is less appropriate for skills based areas where experience and discussion are essential for learning. And blended solutions can be designed to integrate the different approaches into a coherent whole.
I guess that the kind of narrow, self-serving approach shown by this article is inevitable when magazines like the Training Journal accept contributions from those who are selling specific products. Though you can gain some insights from such articles, much more would be achieved if the publishers would look for more contributions from those who are at the user end of the market.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/designing-e-learning-for-business-impact/
The author has developed a rather clever pneumonic to describe his ‘IMPACT’ framework, though I confess to a certain suspicion of such convenient word matches. IMPACT stands for:
- Interaction
- Multimedia/Multimodal
- Personal
- Actionable
- Challenging
- Timing
It would certainly be difficult to disagree with any of these headings but the subsequent content of the article does not always match the chosen words. I certainly agree with his emphasis on interaction; there are still many e-learning packages that are merely ‘text on screen’ and add even less value than a text book. Multiple choice questions and short exercises are essential ingredients of effective e-learning, particularly in the areas of business and finance where we operate.
I was curious about the term ‘multimodal’ but it turns out to be another term for blended learning (perhaps this was rejected as there is no B in impact!). I would also like to have heard more about the practical implications of making learning ‘personal’; one of the limitations of the early e-learning packages was the need to make them generic, because of the high initial investment and the extra costs and complexity of tailoring. It would have been good to have the author’s views on the extent to which self-design packages like Adobe Presenter have solved this problem; our own concern is that these do not do much more than add voice and a limited quiz facility to PowerPoint slides.
Under the heading of Challenging it is suggested that too much e-learning is simplistic and does not challenge the learner. Whilst accepting that this is true in some cases, there are some advantages in ‘easy questions’, particularly during the early stages; it makes sense to start with some simple content to build up confidence and then gradually increase the challenge. There is as much danger in being too challenging and frightening the learner away, as there is in being too simplistic.
My final concern about the article is a weakness that is typical of those who write on this topic, a reluctance to accept that e-learning is better suited to some subjects than others. It is fine for knowledge-based topics with clear content and accepted right answers; it is less appropriate for skills based areas where experience and discussion are essential for learning. And blended solutions can be designed to integrate the different approaches into a coherent whole.
I guess that the kind of narrow, self-serving approach shown by this article is inevitable when magazines like the Training Journal accept contributions from those who are selling specific products. Though you can gain some insights from such articles, much more would be achieved if the publishers would look for more contributions from those who are at the user end of the market.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/designing-e-learning-for-business-impact/
‘Learning the hard way’ by Peter Bartram, Director, October 2010 and ‘Will an MBA keep your career buoyant?’ by Philip Delves Broughton, Management Today, October 2010.
These two magazines both included articles on the current state of the MBA and I am covering them both together. I suspect that their coverage of this topic is more about attracting advertising than increasing knowledge and both articles have elements of superficiality that are typical of these magazines’ contributions on learning and development. Nevertheless there are some interesting insights and recent statistics.
The Management Today article is much the better of the two, because it is written by someone who has an MBA from Harvard and has written a book and other articles on the topic, as covered in earlier blogs. Broughton makes the following points:
- The days of fat salaries and easy jobs for MBAs are over
- Employers are now looking for functional specialists rather than qualified generalists
- These trends have been made worse by the sullied reputation of the MBA following the recession; too many bankers and failed/crooked CEOs had those three letters after their names
- The result is that applications are well down and newly qualified MBAs - even from the top schools - are not finding it easy to get jobs
- Those taking an MBA to achieve a career switch from one sector or function to another are finding that this is not easy either
- Emerging markets provide the best opportunities; their economies are more buoyant and the MBA is more highly regarded
Many of the same points are made in the Director article and there are some specific statistics to confirm the downturn in MBA enrolments. It quotes some interesting and surprising research by ‘Beyond Grey Pinstripes’ which showed that only 5 UK schools were in the global top 100 and the highest was Nottingham University at 23 with London Business School trailing in the 90s. However a quick search showed me that Harvard and MIT were not even in the top 100, presumably because they did not respond to the researchers. It does the Director no credit to be publishing such superficial and misleading data.
This article also suggests that a major factor in the decline is major companies’ lack of willingness to invest in MBAs for existing managers, even though they may need that kind of broadening (an interesting statistic is that 60% of managers did not plan to be at that level and many are ‘reluctant’ and therefore unprepared for managerial life). However their employers are tending to prefer more tailored and targeted solutions, with on-line learning as the major growth area. Whether this can achieve the same benefits for a manager who needs to broaden horizons and enhance business acumen is not discussed. Our experience and strongly held view is that this is only possible from ‘face to face’ programmes or tutor-led virtual classroom sessions, not from conventional e-learning.
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2010/9_October/learning-the-hard-way_64_02.html/
The Management Today article is much the better of the two, because it is written by someone who has an MBA from Harvard and has written a book and other articles on the topic, as covered in earlier blogs. Broughton makes the following points:
- The days of fat salaries and easy jobs for MBAs are over
- Employers are now looking for functional specialists rather than qualified generalists
- These trends have been made worse by the sullied reputation of the MBA following the recession; too many bankers and failed/crooked CEOs had those three letters after their names
- The result is that applications are well down and newly qualified MBAs - even from the top schools - are not finding it easy to get jobs
- Those taking an MBA to achieve a career switch from one sector or function to another are finding that this is not easy either
- Emerging markets provide the best opportunities; their economies are more buoyant and the MBA is more highly regarded
Many of the same points are made in the Director article and there are some specific statistics to confirm the downturn in MBA enrolments. It quotes some interesting and surprising research by ‘Beyond Grey Pinstripes’ which showed that only 5 UK schools were in the global top 100 and the highest was Nottingham University at 23 with London Business School trailing in the 90s. However a quick search showed me that Harvard and MIT were not even in the top 100, presumably because they did not respond to the researchers. It does the Director no credit to be publishing such superficial and misleading data.
This article also suggests that a major factor in the decline is major companies’ lack of willingness to invest in MBAs for existing managers, even though they may need that kind of broadening (an interesting statistic is that 60% of managers did not plan to be at that level and many are ‘reluctant’ and therefore unprepared for managerial life). However their employers are tending to prefer more tailored and targeted solutions, with on-line learning as the major growth area. Whether this can achieve the same benefits for a manager who needs to broaden horizons and enhance business acumen is not discussed. Our experience and strongly held view is that this is only possible from ‘face to face’ programmes or tutor-led virtual classroom sessions, not from conventional e-learning.
Click here to read the articles in full;
http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2010/9_October/learning-the-hard-way_64_02.html/
‘Stress-test your strategy’; the seven questions to ask’, by Robert Simons, Harvard Business Review, November 2010
I was initially attracted to this article because it seemed to offer a practical approach to assessing strategy, which is quite unusual from a Harvard Professor. But I ended up disappointed and quite surprised that Harvard Business Review would publish something that was so lacking in academic rigour; anyone with business experience could develop a similar list of questions to test a strategy; the key issue is whether it can be justified compared to others.
The seven questions, each of which has to receive ‘clear, consistent answers’ are:
1. Who is your primary customer?
2. Are your core values prioritized between shareholders, employees or customers?
3. What critical performance variables are you tracking?
4. What strategic boundaries have you set?
5. How are you generating creative tension?
6. How committed are your employees to helping each other?
7. What strategic uncertainties keep you awake at night?
I am not suggesting that there won’t be some benefit from posing some of this rather random collection of questions but the author does not do enough to explain why he has chosen these rather the many others that could have been listed; none of the questions seem as fundamental as those asked by leading strategy gurus, like Levitt’s ‘what business are we in? or Hamel/Prahalad’s ‘what are our core competences?’. There is also no progression from one question to another and, in some cases, no convincing explanation of what the answers to the questions should be. The rather optimistic suggestion is that the very asking of the questions is enough.
As one would hope from a Harvard Professor, there are some interesting insights and examples to justify each question. But not all these examples are convincing, for instance the suggestion that McDonalds turned things round in 2003 because the new CEO asked question one and decided that the consumer (rather than the franchise owner) should be the primary focus. Or that Home Depot sold its wholesale business through asking the same question. Though there is clearly benefit from focusing effort and resources, it seems simplistic to suggest that top CEOs are incapable of managing the needs of more than one customer group.
Among the powerful points is the suggestion under question three that most companies have too many ‘KPIs’ and that this confuses management and diverts their attention. He also suggests under question four that it is vital to tell innovative people what they should NOT do so that there efforts are not wasted; he suggests that this is one of the secrets of Apple’s success since Steve Jobs returned.
Questions five and six are interesting in that there seems to be potential contradiction; five says that everyone should be competing with each other and looking to be top of the league whereas six says that everyone has to work together and show trust and flexibility. And question seven seems to be the strangest of them all; there is no argument to justify why losing sleep will test your strategy and what sort of answers should be forthcoming.
So, while any checklist of questions can be a helpful in developing a strategy, this one is unlikely to help companies who are looking for structure in their planning processes. Any group of academics or managers could come up with a similar or better list after an hour or so of brainstorming. But of course our efforts wouldn’t get into the Harvard Business Review!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/11/stress-test-your-strategy-the-7-questions-to-ask/ar/1
The seven questions, each of which has to receive ‘clear, consistent answers’ are:
1. Who is your primary customer?
2. Are your core values prioritized between shareholders, employees or customers?
3. What critical performance variables are you tracking?
4. What strategic boundaries have you set?
5. How are you generating creative tension?
6. How committed are your employees to helping each other?
7. What strategic uncertainties keep you awake at night?
I am not suggesting that there won’t be some benefit from posing some of this rather random collection of questions but the author does not do enough to explain why he has chosen these rather the many others that could have been listed; none of the questions seem as fundamental as those asked by leading strategy gurus, like Levitt’s ‘what business are we in? or Hamel/Prahalad’s ‘what are our core competences?’. There is also no progression from one question to another and, in some cases, no convincing explanation of what the answers to the questions should be. The rather optimistic suggestion is that the very asking of the questions is enough.
As one would hope from a Harvard Professor, there are some interesting insights and examples to justify each question. But not all these examples are convincing, for instance the suggestion that McDonalds turned things round in 2003 because the new CEO asked question one and decided that the consumer (rather than the franchise owner) should be the primary focus. Or that Home Depot sold its wholesale business through asking the same question. Though there is clearly benefit from focusing effort and resources, it seems simplistic to suggest that top CEOs are incapable of managing the needs of more than one customer group.
Among the powerful points is the suggestion under question three that most companies have too many ‘KPIs’ and that this confuses management and diverts their attention. He also suggests under question four that it is vital to tell innovative people what they should NOT do so that there efforts are not wasted; he suggests that this is one of the secrets of Apple’s success since Steve Jobs returned.
Questions five and six are interesting in that there seems to be potential contradiction; five says that everyone should be competing with each other and looking to be top of the league whereas six says that everyone has to work together and show trust and flexibility. And question seven seems to be the strangest of them all; there is no argument to justify why losing sleep will test your strategy and what sort of answers should be forthcoming.
So, while any checklist of questions can be a helpful in developing a strategy, this one is unlikely to help companies who are looking for structure in their planning processes. Any group of academics or managers could come up with a similar or better list after an hour or so of brainstorming. But of course our efforts wouldn’t get into the Harvard Business Review!
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/11/stress-test-your-strategy-the-7-questions-to-ask/ar/1
Wall Street 2 – Money Never Sleeps
I decided to watch the original Wall Street before seeing this film and I was surprisingly disappointed. It had its good moments but seemed long, dated and unrealistic, very different to how I remembered it. This may be because it is more than 20 years old but really good films tend not to feel dated, or at least you accept them as right for the period.
This lowered my expectations for the follow up but I was pleasantly surprised. Though the story line had elements of soap opera in it, the film was much more engaging than the original and, with a few exceptions, quite realistic for a film of its kind. And Michael Douglas was superb, acting his younger cast members off the screen and presenting – at least initially – a new and humbled Gordon Gekko, sobered by his years in jail. The opening scene where he collects his belongings – including a brick size mobile phone – on leaving prison and has no-one to meet him outside, is a masterpiece.
The setting for most of the film is the height of the financial crisis which Gekko, now earning his living as a hired speaker and business guru, has been forecasting for some time. The crisis meetings are portrayed very credibly except for the characterisation of one senior investment banker who seems about 100 years old and totally senile, yet is supposed to exert great influence over his younger colleagues. The early personal focus is on Gekko’s estranged daughter – the ubiquitous British Actress Carey Mulligan – and the attempts of her boyfriend to reconcile her with Gekko. The boyfriend is a successful investment banker whose firm is hit by the crisis and whose CEO throws himself under a train in a devastating but tastefully handled scene.
Eventually father and daughter get together and it turns out that Gekko has stashed away 100 million dollars which together they access in a Swiss bank account. There is a double twist at the end which stretches credibility to some extent, particularly when Gekko converts the 100 million into 1000 million within a few months and has investment bankers pleading to join his fund. But by that time you are hooked on Gekko and, largely due to Douglas’s brilliant performance, disbelief is suspended.
It would be good to think that there could be a Wall Street 3 but that is probably the last thing on Michael Douglas’s mind right now. Any future film from this outstanding actor will be a bonus.
This lowered my expectations for the follow up but I was pleasantly surprised. Though the story line had elements of soap opera in it, the film was much more engaging than the original and, with a few exceptions, quite realistic for a film of its kind. And Michael Douglas was superb, acting his younger cast members off the screen and presenting – at least initially – a new and humbled Gordon Gekko, sobered by his years in jail. The opening scene where he collects his belongings – including a brick size mobile phone – on leaving prison and has no-one to meet him outside, is a masterpiece.
The setting for most of the film is the height of the financial crisis which Gekko, now earning his living as a hired speaker and business guru, has been forecasting for some time. The crisis meetings are portrayed very credibly except for the characterisation of one senior investment banker who seems about 100 years old and totally senile, yet is supposed to exert great influence over his younger colleagues. The early personal focus is on Gekko’s estranged daughter – the ubiquitous British Actress Carey Mulligan – and the attempts of her boyfriend to reconcile her with Gekko. The boyfriend is a successful investment banker whose firm is hit by the crisis and whose CEO throws himself under a train in a devastating but tastefully handled scene.
Eventually father and daughter get together and it turns out that Gekko has stashed away 100 million dollars which together they access in a Swiss bank account. There is a double twist at the end which stretches credibility to some extent, particularly when Gekko converts the 100 million into 1000 million within a few months and has investment bankers pleading to join his fund. But by that time you are hooked on Gekko and, largely due to Douglas’s brilliant performance, disbelief is suspended.
It would be good to think that there could be a Wall Street 3 but that is probably the last thing on Michael Douglas’s mind right now. Any future film from this outstanding actor will be a bonus.
Social Network
I started with a positive attitude towards this film, having read the book on which it was based. Often the film does not match the book that has been read before but in this case it was even better. It is highly enjoyable, even though it is has a number of dark settings and every character turns out to be completely unlovable. You end up thinking that they all deserve each other.
The story revolves around the founding of Facebook and the legal wrangles that took place following the early development of the concept at Harvard University. The founder Mark Zuckerberg is accused of stealing the idea from the Winklevoss twins who hired him to programme their similar concept. The scene where the twins visit the President of Harvard to complain about Zuckerberg’s ethics is a great piece of cinema and worth the entrance fee on its own. Another great scene is where Zuckerberg is interrogated by the twins’ lawyer and raises arrogance to new heights. (‘Are you giving me your full attention Mr Zuckerberg? I’m under oath to tell the truth so the answer is no’)
Zuckerberg then (allegedly - how do they avoid libel suits from this kind of film?) double crosses the partner who has funded the early investment and goes off to California where he hooks up with Sean Parker, the founder of Napster and the only person who Zuckerberg seems to rate and respect. Parker is played by Justin Timberlake whose performance proves to be a rare example of a singer who is an even better actor.
In the end everyone ends up rich but also seemingly unhappy with life, which perhaps sends a message to us all. The film does not take us beyond the first year of Facebook’s life and you wonder how Zuckerberg feels now, as the owner of a billion dollar business and one of the world’s best known brands. It cries out for a sequel but I suspect that it will not be allowed to happen.
Altogether this is an excellent film, also enjoyed by my wife, daughter and granddaughter, which says something for its wide appeal.
The story revolves around the founding of Facebook and the legal wrangles that took place following the early development of the concept at Harvard University. The founder Mark Zuckerberg is accused of stealing the idea from the Winklevoss twins who hired him to programme their similar concept. The scene where the twins visit the President of Harvard to complain about Zuckerberg’s ethics is a great piece of cinema and worth the entrance fee on its own. Another great scene is where Zuckerberg is interrogated by the twins’ lawyer and raises arrogance to new heights. (‘Are you giving me your full attention Mr Zuckerberg? I’m under oath to tell the truth so the answer is no’)
Zuckerberg then (allegedly - how do they avoid libel suits from this kind of film?) double crosses the partner who has funded the early investment and goes off to California where he hooks up with Sean Parker, the founder of Napster and the only person who Zuckerberg seems to rate and respect. Parker is played by Justin Timberlake whose performance proves to be a rare example of a singer who is an even better actor.
In the end everyone ends up rich but also seemingly unhappy with life, which perhaps sends a message to us all. The film does not take us beyond the first year of Facebook’s life and you wonder how Zuckerberg feels now, as the owner of a billion dollar business and one of the world’s best known brands. It cries out for a sequel but I suspect that it will not be allowed to happen.
Altogether this is an excellent film, also enjoyed by my wife, daughter and granddaughter, which says something for its wide appeal.
Tuesday 31 August 2010
‘A post crisis case study’, Schumpeter column, Economist, July 31st 2010
Like most of Schumpeter’s weekly contributions this article is insightful and topical. The focus of the article is the appointment of a new Dean of Harvard Business School - Nitin Nohria – who will be the first non-American to take that role. Anyone who has worked in academia will find it worth reading just for the quote attributed to Henry Kissinger - that ‘academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small’.
However the stakes are not small at Harvard because it is such a well known brand and a powerhouse of business education; apparently four fifths of the world’s case study material comes from Harvard. This claimed proportion presumably refers to what has been published for general use and excludes all the tailored adaptations of the case study method that are a feature of many in-company programmes.
Harvard has taken a battering during the last few years for two reasons. First because so many of the villains of corporate collapses and the financial crisis were Harvard men (yes, men) and second because many case studies and Harvard Business Review articles praised those who caused the problems, with Enron as the most high profile example.
Nohria’s position as a non-American is regarded as a symbol of Harvard’s desire to change though the fact that he is an academic and Harvard insider may work the other way. He clearly accepts that there are problems of reputation as he talks about a period of ‘extraordinary innovation’ which he sees as necessary to bring things back on track. It seems that his strong belief that management should be more of profession – see review below – will be part of this push for innovation, a way of ensuring a more ethical approach. Schumpeter’s view – which I tend to share - is that this will be more likely to hold him back.
It is Nohria’s desire to make Harvard more international in its approach that is more likely to make his reputation. He also wishes to change the case study method to be more practical, focussing on current real life issues rather than being rationalisations of past successes and failures. The problem for Harvard however is that this is only copying what some other Schools – particularly those in Europe – have already been doing for some time; Schumpeter might also have mentioned that Learning & Development specialists in many top companies have also been operating this way on internal programmes for some time.
The article predicts that, despite the appointment of a non-American, Harvard will find it tough to stay on top of business education during the 21st century. It is hard to disagree.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/16691433
However the stakes are not small at Harvard because it is such a well known brand and a powerhouse of business education; apparently four fifths of the world’s case study material comes from Harvard. This claimed proportion presumably refers to what has been published for general use and excludes all the tailored adaptations of the case study method that are a feature of many in-company programmes.
Harvard has taken a battering during the last few years for two reasons. First because so many of the villains of corporate collapses and the financial crisis were Harvard men (yes, men) and second because many case studies and Harvard Business Review articles praised those who caused the problems, with Enron as the most high profile example.
Nohria’s position as a non-American is regarded as a symbol of Harvard’s desire to change though the fact that he is an academic and Harvard insider may work the other way. He clearly accepts that there are problems of reputation as he talks about a period of ‘extraordinary innovation’ which he sees as necessary to bring things back on track. It seems that his strong belief that management should be more of profession – see review below – will be part of this push for innovation, a way of ensuring a more ethical approach. Schumpeter’s view – which I tend to share - is that this will be more likely to hold him back.
It is Nohria’s desire to make Harvard more international in its approach that is more likely to make his reputation. He also wishes to change the case study method to be more practical, focussing on current real life issues rather than being rationalisations of past successes and failures. The problem for Harvard however is that this is only copying what some other Schools – particularly those in Europe – have already been doing for some time; Schumpeter might also have mentioned that Learning & Development specialists in many top companies have also been operating this way on internal programmes for some time.
The article predicts that, despite the appointment of a non-American, Harvard will find it tough to stay on top of business education during the 21st century. It is hard to disagree.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.economist.com/node/16691433
‘Putting a value on training’ by Jenny Cermak and Monica McGurk, McKinsey Quarterly, March 2010
I have not featured McKinsey’s respected publication before because it is unusual for their topics to include anything connected with management learning. Evaluation of training is a topic that I always try to feature because so many Learning & Development professionals are grappling with the issue. However, I have to confess that, because of the superficial nature of many of the articles on the topic, my enthusiasm and belief in this ‘holy grail’ is waning. This article did not do much to restore my faith.
The article starts promisingly by quoting some statistics from McKinsey’s research; that only 25% of companies believe that their training programmes increase performance in measurable ways and only 8% track ROI. My initial reaction was that, based on our own experiences, the level of 8% seems high, assuming that we are talking about a quantified financial calculation. On the other hand the 25% seems low because most companies believe in what they are doing, however difficult it may be to justify and quantify.
It was disappointing that the main case study of the article is based on a not for profit organisation – the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. This is not to suggest that such organisations do not have good management practices that we can learn from; it is just that you would have expected a consultancy with the reputation of McKinsey to produce an example from one of the world’s top companies.
As is usually the case with evaluation projects, the starting point was good and the intentions sound. They developed a training program for their local leaders following a 360 degree assessment of each person’s performance. They then used regression analysis to produce correlations between each leader’s 360 result and the KPIs used to measure their performance. This resulted in four key areas being isolated as fundamental to success and therefore the main topics of a leadership development programme.
I would like to have learnt more about the methodology of this analysis but at least it showed that the starting point was sound and that there were clear measurable objectives, always the necessary basis for any measurement process. However, it is the post programme measurement that is the difficult bit and this was less convincing.
The authors state that the next stage was ‘straightforward’ – which worried me a great deal because evaluating training is never straightforward – and involved ‘comparison of pre and post training results’. However they were very vague about how this crucial process was carried out. They looked to measure improvement in the relevant KPIs but they inevitably came up against the classic question; what other factors could have had an impact on performance improvement? They claim to have compared the post training results against a ‘control set of organisations’ which had similar characteristics but which had not gone through the training; they also factored in the ‘impact of external factors’. Finally they used interviews to make more qualitative assessments of behaviour changes.
Apart from a feeling that the authors were glossing over a highly complex process, I also began to wonder about the cost of the evaluation process itself and how this could be justified by the benefits. As is usually the case with attempts at evaluation, there is an assumption that it is an end in itself, with little attention to what will be done with the results once they have been evaluated.. The claimed outcome was that the ROI showed a return that was four times the investment but would this knowledge justify the time and cost of the process?
One interesting and positive feature of McKinsey articles is that they show on their website the feedback from readers, both favourable and otherwise. The responses generally shared my reservations and there was criticism of the ‘dated’ approach of talking about training rather than learning. One comment was, I thought, quite profound and applicable to many companies who do not think through a learning strategy; ‘Management is ready to spend millions on training but is not able to give its time’ …
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Talent/Putting_a_value_on_training_2634?gp=1#
The article starts promisingly by quoting some statistics from McKinsey’s research; that only 25% of companies believe that their training programmes increase performance in measurable ways and only 8% track ROI. My initial reaction was that, based on our own experiences, the level of 8% seems high, assuming that we are talking about a quantified financial calculation. On the other hand the 25% seems low because most companies believe in what they are doing, however difficult it may be to justify and quantify.
It was disappointing that the main case study of the article is based on a not for profit organisation – the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. This is not to suggest that such organisations do not have good management practices that we can learn from; it is just that you would have expected a consultancy with the reputation of McKinsey to produce an example from one of the world’s top companies.
As is usually the case with evaluation projects, the starting point was good and the intentions sound. They developed a training program for their local leaders following a 360 degree assessment of each person’s performance. They then used regression analysis to produce correlations between each leader’s 360 result and the KPIs used to measure their performance. This resulted in four key areas being isolated as fundamental to success and therefore the main topics of a leadership development programme.
I would like to have learnt more about the methodology of this analysis but at least it showed that the starting point was sound and that there were clear measurable objectives, always the necessary basis for any measurement process. However, it is the post programme measurement that is the difficult bit and this was less convincing.
The authors state that the next stage was ‘straightforward’ – which worried me a great deal because evaluating training is never straightforward – and involved ‘comparison of pre and post training results’. However they were very vague about how this crucial process was carried out. They looked to measure improvement in the relevant KPIs but they inevitably came up against the classic question; what other factors could have had an impact on performance improvement? They claim to have compared the post training results against a ‘control set of organisations’ which had similar characteristics but which had not gone through the training; they also factored in the ‘impact of external factors’. Finally they used interviews to make more qualitative assessments of behaviour changes.
Apart from a feeling that the authors were glossing over a highly complex process, I also began to wonder about the cost of the evaluation process itself and how this could be justified by the benefits. As is usually the case with attempts at evaluation, there is an assumption that it is an end in itself, with little attention to what will be done with the results once they have been evaluated.. The claimed outcome was that the ROI showed a return that was four times the investment but would this knowledge justify the time and cost of the process?
One interesting and positive feature of McKinsey articles is that they show on their website the feedback from readers, both favourable and otherwise. The responses generally shared my reservations and there was criticism of the ‘dated’ approach of talking about training rather than learning. One comment was, I thought, quite profound and applicable to many companies who do not think through a learning strategy; ‘Management is ready to spend millions on training but is not able to give its time’ …
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Organization/Talent/Putting_a_value_on_training_2634?gp=1#
‘No. management is not a profession’ by Richard Barker, Harvard Business Review, July- August 2010
It is interesting that, soon after the appointment of a new Dean who is a leading advocate of management as a profession, the Harvard Business Review should publish an outspoken and convincing article arguing strongly the other way; perhaps an example of vicious academic politics!
The author is a professor of Cambridge’s Judge Business School and argues that this move is a misguided attempt to develop a more ethical approach following the scandals of recent years. He suggests that the Harvard Business Review article that started the debate (by Nohria and Rakesh Khurana, another Harvard professor) is based on a misunderstanding of the differences between management and more conventional professions like law or medicine. Barker’s view is that the key difference is that management is more about the skills of integration; there is not a clear body of knowledge that needs to be acquired and certified. Learning about management is about broader experiences and this is what business educators should by trying to replicate.
He further argues that management does not have a clear code of ethics like other professions and, even if Harvard or any other body tried to develop one, there would be no means of enforcement. Ethics is rightly part of the management curriculum but has to be in context of each country and organisation; it cannot be taught in the same way as it can with the professions.
The further implication of these arguments is that business schools do themselves no favours by pretending that they can ‘qualify’ to be a manager by obtaining an MBA or attending a course. The message should instead be that management expertise requires lifelong learning and that business schools should look to position themselves as long-term learning partners rather than a ‘one stop certification shop’. They provide experiences and guidance which equip managers to deal with diverse environments; they are ‘incubators for business leadership’ rather than professional schools.
I found this argument convincing and it could be taken it even further. You could argue that this principle throws into question the effectiveness of all the generic, open enrolment programmes that business schools still see as their main foundation, particularly for those at an early career stage with limited experience to share. But I am sure that the author would not go that far and, taking a balanced view, neither would I; there will always be benefit from managers from different businesses learning and sharing together, as long as it is not seen as the only way.
The article is one sided but well-argued and after reading it, I am even more convinced that the move to professionalize management is doomed to fail. Even if the arguments were sound, Harvard and other advocates would have to decide how to set up the qualification process and everything that goes with it, and academic politics would raise its ugly head. Harvard’s rivals are hardly likely to let it lead the way and this article gives a flavour of the likely resistance. My advice to Harvard’s new Dean would be to leave this one alone and focus on the many other challenges of the post recession business environment.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/07/the-big-idea-no-management-is-not-a-profession/ar/1
The author is a professor of Cambridge’s Judge Business School and argues that this move is a misguided attempt to develop a more ethical approach following the scandals of recent years. He suggests that the Harvard Business Review article that started the debate (by Nohria and Rakesh Khurana, another Harvard professor) is based on a misunderstanding of the differences between management and more conventional professions like law or medicine. Barker’s view is that the key difference is that management is more about the skills of integration; there is not a clear body of knowledge that needs to be acquired and certified. Learning about management is about broader experiences and this is what business educators should by trying to replicate.
He further argues that management does not have a clear code of ethics like other professions and, even if Harvard or any other body tried to develop one, there would be no means of enforcement. Ethics is rightly part of the management curriculum but has to be in context of each country and organisation; it cannot be taught in the same way as it can with the professions.
The further implication of these arguments is that business schools do themselves no favours by pretending that they can ‘qualify’ to be a manager by obtaining an MBA or attending a course. The message should instead be that management expertise requires lifelong learning and that business schools should look to position themselves as long-term learning partners rather than a ‘one stop certification shop’. They provide experiences and guidance which equip managers to deal with diverse environments; they are ‘incubators for business leadership’ rather than professional schools.
I found this argument convincing and it could be taken it even further. You could argue that this principle throws into question the effectiveness of all the generic, open enrolment programmes that business schools still see as their main foundation, particularly for those at an early career stage with limited experience to share. But I am sure that the author would not go that far and, taking a balanced view, neither would I; there will always be benefit from managers from different businesses learning and sharing together, as long as it is not seen as the only way.
The article is one sided but well-argued and after reading it, I am even more convinced that the move to professionalize management is doomed to fail. Even if the arguments were sound, Harvard and other advocates would have to decide how to set up the qualification process and everything that goes with it, and academic politics would raise its ugly head. Harvard’s rivals are hardly likely to let it lead the way and this article gives a flavour of the likely resistance. My advice to Harvard’s new Dean would be to leave this one alone and focus on the many other challenges of the post recession business environment.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/07/the-big-idea-no-management-is-not-a-profession/ar/1
‘The Decision Driven Organisation’ by Marcia Blenko, Michael Mankins and Paul Rogers, Harvard Business Review, June 2010
We brought this article forward from the last blog because we were then reviewing other articles from Harvard Business Review. As the authors are from Bain and Company, a leading strategy consultancy, we thought that their views should be worth sharing, particularly if the Harvard Business Review has agreed to publish.
The message of the article is powerful; when companies are looking to improve performance, particularly after the appointment of a new CEO, the temptation is to see reorganisation as the answer, without fully considering the decision making processes within the company. Such reorganisations are therefore often based on a superficial assessment of processes and people and can become turf battles rather than the basis for improvement.
Bain’s research shows that the main factor in driving performance is effectiveness in decision making and that changes to structure have little or nothing to do with it. I would like to have known more about the methodology of the research because it seemed to be based on executives’ subjective perceptions about the effectiveness of decisions and structure, which could well be influenced by the questions asked and the scoring system used.
Much more convincing are the examples of top company applications of the principles, though recent problems at Ford and BP causes one to have a few doubts about their inclusion. Ford’s CEO made as a first stage in his 2006 reorganisation the examination of the decisions that were critical to turning around the slide in market share. British Gas assessed the decisions in their various segments that created the most value and created structures that allowed such decisions to be taken effectively. Bain argue that, in addition to assessing value, it is also important to distinguish between different timescales, separating the one-off major investment decisions from the day to day judgments that need quick and flexible responses.
The BP case study was different and shows the other side of Tony Hayward, their recently resigned CEO. When he took over the job he found highly complex structures that had built up over the years as a result of numerous acquisitions and reorganisations. He led a simplification process based on removing layers of middle management and ‘returning decision rights’ to the appropriate people. This also had the benefit of reducing overheads by a third. Bain do not mention their involvement directly (because it is an Harvard Business Review article after all) but one assumes that their consultants supported this initiative, and no doubt contributed to the overheads that year!
Bain include in the article a short questionnaire that allows readers to assess their own decision processes with 10 questions ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, for example, ‘our leaders at all levels consistently demonstrate effective decision behaviours’. I was left wondering how many people would indicate ‘Strongly Agree’ or even ‘Agree’ to that proposition, unless they were wearing rose coloured spectacles about their fellow managers. It seems to me that such questions are meaningless without some kind of benchmark and its inclusion did not increase my faith in their research.
Nevertheless the article is worth reading by anyone who is interested in strategy and its link to performance. The message that ill-considered restructuring is not likely to improve performance is a powerful one that newly appointed senior managers would do well to follow.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/06/the-decision-driven-organization/ar/1
The message of the article is powerful; when companies are looking to improve performance, particularly after the appointment of a new CEO, the temptation is to see reorganisation as the answer, without fully considering the decision making processes within the company. Such reorganisations are therefore often based on a superficial assessment of processes and people and can become turf battles rather than the basis for improvement.
Bain’s research shows that the main factor in driving performance is effectiveness in decision making and that changes to structure have little or nothing to do with it. I would like to have known more about the methodology of the research because it seemed to be based on executives’ subjective perceptions about the effectiveness of decisions and structure, which could well be influenced by the questions asked and the scoring system used.
Much more convincing are the examples of top company applications of the principles, though recent problems at Ford and BP causes one to have a few doubts about their inclusion. Ford’s CEO made as a first stage in his 2006 reorganisation the examination of the decisions that were critical to turning around the slide in market share. British Gas assessed the decisions in their various segments that created the most value and created structures that allowed such decisions to be taken effectively. Bain argue that, in addition to assessing value, it is also important to distinguish between different timescales, separating the one-off major investment decisions from the day to day judgments that need quick and flexible responses.
The BP case study was different and shows the other side of Tony Hayward, their recently resigned CEO. When he took over the job he found highly complex structures that had built up over the years as a result of numerous acquisitions and reorganisations. He led a simplification process based on removing layers of middle management and ‘returning decision rights’ to the appropriate people. This also had the benefit of reducing overheads by a third. Bain do not mention their involvement directly (because it is an Harvard Business Review article after all) but one assumes that their consultants supported this initiative, and no doubt contributed to the overheads that year!
Bain include in the article a short questionnaire that allows readers to assess their own decision processes with 10 questions ranked on a scale of 1 to 4, for example, ‘our leaders at all levels consistently demonstrate effective decision behaviours’. I was left wondering how many people would indicate ‘Strongly Agree’ or even ‘Agree’ to that proposition, unless they were wearing rose coloured spectacles about their fellow managers. It seems to me that such questions are meaningless without some kind of benchmark and its inclusion did not increase my faith in their research.
Nevertheless the article is worth reading by anyone who is interested in strategy and its link to performance. The message that ill-considered restructuring is not likely to improve performance is a powerful one that newly appointed senior managers would do well to follow.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://hbr.org/2010/06/the-decision-driven-organization/ar/1
‘Ten out of ten or could do better?’ by David Freedman, Training Journal, August 2010
This article is one of the best I have seen in the area of virtual learning, mainly because it doesn’t focus on the technology but looks at the way that learning takes place. It is a welcome contrast to another article on the same topic in the same edition (‘Technology aiding better training’ by Eddie Kilkelly).
Perhaps the reason why I appreciate the article so much is because it is in harmony with MTP’s own views and experiences as we have moved some of our programmes to virtual delivery. We were initially sceptical about the extent to which we could bring the features of ‘face to face’ programmes into a virtual environment but soon became convinced that you can achieve most of the same benefits; this article goes even further by claiming that virtual learning even has other advantages, apart from avoiding travel and associated costs.
The author, David Freedman, is the Sales Director of Huthwaite International and his specialisation is sales training and negotiation, which one might think is an unlikely candidate to be in the vanguard of virtual training. He challenges this perception by stating that it is no longer valid to think of on-line learning being confined to the ‘push’ style of training, where knowledge is communicated one way to unseen audiences. This mindset has been changed by the potential of virtual classroom technology to allow high levels of interaction.
There are occasions when the author’s evangelism for virtual learning goes a little over the top. For instance he suggests that there are benefits from avoiding the social interactions of conventional courses and that carrying out role plays with audio only is better because it allows you to discount the distraction of body language. At MTP we would not go that far but we would agree that role plays that reproduce ‘meetings’ by conference call are not only highly effective but are in line with the way that business is moving.
Much else of what the author says is common sense and in line with our own experiences. He is very strong on a principle which is often difficult to communicate to those who are in the traditional e-learning mindset; that for interactive virtual programmes you need small numbers to allow effective interaction. We would normally go a little higher than the 8 to 12 range that is suggested but that may reflect the different topics we cover.
The other important principle that is not always recognised is that, for effective virtual training, the facilitator needs the same design and delivery skills as face to face, and more. Facilitators must not get sucked into being technology driven; they must always think of the participants and their learning environment. You do not have the benefit of seeing when you are losing participants’ engagement; you have to develop new skills to ensure that they are fully engaged and have not started checking emails or succumbing to other distractions.
Our views on maximum duration are also similar. We started by accepting the conventional wisdom that 60 to 90 minutes is the maximum for a single virtual module but we have found that, with the right design and interaction, four hour sessions are possible. Huthwaite suggest a structure of four hour blocks on successive mornings over a week, which is very similar to the design that has worked well for our Business Acumen programme for Hewlett Packard.
The other area in which we are in harmony is cost; the author argues that interactive virtual training should cost no less than face to face, apart from the savings on travel and accommodation. We would agree with one proviso; if two sessions can be organised on the same day with the same facilitator – for instance in different time zones – this can justify a lower cost than face to face, and even higher value.
The author suggests that a new mindset is necessary to change perceptions and make Learning & Development specialists see that interactive virtual training is much closer to face to face training than it is to conventional e-learning. The messages in this excellent article are just what is required to make the change.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-08-01-ten-out-of-ten-or-could-do-better
Perhaps the reason why I appreciate the article so much is because it is in harmony with MTP’s own views and experiences as we have moved some of our programmes to virtual delivery. We were initially sceptical about the extent to which we could bring the features of ‘face to face’ programmes into a virtual environment but soon became convinced that you can achieve most of the same benefits; this article goes even further by claiming that virtual learning even has other advantages, apart from avoiding travel and associated costs.
The author, David Freedman, is the Sales Director of Huthwaite International and his specialisation is sales training and negotiation, which one might think is an unlikely candidate to be in the vanguard of virtual training. He challenges this perception by stating that it is no longer valid to think of on-line learning being confined to the ‘push’ style of training, where knowledge is communicated one way to unseen audiences. This mindset has been changed by the potential of virtual classroom technology to allow high levels of interaction.
There are occasions when the author’s evangelism for virtual learning goes a little over the top. For instance he suggests that there are benefits from avoiding the social interactions of conventional courses and that carrying out role plays with audio only is better because it allows you to discount the distraction of body language. At MTP we would not go that far but we would agree that role plays that reproduce ‘meetings’ by conference call are not only highly effective but are in line with the way that business is moving.
Much else of what the author says is common sense and in line with our own experiences. He is very strong on a principle which is often difficult to communicate to those who are in the traditional e-learning mindset; that for interactive virtual programmes you need small numbers to allow effective interaction. We would normally go a little higher than the 8 to 12 range that is suggested but that may reflect the different topics we cover.
The other important principle that is not always recognised is that, for effective virtual training, the facilitator needs the same design and delivery skills as face to face, and more. Facilitators must not get sucked into being technology driven; they must always think of the participants and their learning environment. You do not have the benefit of seeing when you are losing participants’ engagement; you have to develop new skills to ensure that they are fully engaged and have not started checking emails or succumbing to other distractions.
Our views on maximum duration are also similar. We started by accepting the conventional wisdom that 60 to 90 minutes is the maximum for a single virtual module but we have found that, with the right design and interaction, four hour sessions are possible. Huthwaite suggest a structure of four hour blocks on successive mornings over a week, which is very similar to the design that has worked well for our Business Acumen programme for Hewlett Packard.
The other area in which we are in harmony is cost; the author argues that interactive virtual training should cost no less than face to face, apart from the savings on travel and accommodation. We would agree with one proviso; if two sessions can be organised on the same day with the same facilitator – for instance in different time zones – this can justify a lower cost than face to face, and even higher value.
The author suggests that a new mindset is necessary to change perceptions and make Learning & Development specialists see that interactive virtual training is much closer to face to face training than it is to conventional e-learning. The messages in this excellent article are just what is required to make the change.
Click here to read the article in full;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2010-08-01-ten-out-of-ten-or-could-do-better
‘How they blew it’ by Jamie Oliver and Tony Goodwin, published by Kogan Page
Though the two books reviewed this month have a common theme of failure, they are in other ways many miles apart. This first one, written jointly by a UK journalist and an entrepreneur, is an easy read with some interesting stories but does not go into the depth that a serious business reader would hope for.
Each chapter examines a case study of a particular entrepreneur who fell from grace and the choices do not seem to follow any specific pattern; at one extreme there is Kenneth Lay, Chairman of Enron and the other a small time player called Christopher Foster, whose main claim to fame was the tragedy of his suicide after murdering his wife and daughter. Yet each of these characters is dealt with in chapters of about ten pages, which leads to much superficiality. One suspects that the choice was motivated by the easy availability of press cuttings and published material rather than any consistent theme.
This is not to say that the stories are not interesting and I discovered some characters that I had not come across before and learnt more about others where my knowledge was sketchy. But it is only in the last chapter on ‘conclusions’ that there is anything to make you think more deeply about the topic of business failure. Though the conclusions are not always justified by reference to the stories, there are some interesting suggestions of common characteristics of those who rise and fall, the most convincing of which were:
• They are big picture types who are bored with detail and cannot wait to get on to the next deal
• They are much less intelligent than they think they are and than other people think they are, because they can talk a good game
• They often succeed because of good fortune but put it down to their own abilities
• They are sucked into competing with other entrepreneurs who have achieved even more success
• The focus becomes their own social status rather than their customers and they fail to adapt to new market trends
After reading these conclusions, I felt that I could have skipped the stories and just read that last chapter; but then I would have missed the anecdotes and the sensational titbits. Perhaps it is a well balanced book after all; the stories are a good holiday read purely for entertainment and the final chapter is where the learning takes place.
http://www.koganpage.com/products/how-they-blew-it/BusinessandManagement/B/Leadership/B010/1003693/9780749460655/
Each chapter examines a case study of a particular entrepreneur who fell from grace and the choices do not seem to follow any specific pattern; at one extreme there is Kenneth Lay, Chairman of Enron and the other a small time player called Christopher Foster, whose main claim to fame was the tragedy of his suicide after murdering his wife and daughter. Yet each of these characters is dealt with in chapters of about ten pages, which leads to much superficiality. One suspects that the choice was motivated by the easy availability of press cuttings and published material rather than any consistent theme.
This is not to say that the stories are not interesting and I discovered some characters that I had not come across before and learnt more about others where my knowledge was sketchy. But it is only in the last chapter on ‘conclusions’ that there is anything to make you think more deeply about the topic of business failure. Though the conclusions are not always justified by reference to the stories, there are some interesting suggestions of common characteristics of those who rise and fall, the most convincing of which were:
• They are big picture types who are bored with detail and cannot wait to get on to the next deal
• They are much less intelligent than they think they are and than other people think they are, because they can talk a good game
• They often succeed because of good fortune but put it down to their own abilities
• They are sucked into competing with other entrepreneurs who have achieved even more success
• The focus becomes their own social status rather than their customers and they fail to adapt to new market trends
After reading these conclusions, I felt that I could have skipped the stories and just read that last chapter; but then I would have missed the anecdotes and the sensational titbits. Perhaps it is a well balanced book after all; the stories are a good holiday read purely for entertainment and the final chapter is where the learning takes place.
http://www.koganpage.com/products/how-they-blew-it/BusinessandManagement/B/Leadership/B010/1003693/9780749460655/
Too big to fail’ by Andrew Ross Sorkin, published by Penguin Books
This is an altogether different class of book, twice the size at 600 pages and much more impressive. The length seems daunting at first until you get into it and find that it reads like a novel. It uses the technique of assumed dialogue very effectively though at times it made me wonder how the author could possibly have known what (for instance) Henry Paulson said to Barack Obama at the height of the global financial crisis. I also wondered how many of the numerous characters featured would challenge what they are supposed to have said.
However, unlike ‘How they blew it’, this book on the global financial crisis has been well and painstakingly researched by a journalist from the New York Times who has previously won awards for his business and finance writing. It is written around the key personalities involved in the crisis and this makes it highly readable, a complete contrast to the boring book by Vince Cable on the same topic that I reviewed earlier in the year.
The overall impression of the book is that these ‘masters of the universe’ were, despite their wealth and reputation, just as pathetic and helpless as we mere mortals would have been when faced with unparalleled financial calamity. And, with only a few exceptions, they all thought first of saving themselves and their companies rather than thinking of the greater good of the global economy.
You are also left feeling a little bit sorry for that villain of the piece Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehmann Brothers, because he was the one who was left for the wolves whereas others who were just as guilty – AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – were bailed out by the US government. You are also reminded how close those other financial powerhouses – JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and even Goldman Sachs – were to bankruptcy and their futures were only secured by various types of rescue from, respectively, Mitsubishi, Bank of America and Warren Buffett.
There are surprising and impressive references to Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown which make you think that perhaps they were not after all exaggerating their role in the crisis. We are reminded that Darling was instrumental in the collapse of Lehmann because he rightly refused to underwrite a Barclays bail out at short notice; and Brown’s call for injections of equity capital into the banks really did set an example that was followed by the world. Perhaps this partly explains why Brown finds it so hard to understand how the country could reject him.
This is a great read for those who are interested in knowing what really happened behind the scenes during the panicky days of late 2008 when the global financial system was in danger of collapsing. It shows how near we were to a domino effect that would have driven all the major US financial institutions into bankruptcy. The quality of the final product reflects the excellent research that went into it; it is high calibre writing.
http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141043166,00.html
However, unlike ‘How they blew it’, this book on the global financial crisis has been well and painstakingly researched by a journalist from the New York Times who has previously won awards for his business and finance writing. It is written around the key personalities involved in the crisis and this makes it highly readable, a complete contrast to the boring book by Vince Cable on the same topic that I reviewed earlier in the year.
The overall impression of the book is that these ‘masters of the universe’ were, despite their wealth and reputation, just as pathetic and helpless as we mere mortals would have been when faced with unparalleled financial calamity. And, with only a few exceptions, they all thought first of saving themselves and their companies rather than thinking of the greater good of the global economy.
You are also left feeling a little bit sorry for that villain of the piece Dick Fuld, CEO of Lehmann Brothers, because he was the one who was left for the wolves whereas others who were just as guilty – AIG, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – were bailed out by the US government. You are also reminded how close those other financial powerhouses – JP Morgan, Merrill Lynch and even Goldman Sachs – were to bankruptcy and their futures were only secured by various types of rescue from, respectively, Mitsubishi, Bank of America and Warren Buffett.
There are surprising and impressive references to Alistair Darling and Gordon Brown which make you think that perhaps they were not after all exaggerating their role in the crisis. We are reminded that Darling was instrumental in the collapse of Lehmann because he rightly refused to underwrite a Barclays bail out at short notice; and Brown’s call for injections of equity capital into the banks really did set an example that was followed by the world. Perhaps this partly explains why Brown finds it so hard to understand how the country could reject him.
This is a great read for those who are interested in knowing what really happened behind the scenes during the panicky days of late 2008 when the global financial system was in danger of collapsing. It shows how near we were to a domino effect that would have driven all the major US financial institutions into bankruptcy. The quality of the final product reflects the excellent research that went into it; it is high calibre writing.
http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780141043166,00.html
Thursday 15 July 2010
‘The Coherence Premium’ by Paul Leinwand and Cesare Mainardi, Harvard Business Review, June 2010
This article is written by senior people of the well-regarded (but amusingly named) management consultants Booz & Company. As I read it I found myself agreeing with much of what was said but also thinking - haven’t we heard all this somewhere before? For instance, from Tom Peters who said ‘stick to the knitting’ and Hamel & Prahalad who said ‘focus on core competences’. My assessment of the article is therefore based on whether there is anything original, which is not too much to expect after the many articles on strategy that have been written over the years.
The basic argument is that companies spend too much time looking at their external positioning and not enough at their own capabilities. They follow market trends to achieve growth and allow this to take them into areas that are outside their capabilities; they develop strategies that do not focus on capabilities. The desire to focus on the present and future needs of customers takes them away from their core business.
At this stage the article was clearly failing the ‘what’s new?’ test and the authors confirmed this by admitting that it was merely restating Hamel & Prahalad’s core competences argument. Their allegedly new approach is based on the argument that the successful companies are those whose strategy is coherent with capabilities, who know how they create value for customers and have capabilities that are ‘what we do better than anyone’. This is the only way that a company will produce superior returns to shareholders.
The article then provides examples of winners and losers, which is usually a good test of whether thinking is clear. I was certainly convinced by the losers, companies like Conagra and Sara Lee who had tried to achieve growth through acquisitions in a wide range of unconnected sectors; but Tom Peters could have told us that this was wrong thirty years ago. The first example of a winner is Walmart who apparently have four key capabilities that they deliver better than anyone else and thus achieve the lowest everyday prices. It is hard to argue with this but you could also say that their success starts from identifying what the market demands and developing their capabilities to match; it is hard to see Walmart developing their four capabilities without looking at the market. The argument then becomes all about ‘chicken and egg’ rather than providing new insights.
At this point I finally became convinced that this article is just a recycling of old theories with different words and it surprises me that the Harvard Business Review allowed a firm of consultants to feature in this way, knowing how hard it is to find space in this most highly regarded management publication.
The ‘coherence premium’ is merely restating something that we all should know by now; that you make money by matching core competences with a need in the marketplace and this will only deliver value if you have competitive advantage.
To read this article go to:
http://hbr.org/2010/06/the-coherence-premium/ar/1
The basic argument is that companies spend too much time looking at their external positioning and not enough at their own capabilities. They follow market trends to achieve growth and allow this to take them into areas that are outside their capabilities; they develop strategies that do not focus on capabilities. The desire to focus on the present and future needs of customers takes them away from their core business.
At this stage the article was clearly failing the ‘what’s new?’ test and the authors confirmed this by admitting that it was merely restating Hamel & Prahalad’s core competences argument. Their allegedly new approach is based on the argument that the successful companies are those whose strategy is coherent with capabilities, who know how they create value for customers and have capabilities that are ‘what we do better than anyone’. This is the only way that a company will produce superior returns to shareholders.
The article then provides examples of winners and losers, which is usually a good test of whether thinking is clear. I was certainly convinced by the losers, companies like Conagra and Sara Lee who had tried to achieve growth through acquisitions in a wide range of unconnected sectors; but Tom Peters could have told us that this was wrong thirty years ago. The first example of a winner is Walmart who apparently have four key capabilities that they deliver better than anyone else and thus achieve the lowest everyday prices. It is hard to argue with this but you could also say that their success starts from identifying what the market demands and developing their capabilities to match; it is hard to see Walmart developing their four capabilities without looking at the market. The argument then becomes all about ‘chicken and egg’ rather than providing new insights.
At this point I finally became convinced that this article is just a recycling of old theories with different words and it surprises me that the Harvard Business Review allowed a firm of consultants to feature in this way, knowing how hard it is to find space in this most highly regarded management publication.
The ‘coherence premium’ is merely restating something that we all should know by now; that you make money by matching core competences with a need in the marketplace and this will only deliver value if you have competitive advantage.
To read this article go to:
http://hbr.org/2010/06/the-coherence-premium/ar/1
‘Proving your worth’ by Jenny French, Training Journal, June 2010
I could have chosen at least three other articles on evaluation of training in the last month, which makes me wonder if this is a bandwagon that too many consultants are jumping on, knowing that it is a sure route to getting an article published. We all know that evaluation is important but is there anything new to say?
I chose this article because of one fundamental difference from the others; it is written by a senior learning professional in a well-regarded company and not by yet another self-serving consultant. Jenny French is Group Head of Leadership Development at BT and her article describes how she introduced a new approach to evaluation as part of a plan to communicate the value of their Leadership Development programmes. This creates a good impression at the start of the article; unlike many others BT have thought through the reasons why they want to evaluate training rather than seeing it as an end in itself.
One interesting comment early in the article is that BT would ideally like to turn the clock back and start the whole design process with ROI in mind. This raises the critical issue that has hardly been addressed in other articles, whether evaluation should be pre or post the training activity. My view is that there is no doubt in a perfect world; evaluation should be both pre and post and the actual outcome should be compared to plan. The parallel with capital expenditure evaluation is powerful; how many companies would wait until the money has been spent before evaluating it? With capital proposals, the problem is reversed – companies often do great evaluations before spending but never bother to compare with actual outcomes.
So is there anything new about BT’s approach? Their first important step has been to develop common measures for all their leadership development programmes and show these as a ‘dashboard’ which presents measures in digestible form. In addition to standard measures from course evaluation forms, they have tried to introduce the impact on key value drivers like revenue, cost, quality, customer/employee satisfaction, all the measures that you might see in a balanced scorecard.
The dashboard is analysed during monthly meetings and then there is a further stage of ‘digging deeper’ through in-depth interviews which are designed to further assess business impact. Two points occurred to me here; firstly the cost of doing this must be substantial unless you are being highly selective; secondly, how objective are the responses? We have had some experience of post-course follow-up workshops and interviews at MTP and have reason to be cautious.
The author reports that sometimes the interviewers have to dig deep to uncover monetary impact that was not immediately obvious; this enables stories to be revealed and ROI to be assessed. This may well work in some cases but I can recall when running follow-ups for MTP that you can find yourself pushing people into claiming benefits; they may eventually comply because they want to be helpful or because it seems the right thing to do. Certainly the examples quoted by BT show how difficult and arbitrary such assessments can be – for example’ ‘I became more proactive and was able to bring in 5% of revenue earlier’. This raises the hoary old question – how do you know what would have happened if you hadn’t attended the course?
This is not to devalue what BT has done; it sounds like an excellent effort and the idea of making a film to summarise and highlight evaluated benefits is an original one. But I would like to have seen more understanding of the costs and other resource implications of the assessment process and acceptance of the fact that, while it may be viable for a high profile and high investment leadership programme, the use of such evaluation methods may not be practical in a wider context. And that any ROI calculation on the basis of the processes described has to have a health warning about assumptions and limitations.
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2919.html
I chose this article because of one fundamental difference from the others; it is written by a senior learning professional in a well-regarded company and not by yet another self-serving consultant. Jenny French is Group Head of Leadership Development at BT and her article describes how she introduced a new approach to evaluation as part of a plan to communicate the value of their Leadership Development programmes. This creates a good impression at the start of the article; unlike many others BT have thought through the reasons why they want to evaluate training rather than seeing it as an end in itself.
One interesting comment early in the article is that BT would ideally like to turn the clock back and start the whole design process with ROI in mind. This raises the critical issue that has hardly been addressed in other articles, whether evaluation should be pre or post the training activity. My view is that there is no doubt in a perfect world; evaluation should be both pre and post and the actual outcome should be compared to plan. The parallel with capital expenditure evaluation is powerful; how many companies would wait until the money has been spent before evaluating it? With capital proposals, the problem is reversed – companies often do great evaluations before spending but never bother to compare with actual outcomes.
So is there anything new about BT’s approach? Their first important step has been to develop common measures for all their leadership development programmes and show these as a ‘dashboard’ which presents measures in digestible form. In addition to standard measures from course evaluation forms, they have tried to introduce the impact on key value drivers like revenue, cost, quality, customer/employee satisfaction, all the measures that you might see in a balanced scorecard.
The dashboard is analysed during monthly meetings and then there is a further stage of ‘digging deeper’ through in-depth interviews which are designed to further assess business impact. Two points occurred to me here; firstly the cost of doing this must be substantial unless you are being highly selective; secondly, how objective are the responses? We have had some experience of post-course follow-up workshops and interviews at MTP and have reason to be cautious.
The author reports that sometimes the interviewers have to dig deep to uncover monetary impact that was not immediately obvious; this enables stories to be revealed and ROI to be assessed. This may well work in some cases but I can recall when running follow-ups for MTP that you can find yourself pushing people into claiming benefits; they may eventually comply because they want to be helpful or because it seems the right thing to do. Certainly the examples quoted by BT show how difficult and arbitrary such assessments can be – for example’ ‘I became more proactive and was able to bring in 5% of revenue earlier’. This raises the hoary old question – how do you know what would have happened if you hadn’t attended the course?
This is not to devalue what BT has done; it sounds like an excellent effort and the idea of making a film to summarise and highlight evaluated benefits is an original one. But I would like to have seen more understanding of the costs and other resource implications of the assessment process and acceptance of the fact that, while it may be viable for a high profile and high investment leadership programme, the use of such evaluation methods may not be practical in a wider context. And that any ROI calculation on the basis of the processes described has to have a health warning about assumptions and limitations.
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2919.html
‘The industrialisation of informal learning’ by Vincent Belliveau and ‘How managers learn’ by Peter Casebow, Training Journal, July 2010
This is the other big bandwagon in learning circles and it is one that forward thinking learning professionals cannot ignore. The development of Facebook and similar networks has changed the way that people communicate with each other and this is something to be embraced rather than ignored.
I am combining my reviews of the two articles because they follow on from each other and have similar themes. The key argument is that most management learning comes from informal interactions with colleagues and this trend is increasing all the time. Therefore learning professionals need to change their mindset away from conventional formal approaches to training and become involved with the informal side.
My initial response is that, though the opportunities may have grown because of the Internet, informal learning has always been important and it has never caused more formal training programmes to be unnecessary. It is true that the earliest advocate of the more informal approach – Reg Revans, founder of Action Learning - said that other ways of training were a waste of time but this extreme view has never been accepted within the learning community. All that is happening now is that the informal learning opportunities are more varied and can be harnessed more easily; if Reg Revans was still alive, I am sure he would be arguing for action learning sets through Facebook or MSN. He would however also be stressing the importance of a good facilitator and the need for direction.
The two articles clearly illustrate the challenge of trying to harness and influence informal learning channels; the first article argues strongly that employees learn most from informal communication with each other but there is no reference to whether they are learning good practice. It is possible for one manager to influence another to treat staff unfairly or discriminate in recruitment, this is learning but it encourages bad rather than good practice.
The article also argues that the biggest barrier to the development of informal learning is the average Learning Manager’s mindset. The temptation is to try to define and control in the same way as they do with more formal approaches; instead they must be prepared to provide opportunities but relinquish power. However the argument is still based on one questionable assumption - that all informal learning is good. There is an attempt to counter this point by saying that bad advice is acceptable because the manager will realise and learn from it later but this strikes me as optimistic in the extreme.
The second article mentions how training managers may overestimate the positive impact of their formal courses but fails to mention that this is also possible with informal learning. And while evaluation of conventional courses may be challenging, it is many times more difficult when informal methods are used.
The dilemma is - how far can informal learning be influenced and to what extent should learning professionals try to grasp the nettle? These articles say that we should encourage an atmosphere and provide resources for informal learning to flourish but do not really address the issue of who is to provide direction and quality control.
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/
I am combining my reviews of the two articles because they follow on from each other and have similar themes. The key argument is that most management learning comes from informal interactions with colleagues and this trend is increasing all the time. Therefore learning professionals need to change their mindset away from conventional formal approaches to training and become involved with the informal side.
My initial response is that, though the opportunities may have grown because of the Internet, informal learning has always been important and it has never caused more formal training programmes to be unnecessary. It is true that the earliest advocate of the more informal approach – Reg Revans, founder of Action Learning - said that other ways of training were a waste of time but this extreme view has never been accepted within the learning community. All that is happening now is that the informal learning opportunities are more varied and can be harnessed more easily; if Reg Revans was still alive, I am sure he would be arguing for action learning sets through Facebook or MSN. He would however also be stressing the importance of a good facilitator and the need for direction.
The two articles clearly illustrate the challenge of trying to harness and influence informal learning channels; the first article argues strongly that employees learn most from informal communication with each other but there is no reference to whether they are learning good practice. It is possible for one manager to influence another to treat staff unfairly or discriminate in recruitment, this is learning but it encourages bad rather than good practice.
The article also argues that the biggest barrier to the development of informal learning is the average Learning Manager’s mindset. The temptation is to try to define and control in the same way as they do with more formal approaches; instead they must be prepared to provide opportunities but relinquish power. However the argument is still based on one questionable assumption - that all informal learning is good. There is an attempt to counter this point by saying that bad advice is acceptable because the manager will realise and learn from it later but this strikes me as optimistic in the extreme.
The second article mentions how training managers may overestimate the positive impact of their formal courses but fails to mention that this is also possible with informal learning. And while evaluation of conventional courses may be challenging, it is many times more difficult when informal methods are used.
The dilemma is - how far can informal learning be influenced and to what extent should learning professionals try to grasp the nettle? These articles say that we should encourage an atmosphere and provide resources for informal learning to flourish but do not really address the issue of who is to provide direction and quality control.
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/
‘Why it can pay to study abroad’ by Philip Delves Broughton, Management Today, June 2010
I chose this article because I much enjoyed the author’s book on his year at Harvard, which did not do too much for the image of Harvard or his fellow participants. The article was interesting but also disappointing, perhaps because of Management Today’s reluctance to give more than two pages to such an important topic.
The article starts with some surprising statistics; that 35% of Harvard students are from outside the USA and that most top business schools are trying to increase the proportion of overseas students. It then moves on to show the contrasting experiences of the non-USA students who attended Harvard – it was either ‘rave or despair’. For those in the rave category it was life-changing, developing language skills and sharing experiences that would never have been possible from a school in their own country. And the cachet of it being a school with Harvard’s reputation increased their status substantially.
The despair was from those who returned to find that the networks they had developed were of no use to them at home and they became estranged from local business contacts. I would like Broughton to have developed this point further with some analysis of why these contrasts were so marked. Was it to do with the country, the calibre of participants or their career ambitions?
The author rightly points out that the key factor is the perspective of employers. The fact that you have attended an overseas school will impress those looking for broader horizons and provide some evidence that the candidate is prepared to understand other cultures and work abroad. One powerful example is quoted, a USA student who studied at a UK school and found his experience of the NHS invaluable when later working within and providing challenges to the USA healthcare system.
Overall, an article that does no more than whet the appetite for the issue to be developed further. I hope he writes a second book on his post-MBA career.
To read this article go to:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/article/1004504/mba-business-education-guide-why-pay-study-abroad/
The article starts with some surprising statistics; that 35% of Harvard students are from outside the USA and that most top business schools are trying to increase the proportion of overseas students. It then moves on to show the contrasting experiences of the non-USA students who attended Harvard – it was either ‘rave or despair’. For those in the rave category it was life-changing, developing language skills and sharing experiences that would never have been possible from a school in their own country. And the cachet of it being a school with Harvard’s reputation increased their status substantially.
The despair was from those who returned to find that the networks they had developed were of no use to them at home and they became estranged from local business contacts. I would like Broughton to have developed this point further with some analysis of why these contrasts were so marked. Was it to do with the country, the calibre of participants or their career ambitions?
The author rightly points out that the key factor is the perspective of employers. The fact that you have attended an overseas school will impress those looking for broader horizons and provide some evidence that the candidate is prepared to understand other cultures and work abroad. One powerful example is quoted, a USA student who studied at a UK school and found his experience of the NHS invaluable when later working within and providing challenges to the USA healthcare system.
Overall, an article that does no more than whet the appetite for the issue to be developed further. I hope he writes a second book on his post-MBA career.
To read this article go to:
http://www.managementtoday.co.uk/search/article/1004504/mba-business-education-guide-why-pay-study-abroad/
‘Why not use managers to train managers’ by Barry Johnson and Mandy Geal, Training Journal, July 2010
I have to confess to some inbuilt and self-serving prejudice against this article because, to some extent, MTP’s business depends upon managers not running internal finance and business courses and agreeing that specialist learning expertise is required. We have also found over the years that good managers do not necessarily make good trainers and that it is possible to be a superb trainer without much management experience.
Nevertheless some powerful points are made in favour of encouraging managers to train other managers, rather than bringing in specialists - internal or external - to do so. The first point is that it is developmental for the manager concerned and will improve his/her performance; it is impossible to deny this point because all trainers know that you learn more from every session. One challenge might be that a manager may learn even more from a joint session with an experienced trainer and the audience may do so too. One valid criticism of the article is that the choice is presented as ‘either/or’ and the authors do not raise the possibility of managers and specialist trainers working together; in our experience this is how the best sessions are often delivered.
Another powerful argument in the article is that the manager will know the company culture and will be able to provide specific examples of application of learning. This is clearly valid though our view is that the external trainer can, with experience, support and commitment, also get close to that ideal, while also providing an external perspective and, if required, a degree of challenge to the status quo..
I would have warmed more to the author’s views if there had been some acknowledgement that much depends upon the objectives and the content of the training. If it is about compliance with internal company systems or a relatively instrumental process, the manager may be the best person to run the course. But if it is a more conceptual topic where maybe the company wants to challenge the validity of internal practices, the external view will be important. Existing managers may want to perpetuate their own way of doing things rather than looking for new ways to improve. There may also be problems that the ‘prophet in own country’ is, rightly or wrongly, not always listened to as much as the external facilitator, particularly for more senior programmes.
The final point which the article does not fully address is the fact that many managers do not have the time or inclination to train others and may not be able to do so effectively. Our experience of running Train-the-Trainer programmes is that managers are often concerned when they find out that running an effective course is not about presenting on PowerPoint but is about managing a series of challenging interactions; it requires a lot of preparation and commitment, and a willingness to persevere, even if the first session does not go well.
And there are bound to be some failures, which can be a dispiriting experience for all concerned; but it has to be appreciated that, just as many trainers do not make good managers, some managers, even after ‘Train-the-Trainer’ sessions, do not make good trainers. This article would have been more credible if it had presented a more balanced view; though maybe some readers might feel that the same applies to this review!
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/
Nevertheless some powerful points are made in favour of encouraging managers to train other managers, rather than bringing in specialists - internal or external - to do so. The first point is that it is developmental for the manager concerned and will improve his/her performance; it is impossible to deny this point because all trainers know that you learn more from every session. One challenge might be that a manager may learn even more from a joint session with an experienced trainer and the audience may do so too. One valid criticism of the article is that the choice is presented as ‘either/or’ and the authors do not raise the possibility of managers and specialist trainers working together; in our experience this is how the best sessions are often delivered.
Another powerful argument in the article is that the manager will know the company culture and will be able to provide specific examples of application of learning. This is clearly valid though our view is that the external trainer can, with experience, support and commitment, also get close to that ideal, while also providing an external perspective and, if required, a degree of challenge to the status quo..
I would have warmed more to the author’s views if there had been some acknowledgement that much depends upon the objectives and the content of the training. If it is about compliance with internal company systems or a relatively instrumental process, the manager may be the best person to run the course. But if it is a more conceptual topic where maybe the company wants to challenge the validity of internal practices, the external view will be important. Existing managers may want to perpetuate their own way of doing things rather than looking for new ways to improve. There may also be problems that the ‘prophet in own country’ is, rightly or wrongly, not always listened to as much as the external facilitator, particularly for more senior programmes.
The final point which the article does not fully address is the fact that many managers do not have the time or inclination to train others and may not be able to do so effectively. Our experience of running Train-the-Trainer programmes is that managers are often concerned when they find out that running an effective course is not about presenting on PowerPoint but is about managing a series of challenging interactions; it requires a lot of preparation and commitment, and a willingness to persevere, even if the first session does not go well.
And there are bound to be some failures, which can be a dispiriting experience for all concerned; but it has to be appreciated that, just as many trainers do not make good managers, some managers, even after ‘Train-the-Trainer’ sessions, do not make good trainers. This article would have been more credible if it had presented a more balanced view; though maybe some readers might feel that the same applies to this review!
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/
The Wikipedia Revolution by Andrew Lih
I was looking forward to reading this book and hoped that it would be as fascinating as the book about that other Internet phenomenon, Facebook. I reviewed this book – The Accidental Billionaire - several months ago and described the dramatic story of a number of larger than life characters battling with each other as Facebook grew to take the world by storm. The nerdish Mark Zuckerberg outflanked his former friends - the glamorous Winklevoss twins of Olympic rowing fame - even if he had to pay them a fortune in compensation.
The Wikipedia revolution has no such glamorous characters and the style of writing does not match the innovative nature of the product and the way in which it has, like Facebook, changed the way that many of us live. The story of the site’s development is full of detail about the technology of the various innovations that led to the creation of Wikipedia and I was soon lost in the complexity of it all. One interesting gem from this section was the fact that a key technical development that made it all possible came from Steve Job’s one ‘failed’ computer venture NeXT, inbetween his spells at Apple.
In contrast to the Facebook story, there seems to be little personal conflict. Even when one of the early innovators Larry Sanger leaves the project, there is little angst or drama. I was left wondering whether this is because the book is hiding something or whether the principals really were that easygoing. I suspect it is the latter because the whole project requires people who are prepared to empower others and is driven by evangelists who are committed to the idea of sharing knowledge. The story of how the idea quickly changed from strict editorial control to more or less open access for volunteers is remarkable for its smooth transition.
There are some interesting stories of how this open access can go pear shaped, for instance the controversy over a picture of a naked child under the entry for a heavy metal band which led to access being blocked for a period; and the ‘professor’ who got a job at Wiki by falsifying his own Wikipedia entry!
I would like to have seen more of these anecdotes rather than the many pages about boring technical stuff, including long lists of the languages in which entries appear (I particularly hoped to hear more about the prank following the death of composer Ronnie Hazelhurst; someone changed his entry just after his death and fooled three broadsheet newspapers into including in their obituaries the false and hilarious claim that he had, in his latter years, written songs for pop group S Club 7).
Overall this was an informative rather than an entertaining read; a book for the committed nerd rather than the interested outsider.
Find out more about the book at http://wikipediarevolution.com/The_Book.html
The Wikipedia revolution has no such glamorous characters and the style of writing does not match the innovative nature of the product and the way in which it has, like Facebook, changed the way that many of us live. The story of the site’s development is full of detail about the technology of the various innovations that led to the creation of Wikipedia and I was soon lost in the complexity of it all. One interesting gem from this section was the fact that a key technical development that made it all possible came from Steve Job’s one ‘failed’ computer venture NeXT, inbetween his spells at Apple.
In contrast to the Facebook story, there seems to be little personal conflict. Even when one of the early innovators Larry Sanger leaves the project, there is little angst or drama. I was left wondering whether this is because the book is hiding something or whether the principals really were that easygoing. I suspect it is the latter because the whole project requires people who are prepared to empower others and is driven by evangelists who are committed to the idea of sharing knowledge. The story of how the idea quickly changed from strict editorial control to more or less open access for volunteers is remarkable for its smooth transition.
There are some interesting stories of how this open access can go pear shaped, for instance the controversy over a picture of a naked child under the entry for a heavy metal band which led to access being blocked for a period; and the ‘professor’ who got a job at Wiki by falsifying his own Wikipedia entry!
I would like to have seen more of these anecdotes rather than the many pages about boring technical stuff, including long lists of the languages in which entries appear (I particularly hoped to hear more about the prank following the death of composer Ronnie Hazelhurst; someone changed his entry just after his death and fooled three broadsheet newspapers into including in their obituaries the false and hilarious claim that he had, in his latter years, written songs for pop group S Club 7).
Overall this was an informative rather than an entertaining read; a book for the committed nerd rather than the interested outsider.
Find out more about the book at http://wikipediarevolution.com/The_Book.html
iPad review
I bought the iPad while in the USA, partly because I liked the look of it, partly because I wanted to explore the option of changing my reading habits towards electronic media. I had heard from friends who have Kindle readers that the benefits are substantial, particularly for those who travel widely; my hope is that I will be able to avoid lugging books around when I go on my frequent trips to the USA.
The first thing to say is that buying books from the Apple iBooks store is very easy, particularly if you are already on iTunes. The visual appeal is brilliant, the books appear on a virtual shelf holding your personal library. The prices seem reasonable, slightly below what you might pay in a shop and many older books are offered free. My wife was delighted to be able to buy the complete works of Jane Austen for 49p.
However the breadth of selection is relatively poor, my searches for new titles and specific business books were not encouraging. It was then that an MTP colleague mentioned that there is an app which allows you to access all the books in the Amazon/Kindle library and this proved to be much more satisfactory; the selection is much wider even if the visual appeal is less sexy. And once you have downloaded your choice – which takes seconds – it is yours to carry around for ever without loading up your suitcase.
It takes some time to get used to holding the iPad rather than a book and reading in bed does not feel quite the same. However, once you get underway it feels fine, the page turning and bookmarks are excellent and you soon forget that it is anything different from normal. The one area where it seems to work less well is when you want to scan or browse a book as you might do in a bookshop; it is not possible to ‘flip through’ before you buy, though there are some useful brief descriptions of the content.
Reading outdoors has not proved to be a problem visually, though in very hot weather a warning appears telling you to take it back inside for a while. And there is also the multifunctional nature of the iPad, you can check your emails or access YouTube between chapters and then go back to your reading.
The final problem is that the engaging nature of the iPad means that other work colleagues and family members will start to play with it if you leave it lying around. This is a particular problem with children who seem unable to keep their hands off it. And the biggest surprise is that my wife – an avid reader of books – has become a complete convert to the iPad; perhaps it was the value of the Jane Austen purchase!
The result is that I am likely soon to need another iPad so that we can have ‘his’ and ‘hers’. This may seem extravagant but this experiment has convinced me that this is the way things are going. I am convinced that, over time, the impact will be the same as the iPod on CD sales; within ten years the book in paper form will be for a few traditionalists and everyone else will be using their latest iPad or Kindle.
The first thing to say is that buying books from the Apple iBooks store is very easy, particularly if you are already on iTunes. The visual appeal is brilliant, the books appear on a virtual shelf holding your personal library. The prices seem reasonable, slightly below what you might pay in a shop and many older books are offered free. My wife was delighted to be able to buy the complete works of Jane Austen for 49p.
However the breadth of selection is relatively poor, my searches for new titles and specific business books were not encouraging. It was then that an MTP colleague mentioned that there is an app which allows you to access all the books in the Amazon/Kindle library and this proved to be much more satisfactory; the selection is much wider even if the visual appeal is less sexy. And once you have downloaded your choice – which takes seconds – it is yours to carry around for ever without loading up your suitcase.
It takes some time to get used to holding the iPad rather than a book and reading in bed does not feel quite the same. However, once you get underway it feels fine, the page turning and bookmarks are excellent and you soon forget that it is anything different from normal. The one area where it seems to work less well is when you want to scan or browse a book as you might do in a bookshop; it is not possible to ‘flip through’ before you buy, though there are some useful brief descriptions of the content.
Reading outdoors has not proved to be a problem visually, though in very hot weather a warning appears telling you to take it back inside for a while. And there is also the multifunctional nature of the iPad, you can check your emails or access YouTube between chapters and then go back to your reading.
The final problem is that the engaging nature of the iPad means that other work colleagues and family members will start to play with it if you leave it lying around. This is a particular problem with children who seem unable to keep their hands off it. And the biggest surprise is that my wife – an avid reader of books – has become a complete convert to the iPad; perhaps it was the value of the Jane Austen purchase!
The result is that I am likely soon to need another iPad so that we can have ‘his’ and ‘hers’. This may seem extravagant but this experiment has convinced me that this is the way things are going. I am convinced that, over time, the impact will be the same as the iPod on CD sales; within ten years the book in paper form will be for a few traditionalists and everyone else will be using their latest iPad or Kindle.
Thursday 3 June 2010
‘How to translate a brainwave into reality’ by Hanne Kristiansen and Mark Simmonds, Training Journal, May 2010
I must start by admitting a connection here; one of the authors Mark Simmonds is a former star MTP tutor who did much to put our marketing training on the map and left us on good terms; he has since established an excellent reputation in his niche of creativity and idea generation. I therefore started the article with a positive feeling and this did not change as I read it.
The article makes the point that using processes like brainstorming and idea generation will not guarantee successful innovation; it all depends on the make-up of the team. And even the highest calibre team will not come up with creative ideas unless there is the right mix of people. The authors then claim to have developed a sort of Belbin equivalent, an ideal mix of people that will produce the most creative results; there are five types:
• Stimulators who like to explore new things
• Spotters who have vision and make connections
• Sculptors who convert ideas into tangible outcomes
• Selectors who can separate the good from the bad
• Supporters who can facilitate the process
My suspicions were aroused by the fact that each type began with the same letter – though I was relieved that it wasn’t titled the ‘Five S framework’ – but the framework seems to match common sense and experience, except maybe for some overlap between the first two.
The authors named the framework ‘Creative Creatures’ and decided to validate their ideas through a psychometric test. They also took steps to create a brand for the product and carry out a pilot project, the whole process apparently taking four years from conception to full implementation; this made me wonder about the importance of linking project management skills to innovation!
It was impressive that the companies chosen for the pilot were of such high calibre – Kelloggs, News International and Vodafone – and the outcomes have apparently been successful and have provided the basis for a full launch which took place in March. It will be even more impressive if the launch eventually produces some equally high calibre satisfied clients, and the dotted lines at the end of the article seem to tell us to watch this space.
This article is definitely worth reading by anyone who has responsibility for creativity and innovation. The key to success will be how far companies can in practice use the framework to form better teams, for instance, what if all available team members are of one type? Can you change team members from one S to another? If these questions are well answered during the implementation stage, this could turn out to be an innovative contribution to the challenge of creativity.
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2876.html
The article makes the point that using processes like brainstorming and idea generation will not guarantee successful innovation; it all depends on the make-up of the team. And even the highest calibre team will not come up with creative ideas unless there is the right mix of people. The authors then claim to have developed a sort of Belbin equivalent, an ideal mix of people that will produce the most creative results; there are five types:
• Stimulators who like to explore new things
• Spotters who have vision and make connections
• Sculptors who convert ideas into tangible outcomes
• Selectors who can separate the good from the bad
• Supporters who can facilitate the process
My suspicions were aroused by the fact that each type began with the same letter – though I was relieved that it wasn’t titled the ‘Five S framework’ – but the framework seems to match common sense and experience, except maybe for some overlap between the first two.
The authors named the framework ‘Creative Creatures’ and decided to validate their ideas through a psychometric test. They also took steps to create a brand for the product and carry out a pilot project, the whole process apparently taking four years from conception to full implementation; this made me wonder about the importance of linking project management skills to innovation!
It was impressive that the companies chosen for the pilot were of such high calibre – Kelloggs, News International and Vodafone – and the outcomes have apparently been successful and have provided the basis for a full launch which took place in March. It will be even more impressive if the launch eventually produces some equally high calibre satisfied clients, and the dotted lines at the end of the article seem to tell us to watch this space.
This article is definitely worth reading by anyone who has responsibility for creativity and innovation. The key to success will be how far companies can in practice use the framework to form better teams, for instance, what if all available team members are of one type? Can you change team members from one S to another? If these questions are well answered during the implementation stage, this could turn out to be an innovative contribution to the challenge of creativity.
To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/2876.html
‘Passing Out’ by Guy Sheppard, Personnel Today, 11th May 2010
I decided to review this article because we know the topic to be of interest to many of our clients in HR functions. Another reason is that MTP has, over the last few years, been increasingly interacting with outsourcing operations on behalf of our clients, with – it has to be admitted – mixed results.
The article starts by quoting evidence that, during the recession, HR has not been one of the main priorities for outsourcing; IT and procurement have led the way. It suggests that this is because there is widespread scepticism about the ability of the outsourcing suppliers to deliver their promises around HR services. The ‘first generation’ failed to deliver the promised savings through economies of scale.
The author does however quote evidence that there will be an increase in HR outsourcing as the recovery takes place and quotes a CIPD survey as saying that, compared to two years ago, there has been an increase of about a third in companies thinking of taking this step. And a US survey predicts a doubling of activity, though this refers to payroll outsourcing only.
It is significant that the higher growth is in the area of payroll and this is backed up by a comment from a senior person in Hewitt, one of the major exponents; he suggests that the broad HR ‘mega-deal’ offerings of the early days of outsourcing have not worked out; the growth areas are data storing, payroll, workforce and benefits admin where it is easier to produce economies from scale and benefit from specialised systems.
The Director of Shared Services at the BBC is quoted as backing up this trend, making the point that strategic services need to stay in-house, particularly when the organisation is undergoing rapid change. Assuming that training – or at least the ‘non-commodity’ side of it – is part of strategic services, this ties in with our own experiences. Some outsourcing providers we have come across have been unable to relate to highly tailored learning solutions and, after varied attempts to replicate them, tend to come back to specialist providers like us.
A representative of Capita, one of the biggest outsourcing providers, mentions that the growth of outsourcing in the public sector is hampered by ‘long-winded tendering processes’. The words ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ came to mind as I read that, as we have found long-winded tendering to be a feature of working with some outsourcers who provide training services for our clients.
The article raises one further issue which had not occurred to me before; how the outsourcing of certain parts of HR makes it difficult for new employees to experience the total function as part of their development. Capita argues that this makes the outsourcing companies the only place where the full HR function can be experienced; I would see it as one of the many arguments for keeping such a key function in-house.
To read this article go to:
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/05/07/55490/hr-outsourcing-passing-out.html
The article starts by quoting evidence that, during the recession, HR has not been one of the main priorities for outsourcing; IT and procurement have led the way. It suggests that this is because there is widespread scepticism about the ability of the outsourcing suppliers to deliver their promises around HR services. The ‘first generation’ failed to deliver the promised savings through economies of scale.
The author does however quote evidence that there will be an increase in HR outsourcing as the recovery takes place and quotes a CIPD survey as saying that, compared to two years ago, there has been an increase of about a third in companies thinking of taking this step. And a US survey predicts a doubling of activity, though this refers to payroll outsourcing only.
It is significant that the higher growth is in the area of payroll and this is backed up by a comment from a senior person in Hewitt, one of the major exponents; he suggests that the broad HR ‘mega-deal’ offerings of the early days of outsourcing have not worked out; the growth areas are data storing, payroll, workforce and benefits admin where it is easier to produce economies from scale and benefit from specialised systems.
The Director of Shared Services at the BBC is quoted as backing up this trend, making the point that strategic services need to stay in-house, particularly when the organisation is undergoing rapid change. Assuming that training – or at least the ‘non-commodity’ side of it – is part of strategic services, this ties in with our own experiences. Some outsourcing providers we have come across have been unable to relate to highly tailored learning solutions and, after varied attempts to replicate them, tend to come back to specialist providers like us.
A representative of Capita, one of the biggest outsourcing providers, mentions that the growth of outsourcing in the public sector is hampered by ‘long-winded tendering processes’. The words ‘pot’ and ‘kettle’ came to mind as I read that, as we have found long-winded tendering to be a feature of working with some outsourcers who provide training services for our clients.
The article raises one further issue which had not occurred to me before; how the outsourcing of certain parts of HR makes it difficult for new employees to experience the total function as part of their development. Capita argues that this makes the outsourcing companies the only place where the full HR function can be experienced; I would see it as one of the many arguments for keeping such a key function in-house.
To read this article go to:
http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2010/05/07/55490/hr-outsourcing-passing-out.html
‘Business Education – case studies’, Economist, 6th May 2010
As usual, the Economist provides an article that is concise and full of insight. It starts by mentioning that most of the top business schools – Harvard, Kellogg, Michigan, Northwestern – have had recent changes at the top. The author also describes an interesting dichotomy in the sector, that while the few top schools are rolling in money due to endowments and a booming market, the smaller less recognised players have been struggling during the recession.
The recession has however brought about threats and challenges, even for the elite of management education. The business school boom has been largely built upon the success and expansion of two professions – bankers and management consultants – and the recession has brought about declines in both numbers and reputation. Even more worrying for the business schools is the fact that the newly slimmed down banks and consultancies are no longer going for MBAs in the same unquestioning way, preferring mathematicians, computer scientists and even home grown traders. These firms and other major corporations are questioning the benefit of the generic theory that is contained in most MBAs, particularly if it takes their employees away from the job for two years.
Many business schools – particularly those in Europe – are already responding to this trend by offering shorter one year courses with more specialisation and practical application. They are also answering criticism of narrowness by making their courses more international. However, the impact of these changes is that the already expensive courses are becoming even more so.
As I considered these trends, I thought back to an article I wrote nearly 20 years ago just after I left Ashridge, which upset my former colleagues in a big way. It was titled ‘When Business Schools fail to meet business needs’ and, though it was a self-serving attempt to draw attention to a newly-formed MTP, it made many of the same points as this article. I made a prediction that business schools would have to change to survive; I was clearly wrong but maybe the article was just twenty years ahead of its time?
To read this article go to:
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16067747
The recession has however brought about threats and challenges, even for the elite of management education. The business school boom has been largely built upon the success and expansion of two professions – bankers and management consultants – and the recession has brought about declines in both numbers and reputation. Even more worrying for the business schools is the fact that the newly slimmed down banks and consultancies are no longer going for MBAs in the same unquestioning way, preferring mathematicians, computer scientists and even home grown traders. These firms and other major corporations are questioning the benefit of the generic theory that is contained in most MBAs, particularly if it takes their employees away from the job for two years.
Many business schools – particularly those in Europe – are already responding to this trend by offering shorter one year courses with more specialisation and practical application. They are also answering criticism of narrowness by making their courses more international. However, the impact of these changes is that the already expensive courses are becoming even more so.
As I considered these trends, I thought back to an article I wrote nearly 20 years ago just after I left Ashridge, which upset my former colleagues in a big way. It was titled ‘When Business Schools fail to meet business needs’ and, though it was a self-serving attempt to draw attention to a newly-formed MTP, it made many of the same points as this article. I made a prediction that business schools would have to change to survive; I was clearly wrong but maybe the article was just twenty years ahead of its time?
To read this article go to:
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=16067747
‘How to stop customers from fixating on price’ by Marco Bertini and Luc Wathieu, Harvard Business Review, May 2010
I have mixed feelings when reviewing articles on pricing because, though, as a financial person, I appreciate the importance of price as a driver of margin and shareholder value, it is sometimes difficult to put aside ethical concerns, particularly when titles like the one above are used. A consumer protectionist might paraphrase the article – ‘how to rip off customers without them really knowing’!
Putting aside such reservations, the article does offer some new ideas and insights, even to someone like me who has developed sessions on pricing from both financial and marketing perspectives. It starts by making the important point – borne out by many cases of damaged product reputations – that the constant offering of deals and discounts will not only reduce margins, it will also destroy brand equity. The authors suggest that there is a further negative impact of overdoing discounting – it makes customers fixate on price and fail to see the other benefits of buying the product; they become ‘commoditised customers’.
Four approaches are offered to get companies out of this downward spiral. They all seem to have some validity in particular circumstances but, when reading the descriptions, it struck me that practical application will much depend on product, market and competitive strength; there is also a certain amount of overlap between them.
The first suggested approach is to change the pricing structure. The example quoted is motor insurance companies who charge per mile rather than per vehicle, though it is interesting that the pioneers of this idea – Norwich Union – found that it did not convince customers in the UK. It would have been more credible to have an example that had worked!
The second approach is to ‘wilfully overprice’ to create interest and differentiation. This is based on similar reasoning to the old example of customers being offered two types of identical tomatoes and choosing the more expensive ones on the assumption that the quality must be better. The argument is that high pricing will make customers think differently about the value of the offering, making it seem special. Starbucks is quoted as an example and they might also have mentioned Apple, but the authors should have warned us that what may be possible with brands of this quality is likely to destroy the market share of lesser mortals.
The third suggestion will be familiar to customers of RyanAir and similar low cost airlines; you ‘partition’ the offering into component parts, thus highlighting the benefits and making customers more prepared to pay for the value provided. It is accepted that this approach can also produce customer irritation and it is only recommended where it draws attention to a benefit that the customer had previously overlooked.
The final approach is counter intuitive – to offer a similar price for all product variants, even though costs and value perception may be different. For example buying all songs for the same price on iTunes or all Swatch watches at $40, makes the customer forget about price differentials and appreciate the value of those at the higher end of the range.
It is good to see an article about pricing that looks at the topic from a marketing rather than financial perspective and there are some innovative thoughts, but it is hard to see experienced marketers changing their pricing strategy as a result of reading it. But maybe they will question a few of their conventional assumptions.
To read this article go to:
http://hbr.org/2010/05/how-to-stop-customers-from-fixating-on-price/ar/1
Putting aside such reservations, the article does offer some new ideas and insights, even to someone like me who has developed sessions on pricing from both financial and marketing perspectives. It starts by making the important point – borne out by many cases of damaged product reputations – that the constant offering of deals and discounts will not only reduce margins, it will also destroy brand equity. The authors suggest that there is a further negative impact of overdoing discounting – it makes customers fixate on price and fail to see the other benefits of buying the product; they become ‘commoditised customers’.
Four approaches are offered to get companies out of this downward spiral. They all seem to have some validity in particular circumstances but, when reading the descriptions, it struck me that practical application will much depend on product, market and competitive strength; there is also a certain amount of overlap between them.
The first suggested approach is to change the pricing structure. The example quoted is motor insurance companies who charge per mile rather than per vehicle, though it is interesting that the pioneers of this idea – Norwich Union – found that it did not convince customers in the UK. It would have been more credible to have an example that had worked!
The second approach is to ‘wilfully overprice’ to create interest and differentiation. This is based on similar reasoning to the old example of customers being offered two types of identical tomatoes and choosing the more expensive ones on the assumption that the quality must be better. The argument is that high pricing will make customers think differently about the value of the offering, making it seem special. Starbucks is quoted as an example and they might also have mentioned Apple, but the authors should have warned us that what may be possible with brands of this quality is likely to destroy the market share of lesser mortals.
The third suggestion will be familiar to customers of RyanAir and similar low cost airlines; you ‘partition’ the offering into component parts, thus highlighting the benefits and making customers more prepared to pay for the value provided. It is accepted that this approach can also produce customer irritation and it is only recommended where it draws attention to a benefit that the customer had previously overlooked.
The final approach is counter intuitive – to offer a similar price for all product variants, even though costs and value perception may be different. For example buying all songs for the same price on iTunes or all Swatch watches at $40, makes the customer forget about price differentials and appreciate the value of those at the higher end of the range.
It is good to see an article about pricing that looks at the topic from a marketing rather than financial perspective and there are some innovative thoughts, but it is hard to see experienced marketers changing their pricing strategy as a result of reading it. But maybe they will question a few of their conventional assumptions.
To read this article go to:
http://hbr.org/2010/05/how-to-stop-customers-from-fixating-on-price/ar/1