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