The first step is to identify the top performers. All too often, leaders assume that top performers are the most senior, typically either those who have been in their roles the longest or, worse yet, performed so well that they were promoted into management roles. More on that group in a minute.

First of all, what about the idea that the most senior, usually also the longest tenured, are also the top performers? We would answer with a definite maybe. The problem with that assumption is just that: it’s an assumption. But it’s based on the wrong criteria. In many organizations, promotion to senior status within a role comes from tenure more often than competence. Organizations have a strong tendency to elevate people simply because they have persisted and stuck it out longer than others. But that may not correlate with sustained superior performance, which is the only criteria we should be using when identifying top performers.

So what are the hallmarks of sustained superior performance? Depending on the type of role, there are various indicators. In many roles, such as in call-center or sales organizations, data can be analyzed based on the organization’s business goals. If customer loyalty is a primary goal, then which representatives have the highest satisfaction scores or the best Net Promoter Scores? If the goal is customer expansion, who generates and closes the most new leads? If the goal is customer growth, who garners the largest share of the budget? Note that we didn’t simply ask who generates the most revenue. We’ve found that to be a rather poor indicator of top performance. Revenue is, of course, critical. But it’s usually a level or two removed from what performers can really deliver. Revenue is a result, a way to keep score, but it may not be the best indicator of front line performance.

What about those former performers who are now managers? Well, they aren’t in those roles any longer. That presents two reasons not to select them. First, they were selected (we hope) because of their potential to excel in a different role from the one they were in. There are innumerable stories in every organization about promoting the best sales representative who then turned out to be a mediocre sales manager. Or just the opposite: sometimes a mediocre sales representative who possesses exceptional leadership and management skills turns out to be a great sales manager.

Second, but related to the first reason, these managers are no longer performing the job. Therefore, they can no longer demonstrate through observation those nuances that mark an unconsciously competent top performer.

Question to ponder: For your critical roles, who are the top performers? On what basis do you know?

How can you find out what outcomes your top performers focus on? The first, and perhaps most obvious, approach is to ask them. Interviewing is a key technique and is usually the starting point for our discovery process.

Top performer interviews differ from other common interviews we usually conduct. For most of us, our interviewing experience is mostly based on interviewing candidates for a position to select the best candidate. In that case, we are attempting to determine whether someone is qualified and, if so, which of the candidates is most qualified.

When interviewing top performers, we are trying to learn what they already know. That requires developing a great deal of rapport and trust during the interview so the performers will open up and frankly discuss how they think about their work.

The most common technique we use is called a framing session. We call it that because we are trying to frame up in our minds the broad outlines of the job through the eyes of the top performer. We commonly ask this person to walk us through a day (or shift or week or month or whatever other time frame makes sense) in his or her life.

As top performers discuss their perspectives on that day, we probe for answers to the following questions:

• What did they do (tasks)?
• What did they produce as a result of those tasks (outcomes)?
• Why did they do a particular task (stimulus)?
• How did they know when they were done with a thing (success criteria)?
• What either helps or hinders them (facilitators or barriers)?
• Who did they collaborate with (team)?

At this early stage, we aren’t focused on getting every detail of every outcome. We just want to get a rough outline of the work so we can identify places to drill into later.

Questions to ponder:

• How would you describe your job in terms of the bullet points above? Could you?

Development programs are expected to add value to business metrics, solve business challenges, and be accountable for results. It takes becoming more cognizant of the collaborative organizational levers and moving focus away from standalone programs to increase sustainability and show value to the organization.

Various human resources (HR), organizational development, and talent development programs may support some business strategies, but often, in the haste to roll out an initiative, integration and sustainability are not fully addressed. Looking through the lenses of organizational culture, readiness, capability, and right-sizing can mean the difference between simply offering programs and actually seeing a sustainable return on investment. By taking advantage of an integrated and collaborative approach via partnerships between executive sponsors, HR business partners, talent acquisition, talent development, and compensation, an organization can fully leverage these program opportunities. Each of these areas has leverage points that can be used to drive increased organizational capability if used appropriately and in unison. So why isn’t an integrated approach the standard operating procedure for most organizations?

The integrated surround strategy approach provides a lens for viewing and executing organizational improvement opportunities that will have a higher likelihood of sustainability, business results, and a more robust return on investment.

During a recent interactive 45-minute webinar, Karen Sieczka, Training Consultant for GP Strategies Corporation, and Vince Eugenio, industry expert of Leader of Talent Development, discussed the following questions:

• How do you lay the groundwork for long-term sustainability and return on investment?
• How do you view an initiative prior to implementation to ensure success?
• What levers are available and how do they fit into an integrated surround strategy?

If you missed the webinar, a recording is now available. But if you’re looking for the Reader’s Digest version, we wanted to offer a quick look at some of the key takeaways:

• Think holistically beyond HR and engage the business. Consider what business goals the initiative will further.
• Use governance to focus on only the most important initiatives. Take a deeper look to prioritize initiatives through cross-functional governance and the lenses of organizational readiness, right-sizing, culture, and capability.
• Look at using levers available to HR to sustain change and organizational performance. Decide which levers to use and in what proportion.
• You don’t need consultants to use the integrated surround strategy. Simply start with a conversation within your team around priorities and how you can use the lenses and levers.

The webinar was a discussion designed to trigger an ongoing dialogue. We would like to continue the discussion here by asking you for your thoughts. Knowing what lenses and levers are available, what are some things you could incorporate into the conversation the next time you or your department is asked to “do something”? Ask a question or two here. We look forward to collaborating with you.

What are the factors that can impact the startup of my new capital project?
How can I ensure that people are prepared when the equipment and technology are ready for operation?

These are important questions to consider if you’re in or preparing for a capital expansion or startup project. While much of the focus of a capital project is on equipment, processes and technology, one of the major impacts to achieving operational readiness comes from the people responsible for starting up and running the expanded or new processes. People, processes and technology need to work together well in order to achieve a successful launch.

In a recent webinar, we discussed:

• Key factors affecting the human element during a capital project timeline
• Vertical versus poor startups and calculating the lost revenue between the two
• Overcoming obstacles and snares

If you missed the webinar, a recording is now available along with a PDF copy of presentation.

We also discussed the ideal versus just-in-time approaches. Most organizations view their workforce as an afterthought or believe employees have adequate training to start up on day one only to find out there hasn’t been adequate preparation and training on a plant-specific level. The result is that a just-in-time approach significantly increases the risk of a plant failing to start up on day one and increases the risk of incidents.

Ideal Approach

Just-in-Time Approach

A copy of the full timeline is available. You can access it here.

The following questions came up during the presentation. This is an ongoing conversation, and we encourage you to keep the questions coming in via the comments section at the bottom of this page.

Q: In the ideal versus just-in-time approaches, how often do you actually see the ideal plan being used?

A: Unfortunately, we don’t see it being used very often. In our experience, we have seen that when planning capital projects, it is very common for workforce development to be an afterthought. What has resulted and is seen through some of the documented studies is that the vast majority of capital projects run beyond schedule and over budget and that workforce and organizational issues have been a key cause in these capital project launch problems. More and more, we’re seeing facilities starting to recognize the value of the workforce, but historically this has been an oversight that all too often leads to the just-in-time approach and the obstacles that go along with it.

Q: How does one begin to start developing a plan on their own?

A: One of the key aspects of beginning is to create a vision for your final result, knowing that future state and looking realistically at your current state. Once you have a clear vision for your end results and where you are now, you can more easily map out each factor to reach that end result. A factor often left out is the workforce, which is why we are offering the example CapEx timeline so that it can help to develop a plan and identify where each factor is needed for a successful startup. A well-thought-out project timeline is essential for a prepared startup.

One common issue is the lack of consideration early on in a capital project concerning where resources start. Examples of factors to examine include: hiring future operators and not recognizing what the varying experience levels of the candidates are; failing to create availability definitions such as what the job roles will be; and determine the standards for hiring, etc. There are also times when you have to hire people with no experience and turn them into qualified operators by the time the project starts, which requires special considerations in the workforce development plan.

Q: How can an operator readiness program have an impact on green projects versus brown projects?

A: The operator readiness program has a major impact on green projects because you’re starting with essentially a brand new workforce. In many brown projects, you can take experienced personnel from other areas. These operators can be integrated into the new area and help train new operators; they can even be prepared to start the new project.

As companies do more virtual training and less classroom training, experienced classroom facilitators will often have to switch from one environment to the other. Professional training skills will transfer, but delivering a virtual instructor-led training (VILT) course requires some additional skills. It is also common for VILT courses to be delivered by subject matter experts instead of professional facilitators. Either way, the person who will be facilitating the course will benefit from some basic training on how to keep a virtual session engaging.

Here are some tips that will help new VILT facilitators prepare for success in the virtual classroom:

• Ask someone to be the second presenter, or “moderator,” for the session. If the moderator is a subject matter expert, they can answer questions through the live chat window while you present. In addition, the moderator can:
  • Handle technical questions one-on-one with attendees.
  • Keep track of any questions coming in, and notify you discreetly if you should break for questions.
  • Signal you to speed up or slow down based on attendee feedback.
  • Provide time cues throughout the session to keep you on track.
• Review your slides, and be sure to read the instructor notes. Facilitator guides for VILT often contain detailed notes about how to present each slide as well as the key points to cover.
• Print a copy of the slides and the facilitator guide. If for any reason you lose your network connection, you’ll still have your notes and a moderator can drive the slides for you. Also, it may be easy to work off of a hard copy of the notes, and you’ll have a place to make handwritten notations that you want to include in the next delivery.
• Keep the visuals on the screen moving. Since learners won’t see you, their only visual connection to the course is your current slide. If nothing happens on the screen for a long time, you might lose their attention. Use lots of slides with just a little information on each. Build your bullet points. Use annotation tools like the laser pointer or checkmark to draw attention to the screen.
• Decide your strategy for handling questions ahead of time. Will you stop every time someone raises their hand? Will you have scheduled Q+A breaks? Will you have the moderator answer all of the questions until the end? Know what you will do and inform the attendees.
• Use your voice to keep the attendees’ attention on you. Use everything you’ve got:
  • Smile. It will change the way you sound.
  • Stand or sit up straight, and convey lots of energy.
  • Vary your tone. Nothing will ruin your message like a monotone speaking voice.
  • Get louder to add emphasis.
  • Don’t ramble off topic. Treat this as a performance. Rehearse what you are going to do and say ahead of time, and stick to your teaching points.
• Practice, preferably with a coach who can provide helpful feedback.

Experienced classroom trainers make great virtual trainers. As with any new skill, it just takes a little practice until it feels natural.

70:20:10 is a relatively new learning model focused on how adults best adopt and learn things. Although the concepts have been in practice for years, this adult learning model is growing in popularity especially as the workforce itself changes.

In a recent webinar, I introduced some of the history of the model and dove into the three primary categories, including:

• On-the-job or experiential learning
• Mentoring and coaching
• Classroom and reading.

If you missed the webinar, a recording is now available.

But if you’re looking for the Reader’s Digest version, I wanted to offer a quick look at some of the key takeaways we offered:

• 70:20:10 Model Advantage
  1. Learning at the Speed of Business – rapid adoption of new topics allows for more agile workforce development
  2. Increased supervisory and managerial support – more informal affords them to perform more JIT style learning
  3. Substantial cost savings being realiz
• 70:20:10 Cost-Effective Strategies
  1. Reduction of classroom time
  2. Reduction of facilitator’s time
  3. Reduction of brick and mortar training costs\increased use of SOJT
  4. Integrated learning while performing job/work responsibilities Q: How do you measure the effectiveness of the 70:20:10 model?
  5. A: Measurement with training initiatives is often very tricky and subjective. There are a few key business metrics that can supply you with some effectiveness insight:
  6. During the session, a number of questions came up, and while we were able to address most of them, we weren’t able to get to all of them due to time. Below are those questions and my best answers. This is an ongoing conversation, and I encourage you to keep the questions coming in via the comments section at the bottom of this page
• Training Spend – Many organizations observed reductions in their total dollar spends while still providing equivalent or better training. Some documented significant year over year reductions when facilitation costs (per diem too) where reduced while deploying VILT, coaching or SOJT training methods.
• Participant/ Employee Survey Vehicles – Several organizations received strong positive feedback in annual or periodic employee survey vehicles.
• Quantified Production Data – Some organizations have been able to track elements such as reduced down time, reduction in waste/scrap, reduction in time to complete tasks etc. This is some of the best data but requires considerable diligence and effort to compile and analyze the data.

Q: How do you recommend reinforcing coaching after classroom training?

A: In today’s frenetic world the learner needs reinforcement almost immediately or their attention will be distracted and the training moment or opportunity is lost. Line leaders should be prepared to engage learners within hours of completing a session. While that may not be reasonable in all cases as a norm the faster the coaching and mentoring process is initiated the better the odds of the learning transfer is effective and behavioral changes are effected.

Q: How do you suggest we train mentors to be effective at training?

A: They are already subject matter experts – do not waste their time trying to engage them on their subject matter – focus instead on adult learning principles and assist them in learning how others learn. Explain to them the 70:20:10 learning strategy and then engage them on great instructional techniques, questioning techniques and educating them on best practices in coaching and listening skills. Ensure they have a sense of ownership in the development and growth of the talents they are interacting with. It is also prudent; if you have the luxury, to hand pick your mentors. Just because someone is good at her job does not immediately translate to being a great mentor. Select knowledgeable mentors but ensure they also have high EQ skills and are relatable with their co-workers. Unfortunately there are too many examples of misfires related to poor communication and/or interpersonal skills rather than a lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

Have you ever experienced a crisis situation at work where a looming deadline caused you to alter your work plans, your family activities, or your social schedule? Of course you have.

What was it about how you handled the disruption, that crisis, which helped you succeed? Did you do anything differently other than putting in more time? Did you have a more focused breakdown of the work or a more focused task delegation, considered new perspectives, stopped a circular decision-making process, or something else?

From necessity is born innovation. From crisis is born resilience. Politicians say, “Never waste a crisis.” My questions for you are, “Why wait for a crisis? Why not artificially create one?”

When I discuss the idea of “artificial crisis,” it is generally followed by uncomfortable laughing at the audacity to even suggest this. But given time to reflect on the idea, people begin to agree that they could be more innovated and resilient if they were able to focus on a problem for a period of time. A crisis will bring that focus. Would you be more interested if I told you that in the process of exercising artificial crisis, you can increase capacity at the same time?

Let me be clear, I am not asking you as a CEO to impose a management style that brings you some kind of masochistic power pleasure. I am encouraging you to inject “artificial crisis” events and milestones into your program/project plan that are designed to leverage your collective brain trust, which will accelerate value and rapidly advance a project.

Consider a project using an “airplane” build model (see blog entitled “Can Process and Mindset Improve Capability and Increase Capacity?). This project traditionally takes six weeks to reach a particular milestone. However, by using the value acceleration technique, the team can reach this milestone in a fraction of the time, assuming the right planning and the right team mindset.

You may be saying, “But I have three priority programs ongoing, and all my people are committed and focused on their responsibilities for the next six weeks. I don’t have the time to do what you are suggesting.”

If you can find a way to accelerate each of your programs by embracing this new process and mindset, would you do it?

We have all participated in a project crisis in which we worked long and hard to meet a particular deadline. How much was your program advanced at these times compared to the program planned timeline prior to the crisis? Don’t wait for the weekend or the long evenings; build this focused process into the “normal” way of doing work. By building value acceleration events into your programs/projects, you will be creating new, untapped capacity with the same workforce.

Let’s do the math. Let’s keep it simple and assume one person per project. Now compare.

Traditional Program Planned Approach – Baseline:

• 3 projects
• x6 weeks (30 workdays) to complete
• 18 project workweeks (90 workdays)

Value Acceleration Approach:

Now, build into your plan 2 workweeks for value acceleration in which your “airplane” teams spend about 3 days of focused attention on each project (no interruptions or distractions allowed including other meetings). This approach results in advancing the projects 4 weeks each (20 workdays times 3 projects equals 60 days).

• 3 projects
• x3.3 value acceleration workdays per project
• 10 total workdays (rounding up)

Assume the 10 workdays invested in value acceleration save 4 weeks of time for each project (when using the “airplane build” model, I have observed many times far greater advancements). Four workweeks (20 workdays) times 3 projects equals a savings of 60 days. This is building additional capacity with process improvements not by investing in automation or other strategies.

In full disclosure, you can’t simply schedule a value acceleration event and make it successful. It needs to be planned. Participants will need some advance reading materials. The event may need to be scheduled off-site. You will likely need to “whiteboard” approaches, ideas, and action steps. You will need ground rules and a facilitator to keep the meeting moving. You may need breakout groups to work on specific activities.

I invite you to provide your thoughts, insights, and ideas on the types of things you would have to do or plan in your line of business to maximize your value acceleration event.

It’s old news that the shrinking labor pool, caused by the looming retirement of Baby Boomers, will present significant challenges for businesses in the near future. One could even say businesses are on the verge of experiencing a seismic tremor. Some have taken precautions by adding automation capability, others have begun documenting the entire “tribal knowledge” that resides in the minds of those soon to retire, and still others are embracing solutions leveraging the global labor now possible through the Internet. Can high-performance teams play a role in helping solve this dilemma?

Imagine a new world that embraces a paradigm in which you, as a business leader, can institute new processes and mindsets that improve your operational capability and increase your capacity.

The automotive assembly line model is highly adaptable and has served business well for a long time. Revolutionary at its beginning, this sequential flow manifests itself not only in manufacturing, but also in other support functions such as accounting, project management, and training development. In this model, each person adds value to a product or transaction as it passes his or her workstation in a predetermined linear sequence.

At some time or another, most businesses have experienced a crisis generally manifested by a time-commitment constraint or last-minute, client-directed change. These crises often require a team of people to come together to “resolve issues.” These intense periods of time are disruptive to the planned workday as well as family and social schedules. Employees rise to the challenge and overcome these events time and time again, but at what cost?

That new world I hinted at earlier can help overcome these challenges and build extra capacity, but doing so requires a different operating model and mindset.

Consider the differences between building an automobile and an airplane.

With an automobile assembly line, each workstation along the line adds some kind of value (for example, installing the front seats – 8 bolts) before proceeding to the next workstation where more value (for example, adding the front doors = 12 bolts) will be added. This process repeats until a car is driven off the assembly line.

Now let’s look at how an airplane is built. The airplane is stationary for major parts of its assembly. When the cockpit is added, multiple teams of electricians and mechanics are involved to connect the controls to the hydraulics, avionics, and electric systems throughout the cabin. When the landing gear is added, again hardware needs to be attached to the mainframe, the hydraulics systems need to be connected, electronics need to be attached to operate the hydraulics, etc. The point is that teams with a specific role (specialists) are working in the same location at the same time. This requires communication, cooperation, and coordination.

Now let’s take a quick trip backwards to consider applying this kind of approach to solving specific business problem, before we move forward. During WWII “Tiger Teams,” ad hoc teams, were created to address specific business problems (crises). Each team member was carefully selected based on a particular skill he or she possessed. These teams were sanctioned at the highest levels of the organization and were chartered with necessary authority to accomplish their mission. This is an early example of a high-performance team leveraged to solve a specific business problem. However, because these were ad hoc teams, they were dismantled when the problem was resolved. This high-performance team concept was not cemented into the organizational structure.

Now moving forward, consider the possibilities of inculcating this type of approach directly into your organizational structure as a normal way of doing business. The “problems” you solve are defined as the normal work projects and services. In this world, individuals are assigned specific responsibilities that bring one perspective to the problem that needs three to five perspectives to adequately solve the problem at a given milestone. All perspectives are brought together at critical “build” moments to exercise. This access to a larger brain trust enhances quality, resolves challenges, and cross-pollinates ideas. This approach embraces the notion that “good ideas” and “solutions” come faster and better, and can drive greater consistency across the organization with a synergy that comes from a high-performance team environment where individual perspectives and insights are valued. This is a key concept because it requires a change—in mindset for many organizations.

Can you describe examples where you have experienced or observed the benefits of high-performance teams in action? Was this an ad hoc team or was it instituted in the organizational structure?

Rapid development of training collateral always has its challenges including the fast pace and compressed timelines; however, developing training in a fluid environment, one subject to constant change, poses unique and sometimes frustrating challenges for instructional designers.

Software systems, while under development, are constantly in flux, much like the ocean tides; there seem to be no distinct beginnings and endings, with revisions scattered like seashells, washed away by the whims of the tide. Software developers are intrinsically okay with this and have a level of comfort with imperfection and incompleteness. They put together a basic package; throw it out there, and then revise the heck out of it as needed, throwing in patches and updates.

For instructional designers trying to keep up with these fluid changes and take training development to completion, the following offers some insights to provide a better understanding of the process and of the challenges encountered and strategies to overcome them.

Communication on a large scale is often difficult and sometimes takes longer than usual to filter down to the designer level. This means as designers, we have to sift through large volumes of emails to scan for nuggets of information and have to keep our ears open for conversations that may have an impact on the work.

Constant version changes also pose a challenge to the design process. Screens change color, buttons move, menu paths change, and system refreshes make data disappear. To cope with this situation, we must be flexible and willing to accept that each new version of the software may have small or significant changes included and plan to deal with them as they come.

Milestones that are moving targets increase the challenge factor as well. For instructional designers to succeed in this environment, we need to stay aware and in front of any impacts and then quickly decide which may require revisions, reviewing and reassessing planned activities frequently.

The fluid environment is fraught with challenges for designers, but it is also an opportunity to grow and change with the rapid pace of development to become more flexible and responsive instructional designers.