‘Engage for Success’ by Richard Moorer, Training Journal, April 2013

The Training Journal should be concerned about the proportion of their articles which come from consultants trying to sell their wares, as opposed  to learning professionals in companies who are facing the practical problems of implementation.  This is not to suggest that consultants cannot come up with new ideas and concepts - in fact they are a major source of innovation - but articles like this, making too many statements of the blindingly obvious, do not easily convince the sceptical reader.

The author’s precise title is a ‘Solution Architect’ and he starts by confirming the benefits of an engaged workforce - hardly something you could argue with - and suggests that an effective Learning and Development strategy needs to be built around this need for engagement.   It is then argued that engagement will only take place if two criteria are met:

·         Consultation with each individual about their learning needs and

·         A clear link to performance and progression in those consultations

The suggestion is that, too often, the silo-based  nature of organisation structures means that learning and performance are not linked closely enough and this is the main cause of lack of engagement.  Whilst this point is valid to some extent, there is much evidence to suggest that there are many other factors at work, in particular the different nature of organisational cultures.  Those who have run courses for companies will know that there are some cultures where there is instant engagement in learning, a feeling that the participants are lucky to be there and that any course is a great opportunity.  Yet there are others where the negative atmosphere is obvious from the start and there is a fight to create interest.  While the above engagement factors may be part of this, our experience is that the causes go much deeper, for instance the example set at the top of the organisation and the history of  commitment to learning.

Whatever the cause, it is wrong to assume that diagnosing this lack of engagement as the key issue will necessarily solve the problem, particularly if the reasons are deep within the culture.  I have a similar reservation when it comes to the second key point made in the article, the need to link everyone’s learning plans to the company’s strategic goals.  This is obviously ideal but not as easy as the author makes it sound.

It is this lack of practical guidance on how to produce the necessary linkages that makes this article frustrating and reminds you of the common complaint about management consultants; they diagnose problems and suggest generalised outcomes, but without enough practical suggestions on how to get there.  Nor is there any acceptance of the challenges involved in linking individual needs to company priorities and strategy; for instance what happens if the two are not compatible.  In reality you cannot give everyone what they want and sometimes employees and managers are not aware of what is possible and necessary for their development.

There is an interesting reference to the use of e-learning as a way of personalising training and increasing motivation; the suggestion is that e-learning is ‘highly efficient, customised and cost-effective as a way of delivering training’.  This is questionable at a number of levels.  Firstly e-learning is not always motivating,  indeed it can be a lonely experience for those who like to learn with others; and our experience with using e-learning as pre-work for courses is that the take-up can be disappointingly low.  Though customising to individual needs may be feasible in some cases, the customisation to company language and issues may require significant investment and can be the opposite of cost effective for the business as a whole.

There is also a useful reference to the need for e-learning to be available on mobile devices as well as through more conventional PCs.  The valid point is made that any customised e-learning must be more than transferring ‘face to face’ learning material to that format; there must be a re-think of how people learn on PCs and mobile devices.  I would also like to have seen reference to the need for the highest possible levels of interaction, not a feature of many existing e-learning programmes.  MTP has found this to be the key to our success with e-learning and virtual classroom delivery.

This article is very good at stating the desired end state.  It is however weak when it comes to providing real guidance on how to arrive at this perfectly integrated and harmonised situation, with individual learning and organisational objectives perfectly aligned and  everyone motivated towards strategic goals.  Perhaps the author believes that readers will require him as a ‘Solution Architect’ to achieve this nirvana; a more practical approach would have provided a more convincing argument. 

Read the original article;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2013-04-01-engage-for-success/

The Trusted Advisor by David Maister, Charles Green and Robert Galford, published by Simon & Schuster

This is not a new book but thirteen years after publication, it is still to be found in book stores.  Also the wonders of Kindle and iBooks mean that we now have far easier access to works like this that pass the test of time.  My reason for choosing this book for review is that Maister’s ideas have seen a revival because of the increased development of the Business Partnering concept in major companies.  In MTP’s dealings with clients and other contacts with interest in this area, we have come across a number of favourable references to Maister’s concept of the Trusted Advisor, which is the title and central theme of the book.

It is true that the authors regard their main focus as professional selling but the content fits surprisingly well into the context of Business Partnering, including those operating within the Finance and IT Functions.  Indeed the messages seem just as relevant as the work of David Ulrich who specialises in Business Partnering though, in fairness, Ulrich has never claimed that his frameworks apply outside the specific HR context.

As might be gathered from the title, the authors regard trust as the essential ingredient in any successful business interaction, the ultimate goal for anyone who wants to be listened to.  Maister and his co-authors are very much into frameworks that can easily be recognised and applied.  Early on he refers to the four stages of a business relationship, moving through different bases as the partnership matures, from service to needs to relationship and finally to the ultimate goal of mutual trust.

We had already seen this four stage framework in our work on Finance Business Partnering but had not come across his other powerful framework - the ‘Trust Equation’ - before.  This seems to be both ingenious and insightful, containing the four essential factors in the establishment of trust - Credibility, Reliability, Intimacy and Self-orientation.  As you read the last of these four factors you feel that you want to challenge the framework because surely self-orientation is the last thing you need in a trusting relationship.  But this is where the ingenuity comes in; the equation requires the first three elements - C, R and I - to be divided by S for self-orientation so that the lower the S, the higher the T for Trust.  So the message is to think of the needs of others rather than self, an obvious point but one that is well made.

I was less keen on his five stage sequential process for trust building - engage, listen, frame, envision, commit - because it implies that there is a logical progression in building relationships, when clearly each one will be different and may require flexible approaches.  It also implies that the other parties are passively waiting for you to go through the five stages at your order and pace, when in reality they may have their own agenda and process.

The book is also strong on practical tips to apply content.  The chapter on listening skills is excellent and ends with 23 tips for good listening and 10 pitfalls to avoid.  This may seem over the top but it is all good common sense stuff.  The book is also easy to read and of reasonable length, about 200 pages.  Indeed most of the useful content for those interested in Business Partnering is in the first 120 pages. After this point there is a closer link to the selling process though the reader should not miss the final chapter which contains more practical guidance via a ‘quick impact list to gain trust’.  Some of this content is cheesy and blindingly obvious but there are also some memorable pieces of advice that any sales person or business partner should follow.  I particularly liked ‘never over-deliver or under-deliver, just deliver’ and ‘assigning blame will entrap me, taking responsibility will empower me’.

This book is highly recommended for those who want to improve their business relationships with partners and customers, internal and external.  It is perhaps a strength that Maister adopts a client selling orientation because that is what, to a large extent, business partnering is about.  And many of those that we see in service functions like HR, Finance and IT are having to come to terms with this challenge.  This book will help them along the way.

Buy the book;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Trusted-Advisor-David-Maister/dp/0743207769/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366032861&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Trusted+Advisor+by+David+Maister

‘Flying the Flag’ by Virginia Matthews, Director Magazine, March 2013

Like many in Director Magazine, this article promises more than it delivers and ultimately fails to justify the headline of the section in which it is placed - ‘The Expert – information you need from the people you know’.  The topic is the business position and strategies of the major UK business schools but the author fails to convince that there is expert knowledge available.  As is typical of too many Director articles, there are selective and self-serving quotes from those representing vested interests.

The first quote is from the Head of the Masters Programme at Cass (City University) Business School which has launched a joint programme in ‘quantitative finance’ with Singapore Management University.  The rather questionable claim is that ‘the pre-eminence of British Education is here to stay’, a claim that those at Harvard, INSEAD and IMD might want to question!  They might also roll their eyes at the further reference to the ‘UK’s great research and teaching standards’ and ‘extraordinary achievements’.  I believe that some of our business schools are pretty good but this is way over the top. 

Despite this questionable start, the article still provides some interesting information and insights into trends in management education.  It follows the quote from Cass by admitting that, though some UK institutions may be extending their influence abroad, the number of international students coming to UK business schools is in consistent decline.  Overall enrolment is at an eight year low and is 21% down on the numbers only three years ago. 

Just when it is in danger of becoming interesting, the article strays from its main theme when it tries to make references to the implications for SMEs - Small and Medium Enterprises - but the links are tenuous to say the least.  The Head of Henley’s Executive Education claims that the expansion of business education into Asia somehow opens opportunities for SMEs, with business schools offering inside knowledge and even arranging meetings for SME managers.

Apparently Henley is expanding physically into Asia with a wholly owned campus in Saudi Arabia and a planned launch into Malaysia.  Strathclyde Business School has chosen to make similar moves into Africa.  This strategic response to declining numbers at home is seen as the best way to counter increasing competition from the major consulting firms and specialist training organisations.  Despite the increase of on-line learning, Mike Brooks of Henley believes that ‘getting on a plane to deliver learning remains the best option for delivery to students’.

This is still in line with the views of many buyers in top international companies - though increasing numbers are changing their mind as virtual classroom technology and expertise develops - but it does beg the question of why you therefore need a campus in Saudi Arabia as a base for those who are to catch the planes.  MTP’s experience is that the physical location of those who deliver business training is becoming less and less important, it is the ability to be flexible and to tailor material to each company and culture that matters.  And those who try to compensate for falling numbers in the UK by establishing expensive overheads abroad are exposing themselves to much higher risk.

There is however no doubt that the route of collaboration with institutions in other countries can pay off and the IOD finds room in the article to describe its own educational activities in a wide range of countries.  The author quite reasonably asks the IOD’s Director of Learning & Development, Ryan Ahearn, why countries that are wanting to develop their own skills should look to the UK and the answer is that ‘the UK’s professional qualifications are well respected overseas’.   Ahearn suggests that partnership with local institutions is the way forward, helping such organisations to develop their own resources.

Susan Roth of Cass Business School continues the self-serving tendency by claiming that ‘British Executive Education is embedding ethical behaviour in the mindset of a new generation of business leaders’.  I am quite prepared to believe that our ethics are more acceptable than most countries but the activities of our banks in recent years might cause sceptical students to doubt our pre-eminence in this area.

However, in the battle for the gold medal in self-serving and patronising comment, Mike Brooks of Henley surpasses even Cass and the IOD.  He makes the questionable claim that ‘Western Business Schools, as opposed to home grown ones, have a clear edge in thought and understanding’.  Even more outrageous is his view about business training in China that ‘where bald research and data’ as apparently delivered by consultancies is no substitute for the ‘in-depth understanding and translation’ which Henley can provide.  I wonder how the Chinese feel about that.

This is followed by a more balanced comment from Susan Hart of Strathclyde who stresses that collaboration must be two-way and that we must forget any ideas of imposing our western views offshore; instead we should be learning from those in other parts of the world.  Maybe she needs to visit Henley!  Bill Shedden of Cranfield also adopts a more balanced approach by emphasising the importance of customising content and the benefits of delivering webinars on-line.

Each of the contributors are encouraged to make comments about the issues for SMEs but these are contrived and few coherent points are made.  No-one seems to accept the key problem for SMEs - that they are too small to develop their own tailored training activity.  Their managers are therefore limited to generic, publicly available business courses that mainly contain content that is more suitable for larger businesses.  How many Harvard or LBS case studies feature SME issues?

The article would have been more convincing if it had explored this issue in more depth rather than allowing business school representatives to make questionable claims and contrived links to SMEs.  My main conclusion from the article is that I would have great concerns about the future of those business schools who think that the UK is so pre-eminent and that physical expansion into developing countries is the right strategy.  But as Business Schools are among MTP’s key competitors, I guess I should be grateful. 

Read the original article;

http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2013/03_March/Flying%20the%20flag_66_06.html