We don’t do emotion at work, this is a business!

A common message I hear. I was going to say ‘a common cry I hear’, but the word ‘cry’ is a verb and also has an emotional meaning. And that is the whole point. We cannot learn effectively without involving the parts of our brain that handle how we feel.

Let’s examine real example. Last week we were all learning ways of training in a virtual classroom. I felt worried about training in a virtual class, so I did not say much to start with, and so I thought maybe I was not keeping up with my colleagues. Notice how my feelings led to actions led to thoughts:

Feel-Think-Do.

Research and common sense shows that personal learning experiences in life are deepest when they include a strong emotion; shock, fear, pleasure or excitement. Why is it that many training sessions leave you feeling flat, bored, or partially interested at best?

Assume that THINKING comprises of knowledge, logic and ideas, and that FEELING comprises of personal connection with the issue and engagement with others, and that DO comprises of active practice and application of ideas.

Many training sessions are heavily loaded with THINKING, which provides knowledge. As a trainer, this is easy to do, simply load plenty of concepts, models and ideas into a session. Some trainers assume that a good session means lots of models. 

To be fair, many trainers include a lot of DO in a session, this is the practical element. However, be careful, because DO does not mean a discussion or Q&A or even a role play. These activities involve a lot more logical thinking than they involve real in-the-moment applications. 

FEEL is the piece that is often ignored. We know that emotional connection with a topic, and engagement with other learners makes a huge difference in learning, so why does it make up so little of most courses? ‘No!’ I hear you cry (FEEL response again). ‘I am annoyed that you say this of my training!’ I hear you respond. Good – we have a feeling, and a strong one at that. Stronger the better. Simply asking people how they feel about a subject, or practicing a role play on handling emotions may not be enough. You have to generate the actual emotion naturally, in the learning experience, as a typical and usual reaction. This is not easy to either design, nor facilitate. And yet we agreed at the start that emotions play a vital part in learning?

Let me show you two options: These two illustrations show the emphasis that training sessions give to feel, think, and do, elements.

The balance may vary between learning needs, and that is ok. 

However is the balance as good as it could be? Here are two approaches to a training session, the size of the segments represents the emphasis and time given to each element.

What does this mean for managers? What does this mean for learning specialists? What does this mean for the facilitators of learning?

For managers:

-        It is not possible to separate emotions from performance and working life. People improve when they have a real feeling of connection with the importance of doing something. Remember, discussing feelings is not the same as being emotional, and it will give you an indication of the importance of an issue to people. People are not machines, but then you know this?

For learning specialists:

-        How are you going to design experiences that generate real, strong, emotions that connect with learning needs?

-        How will you convince your sponsors that feelings are as important as thinking in learning?

-        Can you reduce the volume of what people need to know, in order to spend more time connecting with it and doing something with it?

For facilitators:

-        Asking people about how they feel about something during training is a start, but not enough. Can you develop a technique that carefully and supportively allows people to really feel connected with their learning and those who are part of it?

-        Can you debrief learning activities that make sure real, live, feedback is given and felt?

-        Can you ensure people leave with a full learning experience that has ‘held up a mirror’, given people a surprise about themselves, and learnt something?

Does it matter? We all remember how some teachers made us feel at school? Remember events where we did something exceptional, good or bad? And we all remember some things for a long time! This is usually when feeling-doing-thinking, come together.

‘We don’t do emotion at work!’ Yeah right, it’s part of the human condition! If you want robots, then fine. If you want people who show passion for their work, that’s an emotion!

About the Author:

Nigel Murphy is Portfolio & Capability Development Director at MCE. He has a background in management in manufacturing, education and training. For the past 10 years he has worked on leadership programmes across the globe. He is interested in the mentoring of new managers and leaders, and leading remote teams of people in today’s globally dispersed businesses.

Using your talented people for maximum impact

Here are my final thoughts on talent, what do you think? I was watching the Six Nations Rugby Tournament recently, and was fascinated with the way the coaches used the full squad of players. This was no random process, nor was it simply to try out another player. There was a clear plan to bring specific players into the game at a specific time. 
I watched England vs Italy and what I noticed was the strength of the players on the England bench made the difference. There wasn’t much difference in the performance of either side until the England coach started to use his bench strength, then the momentum of the game moved towards England. It got me thinking that most of us in People Development talk about ‘bench-strength’, but we may not be clear what it really means or how to use it.

Players on the bench are there for a purpose. They come into the game at specific planned times:

• Players cannot always play at top speed for a full game, so players come on to keep pressure on. Two players often share the same position and train together, one player starts with the aim of tiring the opponent ready for when his team-mate comes on.

• A key player with a special skill is sent onto the pitch at a specific time and makes a big difference.

• When a new player with high potential needs some experience for a short, managed piece of time.

In the modern game, it is difficult for players to keep up the extreme level of intensity required in a full game, so the starting players are not the same as the finishing players, yet they see themselves as one team squad. They are not first team and reserve players.

In Talent Management we talk about building bench-strength. What often happens is that employees are told they are in the Talent Pool, and then:

• Nothing happens
• Or, they are thrown in with no chance to find their way of working
• Have no access to significant projects where they can learn
• Get sent to a ‘problem area’ to ‘show what they can do’

What we can learn from the Sports Coach is this:

• Bench-players are used as a strategy to maintain performance. Do you consider who to bring in, and when to move someone out of a team, as the conditions change? Or do you leave the same team for continuity – but accept that they get tired and run out of options? Moving people in and out it not about the success and failure of the individual. It is about recognizing an individual has done a job, and needs to move out, ready for the next challenge.

• New, high potential members are given specific experiences for short periods. Do you place new talent into a team for a limited, managed exposure, or do you ‘throw them in, sink or swim’?

• Impact players are saved for when they can make a difference. Do you know who your impact players are, what they can do that makes a difference, and use them carefully but at maximum impact? Often a high performer is given the wrong assignment and does not enjoy it. Impact players are not good at everything, they do have allowable weaknesses. However they are sent in when they can do their special talents.

• Leaders need to know when to pull a player out of the game and use someone from the talent pool. Are you aware of how your team is feeling? Can you monitor their emotional and even physical state? Are you sure you know what exposure your new talent needs?

• The full squad is part of the planning discussions and strategy. Do you included your talented people in the business decision-making processes? When they are moved into a role, they will understand the plan and discussions that led to it.

• Is your bench strong enough to play a strategic role, regularly?

Watch a professional team game, and observe how the coach moves players on and off the pitch, why, when, and with what impact.

About the Author:

Nigel Murphy supports the whole learning experience of MCE delegates across MCE’s wide range of solutions. He has a background in management in manufacturing, education and training. For the past 10 years he has worked on leadership programmes across the globe. He is interested in the mentoring of new managers and leaders, and leading remote teams of people in today’s globally 
dispersed businesses.

Talented or simply good?

Why do you have a talented person?

I bet you are thinking the answer is obvious? But let’s explore what it really means. In the sports arena, the aim of using a talented player is to make a difference. These are the people who can turn a game from a loss to a victory in the blink of an eye. They make a difference when it really matters most. What is also interesting is that the super players are not visible for all the game. They are often only prominent at points when they see the chance to make an impact. They also take periods of rest during the season, and it is a poor manager who wears down his talented players.

Self-check: How many of your talented people are known for making a difference at a critical time, versus, how many are very good, but not game changers?

Does it matter? Do we define ‘talent’ as ‘very good’, rather than ‘very exceptional’? If so, then many Talent schemes are simply schemes to develop very good people. Necessary, admirable, but ultimately may not produce real game changers. Why? Because the definition of talent becomes diluted. Read on.

So who is talented?

It is also interesting to note that Talent becomes internally benchmarked. I had a chat with an HRD who was proud to say that this year over 20% of the workforce were in the Talent category and top box on their talent grid. She told me that next year they would have even more people into the talent category and HQ is so pleased with them. Having met some of these people, nice as they are, they would not even get a job working for another organization I know, and where the label ‘talent’ is reserved for exceptional people. What this suggests is that ‘average for industry’ becomes internally benchmarked as ‘talented around here’.

This leads to another curious effect. Once you tell people they are talented, they believe it, and then a number of very average people are talking about their talents. They become disillusioned when they are not promoted quickly enough. Yet, often they do not look for other jobs. Why? Perhaps it is a fear of finding out that they are really only average.

Self-check: How many people are pushing for the next level because someone has told them they are talented?

How do you compare your definition of talent?

You will have developed sophisticated competency descriptions and measures to give some sense of science behind your definition of talent. Good. However, in most organizations I can find HRBPs who are confused at the list of ‘Talent’ that a line manager offers up. Many line managers do not have the time, or interest, to read the lengthy competency descriptions. They have too many doubts about people who make a difference in their business unit going unrecognized, whilst other business units with ‘inferior’ people do get recognized. Run a calibration meeting between line managers and ask them to justify their selections; there will be a lot of disagreement over perceptions of who is a talented person. Collaborate with your HRBP friends in another business – you could compare your views of talent.

Self-check: would your Talent Pool be in the talent pool in another organization?

We all know that the challenge will be competing for talented people as much as competing for customers. Be sure that you are clear on what players you sign up; exceptional goal scorers or solid performers? You need both, so know what makes the difference.

About the Author:

Nigel Murphy is director of Portfolio and Capability Development at MCE. He has a background in management in manufacturing, education and training. For the past 10 years he has worked on leadership programmes across the globe. He is interested in the mentoring of new managers and leaders, and leading remote teams of people in today’s globally dispersed businesses.

                                                                                      

Four Reasons Why Organizations Should Invest In Employee Development

Market pressure and a desire to succeed means that it is only logical that organizations and managers do what they can to deliver results and outperform the competition. So, for some, taking employees away from their workstations for training and development purpose is often perceived as counter-productive.

During my 26 years’ professional experience in corporate life, and 10 years as a transformation coach, I have worked with thousands of successful entrepreneurs, managers, leaders and organizations to help them adopt a positive culture when it comes to employee development.

Throughout this time, I have learned hugely through observing, assessing and interacting with workers at every level and, in this article, I would like to share the four reasons why employee development and training is vitally important to organizational success:

1. The organization will be a talent magnet, attracting the best talent in the market, while, at the same time, retaining the best employees. Replacing a member of staff can, depending on the role, cost the company anywhere between $50,000 and $100,000.

2. Employee development creates a talent pool containing the future leaders of the organization. Adopting a ‘promote-from-within’ culture offers the following advantages:

•  Boost employee morale and motivation
• Improve staff retention – ‘60% of employees choose to stay with an employer that invests in their professional development‘ – CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development)
• Avoid burnout and an negative attitude in the workplace.

3. Employee engagement and productivity increases.

4. Generate a positive return on investment – ‘Untrained employees take up to six times longer to perform the same task as trained employees’ – Hewlett Packard

Also – ‘Organizations that invest in staff development outperform the market by 45%’ – ASTD (Association for Talent Development)

Organizations need to see the development of employees as an investment rather than an expense. While some companies might be wary of spending too much on training, in case the employee leaves soon after, the development and training of employees is a huge benefit to companies in the long term. So, perhaps it should be a case of can you afford not to develop your employees.




About the Author: 

Samir Bata

Samir Bata's expertise in Management and Leadership has been built in 26 years in key positions in sales, marketing, general operations management, and business development. In addition to his management and leadership expertise, Samir is also a Senior Associate at MCE. 

#MCE55 Event 19-20 April 2016: Accelerated solutions for building organizational relevance and connectivity in a disruptive world.

Read here more why you should come to this event.