admin

Accountability as part of a Mindset leading to real success   Recently updated !

This entry was posted in Communication effectiveness Leadership on by

Accountability has seen a significant increase in investment over the last year.  What is accountability?  Why is it important? What does it change to results and team dynamics?  Why are people not accountable?  What will foster accountability? Those are a few of the questions leaders ask and where they seek solutions. Our efforts have been aimed at explaining accountability, putting it in the perspective of a productive mindset, and helping teams define where they must be accountable and what they will gain from it.

What is accountability?

Many people see accountability as a tool to blame others when things don’t go as planned.  In the news we often read demands to identify who is accountable for such and such events.  In most cases, it means that we try to identify a person or group to blame.  At Aseret, we do not think that accountability should serve that purpose.  Who wants to be accountable if it is used to assign blame?  Accountability must empower people, help them accept ownership of both success and failure so that they can evolve, grow and develop solutions.  We aim to help individuals, teams and corporations to be accountable and guide their actions in the most productive manner possible.  Accountability should always be a call to action to benefit all stakeholders.  Here is an example on which we worked with a client this year.  This applies to all customer-facing individuals in the company.  Accountability: For every customer, find out their reasons to opt for any product other than ours, put that information in the correct perspective, and figure out what it will take for them to choose or consider our option. 

Accountability is the ability to actively engage in every reasonable action that aim to optimize results for all stakeholders.

Why is it important? 

It is a plan of action to generate results that are beneficial to all stakeholders.  By insisting on every customer, it tells the accountable person that they must consider each customer as potential.  While it is true that corporations have specific target lists based on a multitude of proven parameters, data is not perfect.  It is also a great exercise for anyone to determine if indeed the data is accurate.  It may reveal potential that was overlooked.  This accountability statement also tells team members that discounting clients they don’t like or don’t get along with is not a sufficient reason to abandon efforts.  The statement also says that we must seek first to understand why the customers opt for any product or solution.  It implies that team members must be sufficiently curious to find ways to ascertain the decision making process of each customer.  It also implies that we learn from those customers, that we gain knowledge directly from them.  It is that very knowledge that will guide systematic, structured and logical actions.  This then forms the guidelines for the last section of the statement, to define what will most likely help customers opt for the adapted solutions we can offer and support.

What does it change to results and team dynamics?

Being accountable is realizing that we, as individuals in a team, must take upon ourselves to move forward and generate optimal results.  It implies that if I find out that a customer needs information that I do not have, I must find a way to provide that information.  Instead of saying, “that’s not my expertise therefore I am not responsible if the information is not available”, the individual will engage with other members of the team or the corporation to unearth the information and determine how to best transmit it to the customer. 

Imagine that you are hosting a Zoom conference with 50 people.  Your house or office loses power, and you cannot run the meeting.  Will you simply do nothing, let people wonder why the session is not starting and blame the power company for your inability to do your job?  What efforts will you deploy that are not technically part of your responsibilities?  Why are you taking such actions?  What are your efforts likely to generate? 

What if you are hosting very important customers in the boardroom in the morning and there is a roaring retirement celebration in that same boardroom the evening before and, because the power outlets in that boardroom did not work for some reason, the cleaning crew did not vacuum the carpet, leaving all kinds of detritus scattered on the floor.  How would you respond to the leader of that crew stating that it is indeed the responsibility of the cleaning team to vacuum but if there is no power for their tools, they are not able to do their job?  What would an accountable cleaning team do in such circumstances?

Imagine a very similar situation but exchange the cleaning crew with the vice-president of marketing and the vacuum replaced with a laptop and projector for the Power Point presentation.  It is the responsibility of the VP to make the PowerPoint presentation.  What does an accountable VP do in case the power outlets do not work? Do they spend their time blaming the building manager?  Or do they find a way to make the presentation?  In this case, the accountability of the VP is not to make the PowerPoint presentation, their accountability is to ensure that the information is transmitted in the optimal manner to the client, verify how the information is perceived, and how it will help the client decide.  If the presentation is made on a flipchart, only with a black marker, it may not be pretty or dazzling, but if it does transmit the necessary information and engages the client in a productive discussion, who cares if the colors are not right?

Why are people not accountable? 

Back to where we started this short discussion, an important factor to explain why people are not accountable (or don’t see the value of accountability) lays in the tendency to blame others for errors or failures.  In the book The Right Kind of Wrong, Amy Edmondson helps us better understand how failures have been an incredible engine for innovation.  Allegedly, Thomas Edison said the following on inventing the light bulb after countless attempts that resulted in busts: “I have not failed, I just found 10,000 ways that won’t work.”  He did not say this to dismiss failures; he simply expressed that success often comes after or because of failures.  It is also a great link to accountability.  Edison understood that perseverance (be curious), learning from mistakes (acquire knowledge), searching for better ways to obtain a set objective (be adaptable) and diligent efforts were fundamental to the end result.  There is a tendency in business to easily blame any mistake or failure and, at the same time, only praise outstanding outcomes.  I have referred to the following data many times over the past 20 years.  I am using it again to help illustrate the issue with accountability.  Sadly, engagement statistics have been consistent since the mid 90’s.  For the last 30 years in the US, only 25 to 30 % of employees are deemed engaged in their work.  For those individuals, engagement means that they are actively interested in their job, are trying their best to be efficient, they care about their impact and are interested in learning.  According to Gallup in a publication of 2025 some of the reasons for employees to be disengaged revolve around 1- a lack of clarity on expectations, 2- the feeling that they are not sufficiently treated as a person, 3- do not receive encouragement for their development.  If we only look at those three factors, it can explain why people are not accountable.  How can one be accountable if expectations are not clear, and if they feel unimportant?  Add to this a generalized lack of recognition, low value for teamwork, loss of purpose and we can better understand some of the reasoning behind a reduced level of accountability.

Accountability should free us to do what actually makes a difference.  It implies that we will try things that may fail at times.  In a culture of psychological safety, where failures are discussed and seen as an opportunity rather than a way to blame others, people actually embrace accountability and understand that it ultimately generates growth and success.  Being accountable does not imply that everything will be perfect, go as planned or even succeed.  It does infer that a person or a team take upon themselves to try their best to get the intended results.  The cleaning crew imagined earlier may try to find battery operated vacuum cleaners, mechanical sweep brooms or simply do the best possible job using what they have in hand.  It may not be perfect or impeccable, but they aim for the best possible results.

Here is an actual situation, something that happened to someone I know.  The person showed up for a doctor’s appointment and asked the receptionist if the intended exam was covered by Medicare.  The response was, “I don’t know, you can ask the doctor when you see her”.  While it is true that the receptionist may not be directly responsible to know the information and provide it to the patient, if that individual was accountable to provide optimal service to a patient, the answer would have been something like “let me check for you with our billing team”.  An accountable person will do whatever is reasonable to ensure clients have the necessary information they need.

What will foster accountability?

  1. Define specific accountabilities and why they must be put in place (sense of urgency)
  2. Establish psychological safety.  Failure is welcome, discussed, viewed as an opportunity to learn, a launchpad for improvement.
  3. Empower people.  It is a personal as well as a team necessity.
  4. Track and recognize accountable behaviors, highlighting the positive outcomes.
  5. Celebrate the results of accountability.
  6. Make accountability a part of the culture for success.
  1. Define and be specific. 

We often hear comments such as “we know what our accountabilities are.” or “We completely understand what must be done”.  Very often, it is only partially true.  And in most cases, accountabilities are misunderstood and viewed as the same as responsibilities.  In reality, they are often quite “different” even if they do work together.  If a team is responsible for transmitting the messaging for a product or service to customers, they should be accountable to ensure that the messaging is indeed shared in a manner that makes sense to each individual customer.  To do so, people in the team must understand what is important to each customer and “translate” the messaging in a manner that has value.  For example, safety of a product is an important message, and it will be a significant aspect for a large number of customers.  It is, however, critical to understand that safety may not mean the same thing to every customer.  This is an example of a specific statement of accountability defined by one client: “We commit to fully understand the various requirements our team may have and determine the best way to facilitate and implement adapted and creative solutions within the confines of the law and rules of engagement of our industry.”   In this statement, there is recognition that all members of a team may not have the same requisites, motivations, or aspirations, meaning that one solution that fits all will not be sufficient, even acceptable if the intent is for the whole team to find ways to work as a team and collaborate optimally.

  1. Establish psychological safety.

Most people will agree that accountability is vital to any business endeavor.  While we can easily argue that accountability is essential in a plethora of other situations, not just business, let’s stay with business.  The question now is, how can we ensure that a majority of people are indeed accountable?  We stated earlier that accountability should not be a tool to blame people.  It is therefore important to avoid retribution for unaccountable behaviors.  While it may work, repression and fear-based practices are usually short-lived.  The rebound effect may also be brutal.  Imagine that people in any company work very hard to hide mistakes or failures.  They may do so because failure is considered unacceptable or, if it is accepted, there are immediate and often long-term consequences.  Individuals, even after one mistake, get a negative reputation.  They are not assigned to key projects or not well integrated in teams.  If and when that happens, people notice, and avoid being “that guy”.  Blaming people for failures is probably one of the most destructive corporate behaviors and is a major hindrance to growth, to discovery, to improvements that may generate tremendous success.  How many failures happened in the course of inventing the telephone, the explosion engine, most tools we use in kitchens, the computer, television, radio, airplanes, safe heating systems, sewers, medications, vaccines, heart transplant, etc.  If mistakes, failures, embarrassment, or discouragement were banned or blown out of proportions, we may still live in caves.  Countless misfiring and initial fiascos resulted in life altering discoveries.  Penicillin is a prime example.  X-rays is another.  And so are the pacemaker, superglue, the micro-wave oven, Velcro, the smoke detector, matches, warfarin, etc.  Imagine your life without those.  Imagine if a single failure was treated in such a way that inventors stopped their efforts.  The first solution to accountability is to accept and discuss failures as a way forward.

  1. Empower people

In addition to being safe, people in a group must have the ability to express their accountabilities, discuss them, and encourage others in their actions.  Let individuals refine group accountabilities to ensure they own them. In line with psychological safety, let people try different approaches to their accountabilities.  Allow them to share their successes as well as their failures or challenges.  Encourage sharing of actions and their outcomes.

  1. Track and recognize accountable behaviors, highlighting the positive outcomes.

As people are empowered and share what they have put into place, there must be a system in place to track all actions, those that resulted in progress, and those that will help build a roadmap for continued growth.  We always ask teams to discuss, define and write their accountabilities so that everyone has them.  Teams are then encouraged to get together on a regular basis (every 3-4 weeks) and review how they implemented their accountabilities and what resulted, trying to turn every failure or difficulty into a learning opportunity, and clearly identifying the positive outcomes.  This way, efforts are discussed and turned into valuable growth moments.  We want to encourage effort as well as possibly rephrasing or re-organizing accountabilities if there is a need.

Behavioral changes are often best established on positive outcomes.  The more we look at actions often and with an eye to validate the outcomes, the more comfort we gain with the necessary actions, and they eventually turn into new or more stable habits.

  1. Celebrate the results of accountability.

Some of the findings, learning opportunities and outcomes from step 4 must receive more energy, they must be celebrated.  A celebration must be specific.  It must highlight precise behaviors or actions and detail the outcomes. By verbalizing the outcome(s) (reaction), giving them a meaning, we validate the accountable behaviors and continue to reinforce their habitual implementation.  And following the precepts already outlined, it is important to celebrate both successes and failures.  Celebrating failures is honoring what was learned from them and how they contributed to perseverance and guiding the way to improved actions.

  1. Make accountability a part of the culture for success.

What results from steps 4 and 5 is the integration of accountable action into the team culture.  Here again, we must not expect that it will happen organically, without addressing it.  The chances are that as we celebrate the results of accountability, habits are formed and then become part of the culture.  While this is true, it remains necessary to “officially” state the culture evolution as it influences the vision and mission of the group.

One last essential aspect is to understand that accountability does not live on its own. As we have defined in the Congruent™ Mindset, Accountability can only thrive when used in congruence with Adaptability, Knowledge and Curiosity.  To be accountable, an individual must show a certain level of flexibility (adaptability).  As one is accountable, they learn and acquire knowledge that feeds their accountability and outcomes.  Finally, one learns and adapts by using curiosity.  By opening their minds to new knowledge and novel ways to approach situations.  It is therefore part of being accountable to seek growth and innovative endeavors.

One final thought.  How much is your company spending on market research, market access, data and other tools or systems?  What is the return on those investments?  Now, think of a team of people that are truly accountable, adaptable, knowledgeable and curious.  A team that embraces those competencies fully.  How much can such a team tell you about the market, your clients, the way to access them, what has most influence on their choices and all those pieces of information for which the company is paying other people to tell you.  An accountable and curious team will probably accumulate highly valuable market data at no additional cost.  They will gain access more naturally.  Their adaptability will allow them to maximize returns on the most basic tools they use.  Accountable people are also fair, honest, humble and reasonable individuals which in turn makes them pretty effective at gaining valuable and actionable knowledge.  Why not invest in building that kind of team as opposed to spending enormous amounts of resources and hope they will be used efficiently?

Progress is often considered a bad thing for some and good for others. Which is it?

This entry was posted in Communication effectiveness HR development strategy Leadership Learning and development and tagged growth leadership learning productivity progress on by

Do you have a mobile phone? If so, is it a smart phone? You know, a phone that has more computing capacity than the NASA teams that sent American astronauts to the moon and brought them back in the late 60’s. Some of you may not know what was available before those smart phones so the next few questions may not make immediate sense to you. Still read on as it will soon speak to you. How would many of you feel if you had to go back to the digital phones of the first decade of the second millennium? With many of them, most notably with a BlackBerry, you could send and receive emails, accomplish a number of tasks, and talk to people. Very few Apps were available. Paying bills, banking, booking a hotel or airline tickets, GPS navigation, watching television series or movies, consulting books, taking and editing pictures or videos, paying for groceries or restaurant bills, calculating your mortgage payments as you considered purchasing a house or apartment, dating, ordering food, ordering a car ride service, reading a newspaper, and a plethora of other tasks that are normal today were either impossible or really challenging.

What about analog phones before that? Texting and calling were the only things you could do. Would you go back to that?

If you like your smart phone or if you hate it but cannot see how you could function without it, it is fair to imply that you embraced or at least accepted progress.

What about cars? What about dial-up internet access? What about the advances in computers? What about fiber optics? What about flat screen TVs? What of the newest drugs to treat cancers, diabetes, auto-immune diseases, and genetic diseases? What would a large part of the population do without Amazon? While it is certainly true that all of the above come at a cost, would you be OK to go back to what was there before? If not, whatever that “not” is, you choose progress.

All that progress came from research, science, and people like you, thinking that it is always possible to do better. Dreamers like Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Watson and Crick, Alexander Graham Bell, and Pasteur still, to this day, influence all of our lives. They used science to induce progress. But wait, what if they were simply the hands of God? What if all their inspiration came from the Supreme Guide? Then we should look at progress and science as good things, created by God. Things that must have been designed to make us better people. Isn’t curing diseases part of the plan for humans to be happier? Isn’t it benevolent to use progress to reduce suffering?

Progress is usually meant to improve our lives. Yet, we can also associate progress with terrible things. Those smart phones we love also make us stupid. We do not remember the phone numbers of the people we love. We depend on those devices to remind us to reach out to our friends for their birthdays. People have dinner together, on a round table, with great food served by hard-working people, but cannot look into each others’ eyes because they are too busy with another part of their lives, the one that lives on a screen.

We spend more time trying to connect our devices to our cars’ entertainment system than actually driving properly, with eyes on the road. We order food kits rather than learn to cook and create something that may reveal skills we never knew we were able to develop. We avoid talking to people because texting is cooler, and significantly less involving. We freely call people names and destroy their lives online because we never face them or even consider that what we read about them may be wrong.

Does this mean that progress is bad? Well, it is not always only good.  In 19th century London (UK), detritus was everywhere, most of the human excrement was left in the streets and found their way to the Thames.   People lived in disease-ridden filth.   Do people in London today want to go back to 19th century London? Probably not yet, who would like housing in London to be more affordable? Advances in medicine have saved millions of lives, we all have a friend or relative that is still here today because of it. Yet advancements are increasingly expensive and demanding on the system with some people having no true access to those advances. Computers have initially brought increases in productivity yet; it is more and more questioned because each of us using computers must do more than before. In fact, the productivity paradox depicts a bleaker picture when comparing the incredible advances of computing capabilities and the overall productivity of industrialized countries.

While there are disadvantages associated with progress, we mostly benefit from it. And progress being progress, we also evolve our abilities to deal with the less positive consequences.

By 1720, Nantucket Island was the hub of whaling in America. In 1853, American whaling reached its peak and employed around 70,000 people. At that time, it is estimated that the total population in what is now the USA was roughly 23 million. In today’s numbers, it would mean that over 1 million people were employed in whaling. While in 1853 there were over 900 whaling vessels, by 1895, only 51 remained in all the USA. The last whaling ship in the US was sent out in 1927. Progress can bring dramatic changes, and the population did adapt.

In 1950, we had over 1,340,000 switchboard operators in the US. By 1991, they were all gone. What about video store operators? Have you seen a milkman lately? How about typesetters? What about photo developing? How many music record stores are left today?

Things change constantly. Moore’s law states that computer chips double in transistor capacity every 2 years. This last comment certainly brings up the concept of “programmed obsolescence” for many. And with it the idea that much progress has been the result of increased profits, market shares, competitive advantages, and other means to generate revenue. Our economy is founded on growth. Reducing costs may lead to growth in profits. Increasing demand may also yield more profits. Scarcity brings prices up and potential profits. It may therefore be fair to say that progress is an economic phenomenon driven by greed rather than need. Afterall, the Middle Ages span over a thousand years and comparatively to the 500 years that followed (Renaissance, the Age of Exploration, Early Modern Period, and the Industrial Era), few meaningful innovations were made (eyeglasses, gunpowder, windmills, clocktowers, building techniques, printing machines, and agriculture).  Could we still live in that way? Of course. Would we want to live that way? The average life expectancy during that period was 30 to 35 years. And it was rough, really awful at most times. Close to 70% of the US population was over 35 in 2024. In 1024, those people would be dead already. Is that progress?

We can dispute the fact that a number of innovations may have caused more pain than benefits. When I asked AI to list innovations that have had more negative impacts than positives, it spat back, social media, Opioids, Automotive technology, Fast Fashion, e-cigarettes, and others. In each case, the net benefit can be argued on both sides. The point is that progress comes not only with positives. Same as if we chose to live in the Middle Ages.

Progress is in Nature. The universe is still expanding after billions of years following the Big Bang. Species on Earth keep evolving as Nature changes. That is progress. We age, we learn, we change. Progress is part of life; it happens whether we want it or not. So, while some of it may not yield all the positive initially intended, it seems more productive to embrace it and work with it than just wait and see.

If we agree with this, we must briefly revisit what drives progress. Even if we accept that a considerable number of developments are motivated by economic growth or tenet, what drives progress is science and research. Eyeglasses were invented around the year 1000 after an Arab scholar and astronomer suggested that smoother glass could help people with visual impairment. It was based on observation, reflection, and empirical data. The steam engine, the telephone, the light bulb, the airplane, the automobile, the computer, the transistor, and the internet were all created following scientific discoveries of fundamental and applied science. Science is progress.  Science is looking for answers and often finds them. Just like progress, it makes mistakes, and it searches for ways to explain and fix them. Everyone has the right to criticize science yet all of us benefit from science every minute of every day. Science actually makes it easier to question and vilify it since websites and social media are using science as a structure for their existence.  Science is everywhere around us. It is the reason we have smart phones with the computing capacity of thousands on NASA scientists of the 1960’s in our pocket. Science is an integral part of progress, even for Mother Nature.

Here is an example of Mother Nature’s use of science.  The peppered moth’s original color was a mix of grey tones.  It allowed the moth to mimic the color of tree bark and “hide” from birds, their predator. The moth thrived.  Then came the industrial Revolution (progress) and soot was produced in such quantities that tree bark was covered in black.  As a result, the darker individuals of the peppered moth were less detectable than their lighter cousins.  Consequently, the now prominent peppered moth was darker in color.  The lighter individuals, more easily detectable by their predators, faded away until coal was replaced by cleaner energy sources (more progress).  Tree barks went back to their “natural” color and the lighter moth “returned” at the demise of the darker ones.  This is one of many demonstrations of natural selection, science.

Progress is ineluctable, our environment ever changing.  To survive, we adapt.  And if we want to use this example as a way to explain that going backwards is a good thing, let us not forget that the return of the “original” peppered moth was caused by the progress in sources of energy.  Otherwise, the dark moth would have continued to prevail on the basis of the environmental reality.  The point is that everything changes and progresses.

So, progress. Is this a bad or a good thing? Why do we embrace progress and, at the same time, vilipend and disparage several of its implications?  Sometimes, it is important to spend the time to understand what a word, a concept, or an idea means, so we can put it in the correct perspective.

Investing in a growth initiative. Yes, no, maybe, why?

This entry was posted in HR development strategy Leadership Learning and development and tagged Business growth and strategy development learning productivity on by

Imagine that you just invested a significant amount of money in a development program that aims to move your team to a leadership position in the market, a place that will give you a real edge in a few years.  It may be an adapted sales approach, a new collaboration matrix, a novel communication method, or a customer interaction system.  The management team understands this and sees the potential.  In fact, it is the management team that insisted on the effort.  They decided that without this, the competition will have such advantages in 2-5 years that the quality of our relationship with customers will not be able to compensate sufficiently to keep the momentum until the new product hits the market in 5 to 7 years.  The loss incurred will not be recovered.  In fact, the new product may as well not launch in that case.

Now imagine that about 15% of field people either decide not to adopt the new operational principles or are unable to do so but, in every case, their current results are such that their managers opt to overlook their lack of effort because their numbers look good.    After all, that’s what is evaluated in the end, the numbers, not the attitude, efforts or dedication to grow.  Quite frankly, numbers are much easier to measure. Please note that this is not a hypothetical situation, we have seen it happen a little too often.  In addition to that, because of the way the recognition programs are structured, the chances for any of those individuals to earn more as well as become the employee of the year, or being celebrated publicly throughout the corporation are very, very high.   This, we have also witnessed many times.   Now consider the following questions:

  1. What does this say about corporate priorities?
  2. What are team members supposed to do with the new initiative?
  3. How are team members interpreting the message sent by those actions?
  4. What is the point of that investment?
  5. What is the actual cost of the initiative?

Chances are that most people reading this can relate.  You have seen it happen; you have lived it.  You have felt the results.

Let us explore a few potential answers.  All of them are based on factual information.

Question 1: What does this say about corporate priorities?

Clearly, it indicates a focus on immediate results being more important, in the short term, than long-term results.  It says that, while we understand that our future depends on the growth of the competencies identified in the development programs, we are not willing or able to truly invest in that future.  In a public company, shareholders must be happy.  If the leadership team is not able to explain decisions and actions over a period of 10 years in this case, the need to please investors is founded on short term results.  The plan is therefore to invest in the future but do whatever to keep current revenues stable.  It is not a bad approach in itself.  What is often overlooked are the consequences associated with the short-term view.  It may also speak of the compensation package of the CEO.  But that is another topic.

In a private company it may indicate a lack of courage or true understanding of consequences.  It may speak of a lack of vision or that too many members of the leadership team are close to retirement.  This is real folks.  Companies have actually avoided investing in their future because a contingent of partners close to retirement did not want to see their year-end compensation reduced by 5 to 10 thousand dollars on an average $500,000.00 package.  What is $10,000.00 for anyone making more than half a million dollars?  More importantly, what does it say about the leaders of the company?

We can explore dozens of possible reasons for either public or private corporations to “overlook” investing in the future to support short-term results.  The question remains, what does it say about priorities?  Whatever the reason, the main conclusion is that the short-term wins over the future.  If an employee, whatever their level, also comes to this conclusion, how do they see their future in this group and where will they focus their efforts?  That leads us to the second question.

Question 2, what are team members supposed to do with the new initiative?

If a person sees the value for them, they will adopt the initiative.  They may look at the longer-term possibilities and determine that their mastery of key competencies will be an asset.  It may even help them in the short term.  If the company fails in their readiness to face the competitive product, they will have developed skills that can more easily transfer to another corporation.  That way of looking at the initiative will serve them even if it means using the competencies elsewhere.  In short, the company invests in their future at the risk of losing them when those skills are more relevant. 

Another person, as it is depicted in the second paragraph, decides that the effort to change is more costly than the immediate return.  Their current trend indicates that they are likely to max out on their potential bonus without the pain of learning something new.  In addition, they may be recognized as “the best” which in turn, will likely make them more attractive to another employer if things take a downturn in just a few years.  And while their manager may be on their case in the short run, they know they will eventually be left alone. 

One may imagine numerous other possibilities but in almost all cases, the decisions will be founded on personal value rather than team impact.  In itself, that is not the real problem.  We should all look at options that improve our prospects.  The problem resides in the probable deterioration of the team dynamics and the resulting consequences.  A few of those consequences are illustrated in the answer to the third question.

Question 3, how are team members interpreting the message sent by those actions?

One interpretation is that the leadership team does not know what they are doing.  I don’t know about you but if I conclude that leaders having influence on my career do not understand their own actions, my trust in them is seriously jeopardized.  If that is the case, I am likely to dismiss most of their decisions.  The result is that I will do what is right for me and my clients based on what I know, not on what I should consider as a better option.

Another interpretation is that someone had a budget to spend and did just that, spend the money.  If using a budget is the basis for a decision, I am likely to dismiss or overlook the actual value of the decision and the object of that decision.  Anyone with a few years in an industry will soon recognize the “flavor of the month” effort and give just enough to be left alone.  Whatever value the initiative may have is likely to be lost.  What a waste.

I am convinced that you can identify several other interpretations that most likely go down the same direction.  And in most cases, the end result is similar.  So then, what is the point of making that investment (question 4)?

If management sees the need for the future but remain focused on the short term.  If team members individually benefit or dismiss the effort with little to not positive impact on team collaboration.  If people see this initiative as disorganized or as a “make-work” project.  Why do it?  Why spend money that is considered a waste?  Why give energy to something that is not valued?  Why ask people to invest when leadership does not?  How many decisions are made on the wrong premises and result in more damage?

Which leads us to the final question, one that we must ask with more regularity.

Question 5, what is the real cost of the initiative? 

A first aspect is obviously associating the dollar value with the results or opportunity cost.  If the initiative costs $2,000.00 per person involved, how do you know that this amount is recovered, when it is and, more importantly, what increases in revenue or profit result from the investment?  We must be convinced that it was worth it if we decided to go ahead with the initiative, right.  One way to evaluate the results is to measure changes in sales trends for each person involved, or revenue change.  A better way is to compare a group of people that went through a growth initiative versus one that has not.  If both groups were trending in the same direction and one has changed its direction following the initiative, the difference is the result of that very initiative.  See https://aseret-uido.com/results/ for more information.  If no difference exists after a reasonable time span, the initiative was not useful.

What about other costs?  If a group is told that an initiative has been put in place because it is believed to be important for everyone, people will expect that all involved must join the effort.  In our case, 15% of people just don’t change.  And of these people, none seems negatively impacted.  In fact, it starts going around that those individuals are left alone.  They can keep doing what they did before.  Moreso, these people are ultimately recognized by the leadership as the “best”, the “winners”.  And yet, the other 85% are told that they must adapt their way.  What are some of the consequences of that?  Dip in trust, disillusion, incomprehension, disdain, sarcasm, condescension, and disengagement.  What does those cost?   Imagine that any of these thoughts or feelings lead to the voluntary departure of 3 of the people you identified as key potentials for the future.  It is estimated that the replacement of such people, taking into account the impact of their departure on their clients or contacts, plus the fact that they may be joining forces with a competitor, and training another person, could be in the vicinity of $220,000.00 per person.  What is the net cost of this situation?  We often overlook the hidden costs of certain leadership behaviors because the other costs are easier to measure.  Putting pressure on an individual to change when their revenue numbers are good puts us immediately in a situation in which we see the implementation of an important initiative as a potential loss.  It is much easier to push other people that are not meeting their revenue potential because we also see a loss of potential revenue.  What would we do if, on the contrary, we looked at those situations from a more positive perspective, one of potential gain.  The person already attaining expected revenue may in fact be underperforming based on the existing potential, therefore, helping that person grow may have a seriously positive impact.  The person that must increase their revenue base may react very productively if we coach them in a positive manner, looking at the longer-term impact rather than immediate progress.  The point is that if a decision is made for a valid reason, it should apply more broadly and with an outlook on the future. 

Let’s look at the loss associated with a strong potential employee leaving.  If it costs us $220,000.00 in one year to replace that individual, how much is the 15% compensating for that in immediate revenue?  What is the longer-term cost?

The point is not to say that the15% are bad people and they should be forced to accept reality.  Neither are we saying that it is OK to let them “do their thing”.   The point is the following.  If the initiative is indeed important for the future, a company must have the courage to implement it completely.  Otherwise, don’t do it.  Save that money for something else that is going to be meaningful.

Some of you may say: what about splitting the apple in two?  You mean going halfway in with the initiative?  Are you thinking of encouraging people with a future to grow and letting short-term returns come in until they don’t?  Well, to avoid the costly consequences enumerated above, you would need to plan in advance and make both half of the apple part of your plan.  You must be able to explain your actions and the expected results.  But then, what do you say to the people that will soon be “disposable”?  How is going halfway in explained, and how will people react?

A key aspect here is decision making and its impacts. 

  1. Are you clear on the objective.
  2. Are you looking into various options?
  3. Are you considering the outcomes?
  4. Can you evaluate the costs associated with each outcome?
  5. What action will best help you meet your objective?

First, are you clear on your objectives?  Do you want to prepare for the future and yet limit short term losses?  In this instance, I would ask this: what is the most important part of that objective for the future of the company?  If it is the future, then what will be the most efficient way to get there? If ensuring optimal short-term returns to secure the future is your objective, great.  How will that be done?  What is the process behind meeting that objective?  Clarity of objective helps eliminate options early on to focus on viable alternatives instead.  What was the objective of launching the Challenger Space Shuttle in January 1986?  Stop the bad press, look decisive, avoid another delay, or ensure that we have every possible chance to bring the crew back alive?  Nobody would say that the last objective was not “the one”.  But was it the objective used to make the decision?  We now know that it was not. 

If the objective is to prepare for the future and yet limit short term losses. The second step is to evaluate the various options to meet that objective.  We touched on a few earlier.  Then step three is to consider the possible outcomes for each option.  In decision-making we tend to orient the decision toward the option that has the least negative with the most positive outcomes.  Step four is to quantify the cost of the options.  Losing 3 people that are part of our future will likely cost $660,000.00.  To what extent is that acceptable against the non-attainment of expected revenue for the year? Well, that depends on the associated number to that option.  And what is the cost associated with delaying our initiative by 1, 2 or 3 years?

Once options, their probable outcomes and costs are evaluated, a decision to act is necessary.  It does not mean that adjustments should not be considered.  Not at all.  It does however imply that changes must be seriously evaluated and in line with the original objective.

And maybe the most important question of all: If you have an objective and consider an action, it must be because something of value must be done.  That usually stems from an existing problem, right?  So, what is the problem that needs fixing?

In too many cases, the issue is not the decision to act, it is a misguided evaluation of the problem.  In this case, the problem seems to be that the current approach will not enable the group to be well positioned in the near future.  If that is the case, the loss incurred with be felt at multiple levels.  The other problem is that short-term results overshadow the long-term prospects.

Consider yourself lucky to have a job! 5

This entry was posted in Leadership and tagged leadership productivity progress on by

Really!  There is a shortage of qualified workers.  Even for jobs that do not require specific or elaborate training, positions remain unfilled.  We are in the middle of the Great Resignation.  It is employers that should consider themselves lucky to have people working for them.  The pendulum swings from one extreme to the other.  I am lucky today, you are lucky tomorrow, and back and forth we go along the years.  Leaders that use that kind of terminology, whatever their reasons or their aim, are missing the leadership boat and have embarked on the dictatorial raft.  The same goes for employees trying to exert a long overdue need for assertiveness, even power.   The use of such perspective is a barely disguised way to exercise power over other people, to try to control them and have our way with them, whatever side uses it. 

It shows contempt, lack of respect, and tries to establish superiority over others.  It generates anger, fear, retaliation, or negativism.  In almost every case, it feeds the relentless movement of disengagement.  True leaders strive to engage individuals on a journey of discovery and growth.  They don’t use fear, coercion, manipulation, or authoritarianism.  Veritable leaders lead the way in a manner that people want and desire to follow.  They inspire others to be the best they can be.

Have you ever worked for an organization or a team that gained both your respect and dedication simply because it felt right?  Have you at some point evolved with a group of people that respected each other sufficiently to be honest, even direct at times, but always in order for all to win, together?  When is the last time you woke up in the morning, excited to start your working day, eager to dive into a project, knowing that your efforts would be of value, contribute to something and be recognized fairly?  Do you feel that in spite of differences in opinions and styles, the people around you communicate openly, with the aim to understand?

Everybody has an agenda.  Each of us has personal ambitions.  There will likely always be leaders and followers.  There will be individuals that are more famous than others.  Many will be better than we are.  Reality is that life, especially at work, is not always fair.  Does this mean that we simply abandon the idea of working in a manner that lines up with respect of one another, valuing people and their contributions? 

Years ago, I attended one of many conferences on the topic of strategic development during which the executive of a large Pharma company literally addressed sales representatives as “warm bodies that need to deliver a message as often as the data suggests it should be repeated”.  Warm bodies.  Think about it.  Some may say “that was years ago, things have changed”.  Have they?  In the last 20 years, I have worked with over a hundred organizations and thousands of individuals to confirm what is captured in the second paragraph above.  I have had the great privilege to meet incredible leaders that never dreamed of telling someone, anyone, that they should consider themselves lucky to have a job. What this statement is really telling people is that they may just be considered a warm body, a necessary disturbance. 

Nobody is perfect.  As businesses evolve, it is true that employees that have not evolved with the times may not be as valuable as they once were.  It happens all the time.  In many cases, it is incumbent on the organizations to have been lax in their development programs, or to have accepted to “not shake the tree too much” in fear of endangering the profit margins, accepting contributors/employees to remain in their comfort zone.  At times, the easy answer was chosen at the cost of challenging individuals to move forward and grow.  In other situations, employees have decided not to evolve and indeed “make hay while the sun shines”. 

True leaders understand that very little gets done without dedicated and engaged people.  Fear may work in the short term but, today even more so, this is very short lived and often condemns management to spend most of their valuable to rebuild or continually fix things rather than move forward in earnest.  I will not tell anyone not to say to others that they are lucky to have a job, on the contrary.  I will however encourage people that are told this to reconsider their investment and realize that it may be time for them to work with organizations that actually understand their value.  I will also venture to say to leaders that if they even think of saying to others that they are lucky to have a job, to stop and think for a moment.  Think about what they mean and what it means to think that way.

Key Account Managers (KAMs) and Medical Science Liaisons (MSLs): The present and future of Pharma. 1

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged MSL on by

First, let’s look at WHY we think Key Account Managers (KAM) and Medical Science Liaisons (MSL) are critical to the success in Pharma (Healthcare industry)? 

Both these functions have been around for many years in Pharma.  That’s not news.  Like many other roles, the two have significantly evolved, and now need to be an even more significant part of the key strategies for development.  There are a number of reasons for this.  But before we get there, it is important to recognize that Pharma is a business and as such, strategies should always aim to optimal profitability while prioritizing the benefits to patients.  After all, patient centricity has been at the heart of Pharma’s efforts for many years.

KAMs, depending on their scope from one company to the other, are able to conduct the orchestra of stakeholders for the benefit of HCPs.  There are many versions of KAMs.  In this short article (and the following), we define KAMs as individuals that are responsible to identify customer’s needs in a wide variety of areas, help  develop solutions to meet those needs, and orchestrate the work of a number of stakeholders for the solutions to materialize.   The projects KAM manage or help create are often innovative, unique or essential to the advancement of the whole business model.  Very often, initiatives are not directly targeting prescription, or advocacy, or immediately measurable returns for all stakeholders.  Rather, they bring perspective, options and actions that foster an environment for better care, or effort allocation.  As an example, KAMs have led initiatives to better standardize the evaluation of people suffering from depression, increase the precision of the diagnosis and better orient treatment choices.  The initiative was created in concert with HCPs and eventually, led by the HCPs.  KAMs simply facilitated the discussions and brought resources together.  They are project managers and, hopefully, concentrate their actions where both industry and HCPs gain, for the ultimate benefit of patients.  We will explain WHY they are critical.

MSLs are scientific and clinical experts.  They are often physicians, nurses, pharmacists and PhDs.  Because of their formal training and role, they are able to discuss clinical aspects that commercial teams cannot, or will not.  MSLs also have the specific role to review the mountain of data in given clinical areas.  In oncology for example, some of the MSLs I know are so globally knowledgeable that HCPs count them as a part of their team, their brain power.  While it may be argued that MSLs may not always be neutral in their perspective, after all they do work for Pharma or Medical Devices companies, their training, and often their oaths to their profession (MDs, PharmDs, PhDs, etc.) more often than not counter the possibility to stray to unreasonable levels of partiality.  Not reporting to commercial groups and not receiving commercial incentives also help.  Yet, MSLs are able to guide HCPs in directions that better serve patients. 

So WHY are those two function so critical?

Both KAMs and MSLs have the ability and respectability to influence HCPs in optimal directions.  As I look back at the Principles for Persuasion by Cialdini, KAMs and MSLs can more easily (than others) leverage each of the principles.  Because of their superior knowledge they have Authority.  Their ability to relate and remain balanced in their approach makes then Likeable and inspire Reciprocity.  The capacity for KAMs and MSLs to be Consistent and bring fair perspective help their influence on Social Proof (people follow the lead of similar others).  Finally, when they are highly competent, and because there are far less of them at that level, they appeal to Scarcity (people want more of what they can have less of).  

KAMs and MSLs are able to generate more value for HCPs.  Commercial teams also have that ability, but they are significantly limited because of numerous factors.  KAMs can create solutions that go far beyond the treatment of single individuals and the “traditional” process.  The example I gave earlier with depression illustrates this.  KAMs can work on projects that help large clinics or treatment groups be more effective.  In the case of diabetes, projects have gathered a number of specialties to truly optimize the treatment approach and disease management.  This has produced significant cost savings for all stakeholders.  Helping HCPs make better choices will likely contribute to the profitability of project sponsors.   But this will not come via a distorted view of treatment options.  It will hopefully be generated by a rational approach, ensuring that the best option is selected for the right patient.  Think of the current opioid crisis.  Most of those drugs are necessary for patients that need pain management.  It can be argued that a part of the crisis is the result of incomplete understanding of pain management, and possibly an approach that did not involve a sufficient number of specialties.  While some companies have greatly benefited financially, the end result is extremely detrimental to reputations, credibility, HCPs that aim to do the right thing, patients and society in general.  KAMs can contribute to projects for which profitability will likely be established on actual best practices and ensure the viability of efforts.  As products are used more rationally, the results will improve for all stakeholders.   Increase in fairness, better results and fewer negative impacts will likely generate more synergy between stakeholders as opposed to acrimony and suspicion.  That is in part, WHY KAMs are a critical part of the future.

MSLs are able to put in perspective the mountain of data available.  They can speak to the present as well as the future.  Their interactions with leaders in their fields (clinicians, scientists, developers), and the fact that understanding data and trends is their main role, makes them moderators.  As such, they are able to calm down certain undue cravings for unruly usage of the new and improved.  MSLs have foreseen the opioid crisis.  MSLs are therefore better equipped to highlight dangerous paths and promote a balanced usage of all the worthy solutions.  Because of their credibility and balanced approach, MSLs have the ability to address situations in a manner that will bring a more universally advantageous approach to treating patients.  Just like KAMs, in their own way, MSLs can produce an increase in fairness, better results and fewer negative impacts to generate more synergy between stakeholders as opposed to acrimony and suspicion.  That is in part, WHY MSLs are a critical part of the future.

I mentioned Cialdini earlier.  Let me link his principles of persuasion to the intrinsic value of KAMs and MSLs in Pharma.  At the moment, some of the most acute problems faced by Pharma and Medical Devices companies are access to their customers, credibility, the perception of value (other than a treatment of quality), the impression that they don’t truly contribute to the overall healthcare environment (product focus instead of health focus), and the conviction that all that counts is industry progress as opposed to the development of the complete environment.  While it is not universal or unanimous, HCPs may see the industry as a taker rather than a contributor.  That’s where KAMs and MSLs contribute to change that reality.

Access.  While it has been advocated for years now that sales representatives need to “up their game” and bring more global knowledge and skills to their customers, regulations can significantly limit their ability to use such capabilities.  However one feels about the changes implemented in Pharma’s commercial practices, there have been both positive and negative impacts associated to new rules of engagement.  When we amalgamate those limitations to a persistently volatile perception of their value, the potential positive impact that teams can have, often remains torpedoed compared to their true capabilities.  This directly impacts access.

When time is precious, we tend to choose with more discernment where we invest it.  In most cases, HCPs will choose to invest where there is a potential return.  This is WHY KAMs and MSLs have more attraction and increased access.

Credibility.  Not directly promoting any specific product, in spite of being employed by a corporation, contributes to the credibility of KAMs and MSLs.  With the incredible amount of information available to HCPs, it is particularly critical to decipher the wheat from the chaff.  KAMs and MSLs both have that capability, which turns into an advantage.  Credibility breeds confidence which in turn, promotes loyalty.  Loyal customers are critical to profitability.  This explains WHY KAMs and MSLs need to be more strategically integrated.

Value. KAMs and MSLs bring ideas and perspectives contributing to the evolution of HCPs.  As such, they help enhance the reputation, productivity, precision of treatment, time management and resource allocation of HCPs.  It is rather easy to translate any of this into added value.  When someone has value to us, we tend to treat them well, and we care for their perspective.

Contribution.  As mentioned earlier, KAMs and MSLs are often able to become partners or consultants for HCPs. Projects such as the one I briefly mentioned with depression, help HCPs enhance their ability to perform at a higher level.   KAMs and MSLs that are able to contribute to HCPs’ scope gain significant impact.  Another reason WHY they are critical.

Progress.  Let’s face it, with the amount of new data generated these days, it is almost impossible as an individual or a specialized group to fully integrate what is available.  Humans are notorious for finding a level of comfort in their daily activities and cruise.  KAMs and MSLs will help HCPs shake their habits, inspire them to dare new avenues.  The generated progress will benefit the therapeutic areas and patients.  Who doesn’t want to be a part of that?

 Hopefully, this has provided an illustration for WHY KAMs and MSLs are so critical for the future of Healthcare efforts.  The next article in this series will address HOW to best integrate and develop KAMs and MSLs in the industry.

But wait.  As much as this text supports the continued development of KAMs and MSLs, bestowing upon them a strategic importance, it should also be an indicator for the orientation of commercial teams in the Healthcare industry.  Commercial teams can still play a strategic role and remain of critical value.  Knowledgeable individuals that are not solely dominated by their personal performance or metrics, that care about a balanced approach supported by evidence, and working to look at possibilities and valid options are arguably the most profitable sales people imaginable.

For a few immediate ideas on the HOW, please visit http://aseret-uido.com/programs/

Hiring based on Values rather than Skills

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by

How much of the time allocated for job interviews is spent on trainable skills rather than unchanging values and traits?  It is completely reasonable to hire people on account of their immediate ability to perform tasks.  Employers often open a job because the need is immediate.  As such, teams are looking to find a person that will be able to perform very quickly.  There is nothing wrong with that.  What becomes problematic is to put too much value on skills, and too little on values, traits and synergy.

Imagine someone joins your team because they have ALL the skills you are looking for but clearly disrupts the team dynamics because of their attitude and mismatch in core principles.  How do we evaluate the added value of skills against the tensions and disruptions in the team?  Let’s say the new person is hired because of their strong ability to include social media initiatives in the company’s efforts.  The positive may be that the corporation will be able to post news, innovations, events and other important information, frequently and with effectiveness.  In turn this will likely create new business, or consolidate the corporate image to retain existing business.  Now, while the new person is able to perform their task, this individual also makes many others on the team very uncomfortable.  Let’s assume that the discomfort comes from the rudeness, and lack of respect and understanding of the new person.  In addition, the new employee has no interest in understanding the realities of the people responsible for creating the news, innovations, events and other important information to be added to the social media initiative.  As a result, what ends up being published may be of lesser quality.  Why?  Some of the reasons may be linked to pressure to meet new deadlines, lack of clarity on the format necessary for best social media impact, reduced motivation to help a colleague that treats us with disrespect, stress, and a multiple of other aspects.  Why is that the problem of the new person?  It isn’t.  If the team in place has always been competent in their roles, the problem resides in the person that hired the new person.  If the current team was not effective for some reason, the problem lies with the leader of that team for not managing the problem, and hiring the new person at the time they did.

Now imagine that the new person is not as skilled as the other we just described but is determined to mesh with the existing team, learn from them,  about their respective roles, and explain what needs to be done for the social media initiatives to work.  The new person’s ability may, in the short term, be less impressive than the other person but still, their abilities are very decent, and the information that is transmitted is of higher quality.  Which of the two situations seems most productive?  Looking at both examples of new people, which one is most likely to learn from others and increase their social media competencies in the next 6 months.  Furthermore, depending on the stress and disruption of hiring the fist new person, what will be the costs associated to one or two or more people from the existing team leaving?

I have been in rooms full of new hires to provide development of various skills.  I have experienced the disruption of individuals thinking that they were above such efforts because their perception was that they were stars, hired specifically for their existing skills rather that their determination to work as a team, or to learn new approaches.  I have witnessed the decrease in productivity of the whole team because of mismatched values, traits and synergy.  And, I have been privy to teams loosing up to 50% of its members within a year or two of “prima donnas” being hired.  In the vast majority of cases, the corporation (and its clients) lost much more than they gained.

Competencies can be learned and developed.  Values and traits are deep seated and seldom change.  A corporation needs to hire accordingly.

The evolution of dynamic communication

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Business growth and strategy on by

In line with the trends identified in the last 12 years, Dynamic and Engaging Communication continues to rank as one of the highest needs in Talent Development.

What is Dynamic and Engaging Communication and why is it important?

 

An effective communicator is an astute influencer in all areas of Leadership, including Presentation/Facilitation, Decision Making, Hiring, Change Management, Executive Coaching, Key Account Management, Stakeholder Management, and one of most impactful skills, Effective Listening.

Our customers come to us with both urgent and increasing need for Engaging Communication Skills.

 

Over the last few years, we led over 20 programs involving Medical Education Professionals, Medical Science Liaison Specialists and a large number of Physicians, Advance Practice Nurses and Pharmacists in 10 Biopharmaceutical Therapeutic Areas.

We propagated best practices in Case Study facilitation, Remote Meeting Management, Clinical Discussion Facilitation, Educational Facilitation as well in Dynamic Presentations Skills.  In all of these courses we heard loudly from our customers, this is EXACTLY what they needed in order to clearly deliver impactful, dynamic, scientific presentations which keep the audience fully engaged, throughout the presentations and well into the Q and A Sessions, along with feedback from participants on the need for more information.

 

For the last 15 years, Leadership Development has been our most active sector.  While coaching and development of teams have been the main areas of interest, hiring skills – specifically dynamic interviewing methods – are gaining interest. So much so, that we are in the process of writing an e-book.  We also developed a half day workshop on the topic, in an effort to adapt to growing requests.

Due to the numerous transformations in Healthcare Commercialization, Change Management and Key Account Management have regained momentum in our curriculum.  Decision Making/Risk Taking, which was usually reserved for C-Suite executives, is now being offered by many organizations to their employees in order to empower them with skills to better think outside the box and to adapt to the constant change in business realities.

Executive Coaching works in concert with Leadership Development activities.  Our sector specializing in the development of competency models and career paths.  Clarity of roles and expectations, along with the proper support by leadership teams, generate increased dynamism in the workforce.

New kids on the block are programs on resource allocation (QQTR) and managing challenging situations.

The question organizations need to contemplate is this, “are we part of the innovative and dynamic leaders that are creating the new present, or are we deciding to follow later, and play catch up?”  If you are in the first group, we want to collaborate and help you make that difference.

Gratitude

This entry was posted in Uncategorized on by

Fifteen years seem a long time and yet, the whirlwind of projects, innovations and progress happens in what seems like seconds.  A business is a wonderful vehicle to make a difference in many people’s lives.  It impacts the individuals that work in the corporation as well as those who contribute as partners and suppliers.  In more than one way, an enterprise such as Aseret and many others like us, contribute to the development of talent and consequently the profitability of clients.  Yet we often forget to recognize the difference every single one of the people and groups mentioned previously have made for us.  I am referring to the perspective we gained through our efforts to clearly understand customers’ business realities.  The impact is also felt via challenges offered to us, confrontation of ideas and discussions on strategies to optimize our services.  Over the years, individuals and teams that trusted our intent have supplied the platform for new product development.  As a result of this, we evolved from one niche product to over 17 different programs, each existing in various iterations to meet the needs of different stakeholders.  Aseret is now active in 3 spheres of Talent development, each intimately connected and yet often worlds apart considering the depth of collaboration they carry.  After 15 years in business we need to recognize the incredible synergy we have had the chance to develop and the priceless contribution clients have imparted on the difference we strive to make in our daily efforts.  To all our past, current and future partners, we offer our most sincere gratitude.

ADULTS WANT TO LEARN. ARE WE HELPING?

This entry was posted in Learning and development and tagged adult learning development growth HR learning productivity on by

In challenging times for business growth, development is not a priority, right!?  In fact, hardship is often the spark that ignites incredible creativity and innovation.  Difficulty may be the best trigger for adults to learn and evolve.  Are we helping?!

Just like Daniel Goleman was a pioneer in demonstrating the existence of Emotional Intelligence (Emotional Intelligence, 1995), Malcolm Knowles may have been the first, back in 1980, to make educated assumptions for how (and why) adults learn.  His assumptions were elaborated on key differences between adult learners and child learners.

Knowles identified 5 assumptions.

  • First, adults are self-directed in their learning. As such they can make a conscious decision to learn.
  • Second, experience becomes the most significant learning vehicle.
  • The third assumption addresses the readiness to learn by adults. This readiness is directly related to the role and responsibilities of the adult learner.
  • In fourth place comes the orientation towards solutions rather than simply a subject matter interest.
  • Finally, Knowles underlines the internal nature of the motivation to learn.

 

Since 1980, hundreds of publications have discussed the principles of adult learning.  The majority seem to agree with Knowles with only slight variations.  For me, the revelation came from Dr. H.B. Slotnick of the University of North Dakota.  His principles were quite similar to those of Malcolm Knowles.  In short, adults need a reason to learn and the learning needs to provide a solution to a current problem.  Learning also has to be experiential.  The main difference is this last point, the learner needs to teach back as soon as possible.  I believe this last point is significantly responsible for the many successes we have had in the last 15 plus years.

Before I elaborate on this, let me summarize a number of observations from the hundreds of development programs on which I have been directly involved.

 

Adults fully engage when a development effort is directly and intimately associated to their daily activities and when the learning allows them to figure out solutions or new approaches to challenges they are facing.  A good example of this is the work we are able to accomplish around case studies.  We use a combination of existing (generic) cases as well as customized situations.  While case studies in general are very effective, the value and impact of the latter often seems superior simply because situations are so close to participants’ realities.  A case is created following interviews with participants and supervisors, even with customers.  In our Coaching/Leadership program, a guide is provided for learners to create their own case.  Each customized case is based on a current and meaningful situation… and only names and places have been changes to protect the innocents.  Countless participants have reacted so positively to the learning process that they want to “leave immediately and go apply what I learned with my colleagues/clients”.  With generic case studies, the results are often similar as long as we facilitate a discussion that links the learning to participants’ reality.

In the previous paragraph, I mention “allowing adults to figure out solutions”.  This a critical factor.  Whereas we are constantly asked to “give” solutions (identified here as the “want”) it is when participants figure out their own solutions (we believe it is the real “need”) that such solutions become most viable.  While examples of this would fill pages of text, one in particular illustrates the idea quite vividly.  Years ago I was managing a team of sales people.  One day, one of them asked me for solutions to gain better access to a groups of customers.  Even then, I was reluctant to “give” solutions.  I wanted the individual to figure out best options and guide them through the process.  Still, that person insisted that I share some of my ideas.  So I did.  And for each one, here is what I heard as a reply: “I tried and it did not work” or “that’s not my style” or “that will not work with them”.  No solutions were found at the moment.  About 6 months later, the salesperson in question called me, very excited to share that they had found a solution.  Which was almost word-per-word, one we had discussed some 26 weeks prior.  Whatever happened in that time period, the solution came from the person and as such, became much more valuable.  Some solutions should be offered in development programs yet, helping participants fine-tune or craft the solutions to their specific situations is often the best way to go.

Adults participate more actively when the training initiative is put in place as a result of a needs assessment.  When corporations or teams deliver on what individuals have identified and defined as development requirements, the resulting level of engagement is usually very high.  Robert Cialdini would explain this in part though Reciprocity (Harnessing the Science of Persuasion, Robert B. Cialdini, Harvard Business Review October 2001.)

If a training program is organized by management on a topic that may not be top of mind for learners, it is necessary to clearly state the reasoning behind the choice and the expected outcomes/benefits for the efforts.  It is true that learners don’t always know what will help them.  It certainly isn’t the rule however, and I do believe that people usually have a good sense for what they need to improve in order to be more productive.  This is especially the case in a well-functioning team.  Nevertheless, a clear and value-based reasoning for any developmental effort usually increases the engagement level of adult learners.

In spite of what can be significant differences in learning styles, adults tend to value a structured and productive exchange of ideas between people holding similar roles or responsibilities.  When adults get together and are in a position to provide each other with solutions, options and perspectives, we have to give them the opportunity to do so.  When done correctly, the payback can be enormous.  Since adults also need to limit their time away from their daily activities (read accountabilities), it has shown increasingly valuable to cover the more theoretical aspects or methodologies with preparation work.  This allows individuals to “study” on their own and at their favored pace.

As facilitators of learning, we have to understand that people have a spectrum of reasons to be motivated (or not) to accept and eventually integrate new elements of information and skills.  Over the last 12 years and following published experimental results, we have developed a better understanding (and guiding principles) on motivations.  The determination of adults is based on the importance and ability for them to express their innate values, competencies and traits.  For example, a person that cares about collaboration, precision, quality, integrity, and adaptability, will likely be more interested to learn when the competencies or principles covered in a program will contribute to those natural traits.  The same individual may “tune out” if developmental work is oriented towards competition, rapid fire solutions, generalities or strict step-by-step processes.  Recently, I facilitated a session on project management.  In part because a system was already in place in the company and also because key projects were already in place, we opted for a step-by-step approach, filling each step with actual actions that needed to take place.  Many participants gained from this approach, it made sense to them and helped find solutions.  In the program evaluation, others expressed they would have preferred a more general discussion on project management rather than covering each step.  The need expressed is based on the necessity to better understand how to manage projects and then associate efforts.  We were facing 2 sets of needs based on different motivations. Humans are self-motivated either via internal needs or external factors.  Internal aspects address conformity or quality of task.  External motivators are either of a social nature or one of tangible rewards.  Adults will learn when and if their motivation is triggered.  An internally motivated person will be more interested in learning skills that will allow them to perform in a manner that is safer or more elegant rather that increase their reputation or short term impact.  Unless of course reputability is also associated to safety and stability.  Because learners intrinsically have different motivators, or facilitator’s approach to learning has to appeal to every participant.  It is therefore our responsibility to help learners see and feel the value of the experience.

So far we have identified six essential aspects of adult learning.

  1. Learning needs to relate to the current role of people or at least to a relatively immediate future.
  2. Learning efforts have to lead to solutions. Sharing and building of adapted solutions is necessary.
  3. Learning should be organized on expressed needs.
  4. Learners often demand to fully understand the reasoning behind growth efforts (the Why).
  5. Learners will need activities that match a variety of styles in order to engage all of them as completely as possible.
  6. There are a number of reasons for learners to be motivated to accept and integrate new concepts. It is essential to address each of the motivations.

In the paragraph following the introduction, I made a point on the necessity for “teach back” and our experience over the last 15 years.  Even when learning efforts are in line with the principles of Knowles, Slotnick and the 6 aspects summarized herein, deep learning and associated sustainable changes happen in earnest when adult learners are given the opportunity to put concepts to practice, get results, internalize the reasons for their outcomes and explain how their actions have generated such payback.   Adults need to teach back.

Adult learners will truly commit to their learning when they have the chance to teach others.  That is in large part the reason for us to continually insist on a structured follow-up program after any learning effort.  Imagine a learner that is initially sceptic on some methodology and has no hesitations to say so.  Then move forward a few weeks and hear the same learner explain to others in the group that they were “wrong” and how beneficial the previously vilipended concepts have since been on fixing a major issue and change outcomes for the better.  The Big Fish principle explains in detail how practice, results and sharing of such results influence integration of new behaviors and propagate the solution-based evidence for others to learn.  Evidence has consistently demonstrated that even the best efforts for learning cannot yield optimal results without sustained teach back.  For all the teachers, facilitators, trainers and leaders reading this, you intrinsically know that teaching, facilitating, training and leading has forced you to better understand, grasp, and integrate any concept or methods that needed transmission.  We owe it to adult learners to offer every opportunity to do the same.

 

Ideally, learning and development prepare us for challenging times and help propel the longer term planners ahead of the proverbial curve.  Reality has shown that most efforts are exerted when our noses are painfully pressed on the wall of adversity.  The upside of this is an increased determination to learn when the current ways do not work anymore.  It is however critical that efforts are oriented in accordance to the principles of adult learning.  Otherwise we only contribute to the misconstrued perception that learning efforts are an expense we cannot afford rather than an investment we have to make.