Occupational Psychologist on life

It's my job, I just do it

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Mon, 14 Feb 2011 09:05:00 +0000

So. This week I talk about the closing gap between L&D and OD. Hmm. Here's what I'll be talking about.

I've been asked to provide a case study of what my experience in the workplace has shown me about this development. It's quite a simple story really. When I came in to LBi, it had just passed a year of being a newly merged company. My role was initially to provide L&D service to the organisation. This included a range of activity from setting up Interview Skills training, to managing the training budget, to managing our agency CPD activity, and designing and delivering internal training courses. And that about covered a lot of activity in my first year.

My second year saw a lot of the organisational change and development I wanted to get involved in, and had the opportunity to explore. Thankfully, no-one in the business really had an agenda for L&D, so I was fairly free to push the boundaries in the way I thought (and still think) best. So last year saw a lot of activity done in developing a competency framework for the business. This is now being rolled out, but it took a long time to get there. The business has company values which no-one really understood. From there it was a case of defining them into terms staff understood, not PR talk, plain English talk. After that, I worked with each department, and levels within departments to define what the values meant for them, and how their day job reflect the values.

And from this we now have our competency framework. It's in Version1 at the minute and will be a continual evolving beast. But this was one stage of an organisational initiative which needed to happen. If you look at the Burke-Litwin model of OD, it offers an interesting perspective about factors you need to consider when engaging in, and developing an OD initiative. I know what the organisation culture is in the business, who from the Leadership team needed to be involved, what the purpose of the competency framework was to be, which systems were currently in place to support it, what management practices are currently being carried out, where the motivation lay for the framework, and how it would support organisational and individual performance.

I won't go into the details of the above, but I'm glad I have the Burke-Litwin model to help me consider if I approached the exercise in the right way. But I think I'm sending you on a bit of a red-herring. All I've done is described how I approached an OD task. I've not really talked about the closing gap between L&D and OD. So why is this question important? Where does it come from? And what do we hope to achieve from it?

Well, I think the question is important because in an organisation of any size where there is an L&Der of some description, the business can and does see the benefit of having such a person involved fully in providing support to the business, and (at a cynical level) serving to put a face on taking staff development seriously. What an organisation may not, and to my mind, will not realise is the benefit of having someone dedicated to OD. I've talked before about who tends to be an OD professional (in my post about what is Organisational Development), where I mention that it can be anyone in a business who has a mindset for dealing with OD issues.

This is not restricted to those in the HR field. Indeed, it's anyone who identifies a business need, and helps to develop and deliver a solution which improves business performance. In the automotive industry this tends to be the engineers as they are concerned with continuous improvement and lean thinking. In healthcare it tends to be operational staff who want efficient caring of patients. In businesses it tends to be HR.

The L&Der tends to be the one from the HR and other groups, who sees that there's a need for an organisational initiative. They tend to be the one who knows how to engage with the right people, and in the right way. They tend to be the one who know how to develop a solution and deliver it. They tend to be the one who knows how to roll it out and communicate it to the business. And that's why there's a growing questions of where the closing gap comes from.

What does this mean for the future of both the professions? Erm. Do you know the lottery numbers for this Saturday please? This is an academic question which will not be answered any time soon. We just have to wait and see how varying businesses respond to their organisational issues, and how these get answered. There's an ever growing distinction of roles and responsibilities of every aspect of HR, and this is another in that mix.

For me, for now, it means business as usual. I do L&D, and I do OD in my spare time. Because that's what's demanded of me and my role. I enjoy it and find it challenging. There will continue to be L&Ders who find they're asked to do OD. They won't be going to a workshop or training course about how to transfer their skills, they'll just get on and do it. I find the question of the closing gap slightly bizarre and frankly am unperturbed by it. I don't mean that in an arrogant way. I just don't see it particularly adds to the profession. It's a good question for those concerned on the matter, for me it seems another example of navel gazing which could be better time spent elsewhere.

Being positive takes effort

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 08:37:00 +0000

I write often about positive psychology and the very practical applications it offers to help people realise and understand how they can act differently if they wish to lead more 'happier' lives. Now, 'happier' is always a subjective term, and no-one can dictate to you, how happy you should be, this is a judgement you need to make for yourself. But, if you do wish to be happier, there are some very easy, very practical things you can go.

Before I launch into the different kinds of activity you should think about, let me stress this. This isn't a one trick pony. In order to achieve a more positive state of mind, or be happier, it takes concerted effort, and you need a strong support network. Be that friends, family, work colleagues, or professional help, someone needs to help you on this journey. Without a support network this will be a truly difficult task.

Additionally, extensive research has been carried out into the tangible effects of acting in the ways listed below. The research shows positive changes in a person's own sense of positivity over a period of time, how positive they are about others, and whether or not, the practices hold a lasting effect. I'll not cite the various pieces of research as I'm in a rush. But, and I will hold my name to this, I would not be suggesting the things below, if I didn't believe it.

I've written before about writing 3 good things at the end of the day. If you follow me on Twitter, you'll see I try to do this, and you'll also see how infrequently I do it. It's a very easy thing to do for a short while. As a continued effort though, it does take practice before you remember to do it regularly. In honesty, I think about my #3goodthings most nights, I just don't write it down. And that's the hey part, because you're articulating it rather than thinking it.

A gratitude visit is a very powerful way to raise your sense of positivity. This essentially entails you taking the time to visit one person and let them know why you're thankful they're part of your life. This doesn't have to be a regular weekly or monthly activity, but it does need to happen at least once or twice over a long period of time. What this helps to do is raise your confidence in being able to appreciate those in your life, and expressing it in a way which is meaningful to both you and the receiver.

Act in small ways which are unselfish. It doesn't take a lot to give someone the time of day, or to help answer a query. But in this busy world we fool ourselves into thinking that someone else will do it. Yes, maybe they will. But should that stop you from doing it too? No. There are few people I know who truly act without expectation of the same for them. And for that I will always hold them in high regard.

One of the most powerful ways to help you and others around you feel good, is by smiling. So much is associated with a genuine smile. This is pretty self-explanatory, but if you're not one for doing this, have a look at those around you who do, and consider how much of an impact they have on those around them.

And that's where I stop. Four things you can do to help raise your level of positivity and how you think about being happy.

Serenity Prayer

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Wed, 09 Feb 2011 08:55:00 +0000

Back when I used to work at QVC, we ran a programme called the QVC Difference. Essentially a 2 day residential course aimed at increasing your self-awareness, and focusing on how understand others better. Part of the course focused on the Serenity Prayer which came to mind yesterday, and thought I'd share it with you.

"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage to change the things I can, And wisdom to know the difference. Living one day at a time; Enjoying one moment at a time; Accepting hardship as a pathway to peace; Taking, as Jesus did, this sinful world As it is, not as I would have it; Trusting that You will make all things right If I surrender to Your Will; So that I may be reasonably happy in this life And supremely happy with You forever in the next. Amen."

Read into the prayer what you will, but for me, there are a few strong messages.

The serenity to accept the things I cannot change. If only this was easier to do. I can accept there are things I cannot change. But with serenity? Few can do that, and do it well. I used to have serenity in abundance in my college days, but something happened along the way which slowly beat it out of me.

Courage to change the things I can. I'm all about change. It's my job for crying out loud! And to do so with courage, that's a continuing journey I find myself facing. I have some very supportive and amazing people around me - both online and offline. I can change - if I want to - because I know I need support in order to do so.

Enjoying one moment at a time. There are daily stories about sudden life changes we never expect to happen. For this, and this alone, I am constantly grateful for this life I have, and never take it for granted. I kiss my wife, and my kids every morning without fail before I leave the house as I never know what will happen when I walk out that door.

Trusting that You will make all things right. Faith is a difficult one to sound-bite, so I shan't. I have faith, and sometimes I have to hold on to it for dear life.

So that I may be reasonably happy in this life. I am. Around me I see all manner of wonderful, difficult, harsh, joyous, sad events. And I wonder - am I happy with where I am right now? Yes. Yes, I am.

I don't think the Serenity Prayer resonates only if you are Christian, or only if you practise a religion, the message is a good one, and for this reason, I hope it resonates with you.

Come tweet with me

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Mon, 07 Feb 2011 08:52:00 +0000

This week's Q&A topic has probably been written by many others before me, and I may not be saying anything new, but I wanted to put it out there to see what opinions are around. My question is this:

Is it possible for organisations to use social media for employee engagement?

Here's my thinking. The trend for employees to have a social media account of some sort is increasing constantly. At the moment, here's how most of those accounts are being used:

Facebook - personal relationships, event type pages, uploading videos and photos of company events
Twitter - networked relationships, creating a 'personal brand', promoting your message to the world
LinkedIn - professional relationships, job opportunities, conference promotion
Yammer - in-tact relationships, deeper discussions on topics selected by people regularly working together
Blogs - individual voice, rants, thought pieces, attract a following
Foursqaure - competition element, checking in, winning badges, special offers for 'mayorships'

And that's just a selection of what's out there. So we can take each of those and think - how can an organisation use any/all of those to engage with their staff better? Cynicism aside - truly aside,

Facebook - so it seems 500 million of you have a Facebook account. I don't for what it's worth. but I'm in the minority it seems. Imagine if you would, a company friends you. Not to follow what you have to say, but so they can update you on company communications. We're holding a company meeting, we're hiring spread the message, there's a new starter today say hello, did you know Bob is wearing a red pyjama outfit for Comic Relief?

Twitter - not so different about the kind of message that can be spread from Facebook, just a different way of sending that message out.

LinkedIn - encouraging your staff to connect with each other, but with the aim in mind of developing a strong employer brand. Brands in this day and age know the power of a collective and crowd sourcing. So you have a strong public brand, but what about a strong professional brand?

Yammer - wikis and intranets are still the way to go, but Yammer offers an additional way to talk to each other. Remember that internal training on Assertiveness? Let's talk about that a bit more. What about the new internal product we've rolled out? Discuss and comment.

Blogs - blogging is an interesting beast, but all the same there's a lot of people at it. Done something you're particularly proud of? Ask someone to write about it on their blog. That's right, on theirs, not yours. You already have a company blog which will have a corporate message. How about hearing the same message articulate differently? Are you brave enough?

Foursquare - 'checking in' presents an interesting opportunity for rewarding being 'present'. A slightly more organisational bent, rather than engagement - but rewarding people for 25 check-ins, with a free coffee? A mayorship with an Amazon voucher, or additional company discount?

I know there will be heavy cynicism from a fair few of you, and that's all good, but indulge me for a moment.

The question then:

Is it possible for organisations to use social media for employee engagement?

Time to step up the game

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 10:47:00 +0000

Had a great chat yesterday which lead to an invitation to speak at a workshop in a couple of weeks, and with a possibility of speaking at a bigger event in September. Yes! I won't lie. This has been an ambition of mine for some while. And it's also why I started blogging. I'll make it clear from the outset. This isn't about making money, this is about me talking.

There's a lot happening in the world, and a lot of people voicing an opinion on all and sundry. I don't think L&D is being best represented in the big bad world. There's far too many safe players who will tell you best practise looks like this, and the growing skills of L&D means x, and how we need to be more strategic in our delivery, and how businesses need to take L&D more seriously. That's what we're griping about in our profession? Are you kidding me?

There's very few people out there whose voice I respect and will listen to. Some in particular are Lee Sears, Gene Johnson, Peter Butler and Nick Shackleton-Jones. There are very many other speakers, but they are saying nothing of consequence. Same old same old. Sorry Perry Timms, even you're not that interesting. I like you, you engage an audience brilliantly and yYour work with the Big Lottery Fund is pretty great, but you're not describing or talking about anything which we haven't already seen, or aren't trying to achieve ourselves. This doesn't mean you don't add value, I just don't see you're actually pushing any agenda.

L&D is a veritable power force of change. I do, will, and foresee my role in the business I am currently in - and every business I will be in, as being one that I get to the heart of and create the L&D culture it deserves. And the only way this will happen is by being an internal consultant who gets at the heart of the business. External consultants serve a purpose, but have a very different perspective to what a business needs. My belief is, and hopefully comes through in all I do, that L&D doesn't rest with one person. L&D's role is to facilitate learning in whatever way is best.

I have a big hope that I do get asked for more speaking opportunities. Having 1 now, and a possible other later in the year is a great affirmation for me that I'm saying something which resonates with others. So, my focus has been given purpose. One other main activity I'm hoping to get sorted within a fairly short space of time is moving this blog to a proper platform. You'll have heard me ask questions about this in recent weeks, and I still have more to think about. So, I'm planning on making things happen for me. I'm quite clear about what I want to do, my road to getting there is proving to be interesting and exciting.

I'm a sharing soul

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Tue, 01 Feb 2011 14:11:00 +0000

Last night I attended an event for folks who use social media, Twitter in particular, to have a tweet-up. Those of you who follow me know of this as #ConnectingHR. It's odd going to an event like this. You talk to these people on Twitter. You're kind to each other, and you have an interaction of sorts. You can't really call it a relationship because there's no vested interest in the other party. Not really. We might help and we might offer support, but you can't do much more virtually. But you know, in your mind, that you don't care if these people listen to you, if you offend them, or if they like you, because they're not real. Not really. Of course, they're real, but you know, they're not to you, because there's no relationship.

And then you decide you're going to meet up. Not just one or two of you, but all of you who talk. It's reminiscent of the old chatroom scenarios. You remember those. Bob lives in England, Karen lives in Fiji. They talk, they think they have a spark, they agree to meet and either they find they really do have a spark, or it was all based on false perceptions. But this was nothing like that. At all.

So the first #ConnectingHR event was last year, another after that, an unconference followed, and then last night the first tweet-up of the year. Right. So I'm off to meet a group of folk who share a hashtag. WTF? Are you fucking serious? Yes. Absolutely. Erm. Why exactly? Because we're a community. Ok. Now you're just talking nonsense.

Am I? Twitter is where I am me. I tweet about everything under the sun. I mix personal, with professional with work with food with my children. This a) gives those following me a complete insight into who I am b) fills up timelines because I tweet so damned much. On a night like last night though, that leaves me in an interesting position. I knew there would be folk there who actually read my tweets. They respond - actively - to what I say. For whatever reason they do this, they do this. I'm grateful for that. So going into the pub, the first thought that struck me was - Fuck. This is like going on a blind date where the other person actually knows an awful lot about you already, but they have no idea who you are. And having a Twitter handle such as @LearningGrump (nee @naturalgrump) makes things even more interesting as often folks just have their names as their handles, so mine is a bit more distinctive than most.

And then we say hello. And you look round the room recognising folk. Bob! Billy! Ben! And you connect immediately. Because you already know each other. Because all you're doing is putting faces and real people to the names. And you find they're just as wonderful in real life as they are on Twitter. I didn't need to meet these folk in real life to help me know I have a supportive community. It's helped, as now I can associate better with all of them. More importantly, though, I can now build relationships with them.

Are you warmed up?

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:43:00 +0000

Well, this week's Q&A post is all about doing an energiser before training or a workshop. Looking at the world of sport gives an example overview of why we should do this. Before any sports-person embarks on their competition, they prime their bodies. They go through intense training several weeks prior to condition their bodies in the right way. On the day itself, they body needs to get the adrenaline flowing so your reaction times are quicker and sharper. The body needs to be in a state of readiness so it can take on its challenge. During the competition, the sports-person paces him/herself. They know full well that their body can only handle so much, so they have to make sure they're not over-stretching themselves. And once completed, they warm down. The body has just been through an exertion of energy and power it doesn't normally have to sustain. The warm down helps the body to say, it's ok, you can relax now.

So, if you question the need to do an energiser before training/workshop, think of this example. The key is, make sure the energiser/exercise you get the group to do, is relevant to the task ahead of them. Don't play Lego and have fun, if you're in a conflict resolution workshop. The delegates won't appreciate it, your credibility will go down the pan, and your objectives will not be met.

The question for this week then is - What's the best energiser/icebreaker you've taken part in (or if you're an L&Der, that you've designed and delivered)?

Email and work are not the same thing

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Fri, 28 Jan 2011 09:46:00 +0000

You there. The one who says they are working when they are answering emails. You and I need a serious chat. Modern work life means work-related communications happen through email in the first instance, person-person second and by telephone third. But let's be clear about that - emails are only a communication medium, they are not work.

Doing work means that you are acting on something communicated to you, and producing a result of efforts. This is working. To claim that you have spent x hours 'working' by answering emails, you are misunderstanding the nature of what it means to work. Yes, you probably do receive hundreds of email, but - BUT - they are simply someone communicating a message to you they wish you to do something about. Responding to your emails is not doing something about it. Forwarding your email is not doing something about it. Passing on the request to someone else is not doing something about it. You are only doing something about it when the person sending you a message is satisfied their expectation has been met.

Why does this grate on me though? It's not about the blackberry culture we're now in. That's an expected way of working now, to be always connected to work. It grates on me because of the perception people think it gives of being busy. Yes, it does give the perception you are busy. Are you being productive or effective though? That's a whole other matter.

UPDATE: Thanks to Sheridan Webb for pointing me to this questionnaire - Busy or Productive? - that can help you to consider the above for yourself.

Getting senior management buy-in?

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Wed, 26 Jan 2011 13:22:00 +0000

I love reading stupid comments. Check that. I don't love reading stupid comments. Stupid comments make me angry. Check that. Stupid comments make me incredibly frustrated that people don't pay enough attention writing better. What am I blathering on about? I've just read a tweet about getting senior management to buy-in to the value of L&D. Hmm. It's an age old discussion. A rather pointless one though if you ask me.

It's a simple message really. You can't expect anyone in your business or organisation to value what you do, if you don't show them why first. This is true of any department and not restricted to L&D in any way. Let's stick with L&D though. So, you want to be taken seriously? Here's my list of what has to happen. Caveat: I'm only talking about internal L&Ders, externals can adapt the list for their purposes.

1) Understand the needs of the business. Don't listen to what managers think they want. Take note for sure, and reference, but managers rarely understand their actual needs. For example, Bob approached me asking for presentation skills for his team. After some discussion, I found that presentation skills was part of what his team needed. The other part was how to deal with challenges, discussions and difficult people. That's not presenting at all, that's a mix of facilitation skills and active listening techniques.

2) Develop content with the business. You may know what makes a great piece of training design, and what exercises you enjoy using, but have you checked that's how the audience will receive it? Say I thought using Lego for every exercise regardless of topic was the way forward. I might then go on to deliver some training with this exercise to a group of managers who immediately refuse to take part in the exercise because they see no relation to what they do on a day to day basis. Buh-bye Lego exercise and your credibility.

3) Deliver it with a business leader. It's fine if you want to deliver training by yourself, there's no harm in that, but only your immediate audience will see how good you are, and if you're lucky they'll praise you to their manager. Delivering with a business leader though means that you will immediately create conversation amongst other business leaders about the work you are doing, because they're a peer group and they like to spread good news as well as gossip.

4) Follow up with a session to review the content. Your audience will talk about you more and be more likely to remember their training if you produce a follow up.

5) Have a calendar of some sort. Seriously, this is such an easy win but so easily overlooked. People like to know when they can expect to attend a session if they're not able to make the one you're organising next week. Making it available and visual also makes it easy for people to refer to.

6) PR what you do. You have to, have to, have to do this. No-one will know about the work you are doing unless you talk about it in some way. Be clever and smart about this, don't just spam messages all over the show. You want people to see you're being a benefit not a nuisance.

7) Meet with business managers regularly. Not weekly, but quarterly at least. Find out how the business is doing. What's going on. Where's the business heading? Vision? Strategy? Business plan? They will then see that you are taking the business seriously, not just L&D but the business.

And that's only some of what you should be doing. You should be doing other things too like being consistent, have a training budget and manage is closely with Finance, and attend regular conferences or workshops yourself. But that list above is a good place to start if you want the business to take you seriously. It takes time though. From experience I can guarantee that getting the above right means you will be taken seriously by your business. Then, getting buy-in from various groups is easier as you've shown clear reasons why.

I should add, it's not a do all or die list. Do the ones that make sense.

Is there a bit of Punjabi inside you?

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Wed, 12 Jan 2011 14:02:00 +0000

A break from the norm of L&D type posts brings me to wanting to write about my culture. Sparked by some bhangra being played on my way into work this morning! It's important to immediately clarify that there is a difference between being Sikh, and being Punjabi. Already confused? Sikhi is a religion, and as some of you will know, I am Sikh. Those who practise Sikhi, have defining characteristics such as the clothes they wear, and typically look something like this:

I, clearly, am not a practising Sikh. I hope to be some day, though.

Being Punjabi, though, is quite different. Punjab is a state in North India, with borders on Pakistan, close to the Himalayas and has a population of approximately 80 million.

Historically, Sikhi originated in the Punjab area, and as such many Sikhs are Punjabi. However, being a Punjabi, doesn't mean you are Sikh. Those living in Punjab are also Hindu, Muslim and Christian. So, the commonality they share is the Punjabi identity.

I want to give you some insight into what it means to me to be Punjabi.

The music. Bhangra. That's what it's all about. Traditional bhangra is played on simple instruments such as a tumbi or a dhol. And there's normally someone who will sing lyrics. The lyrics are normally meant to be quite tongue in cheek, taking a poke at Punjabi stereotypes, and also often about wooing a girl. Lyrics aside, for me, it's the rhythm produced from the instruments that I love. You grow up learning how to dance to the music, your social circle encourage it, at parties everyone's doing it, and it's contagious! Not many artists have managed to break into UK mainstream music except for Punjabi MC, with Mundian To Bach Ke. Since then there have been others, but not in such a big way. Anyway, every time I hear a good bhangra song, I want to dance. It's dangerous when sitting at my desk when listening to a good song as I'll be mentally bopping away, trying to refrain from physically doing the same, and trying not to look like I have ants in my pants.

The food. I love Punjabi cuisine. It is awesome! Every part of India has a different style of cooking. Sure they're all spicy, but they tend to have very different consistencies. Typical Punjabi food tends to be quite thick and/or creamy if it's curry based, quite dry if it's meat, and quite spicy if it's vegetarian. You may recognise saag, tandoori chicken or matar paneer. MMMmmm... A very traditional meal for families on Sunday's is to have parathas... oh mama. These things can fill you up for a day.

The culture. Punjabi's are a very social people. Everything is about socialising and needing an excuse to socialise. That's why parties are so big, not because we know that many people, but because we love being social. Sure there might be alcohol free flowing, but that's more of a gradual happening over time. It's all about throwing a big bash to show off how well you can socialise. Cynicism aside, it creates for a wonderful atmosphere where everyone mucks in and enjoys themselves. Even if it's a home dinner, you can expect 3-4 different families. And in some cases this is a weekly affair!

And those three things are at the heart of why I love being Punjabi. I've talked specifically about Punjab here. This isn't to say the other states in India are vastly different, it's akin to describing why those from North England differ from those in the Home Counties to those in London to those in West Country.

Make training fun?

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Mon, 10 Jan 2011 11:28:00 +0000

Last week's Q&A post on the use of role plays in training was a nice experiment and turned out just as I wanted. My thanks to all who took part in it. For me, the important thing to bear in mind for future Q&A's is to not bother with a summary post at the end of the week because:
1) I'm not that important
2) My readers can wean their own conclusions from people's comments
3) I didn't actually say anything different

So, on to this week's Q&A.

If you are promoting training, should one of your key selling points, be "it's fun!". I read far too many training types who think that this is a valid selling point. As you may gather, I'm not convinced. I'm not concerned about the structure of the training, or its content, or the style of delivery, my questions this week is restricted to:

When promoting training, internal or external, how does the word "fun" help or hinder this promotion?

Role Play? No thanks

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:00:00 +0000

This week's inaugural Q&A post was on the topic of role plays within training. The question I posed was this: "Often in training it's necessary to practise the skills you are learning. But, is role play the best way to achieve this?"

There's been some excellent comments from the following people: Rob Green, Wendy Jacob, Matthew Warrener, Sarah Durbridge, TheHRD, Doug Shaw and Mr AirMiles. Here's a precis of their comments:

Rob talked about it being difficult to get into character for a role play as he's not facing the person he's likely to come across. Once he tries though, feedback can be useful.

Wendy was clear in stating "There is no realism in acting out a semi-scripted conversation" and "You can't plan for every response and scenario and, while I see some merit in discussing on a practical level how a new skill might be used, I've yet to experience a role play which hasn't been a painful experience for everybody."

Matthew made an excellent point when he said "...customers DO NOT HAVE SCRIPTS! We can discuss and debate customer/event scenarios but lets leave role playing to the cast of Fame!". I couldn't agree more!

Sarah thought about it from the trainer's point of view too and talked about role play feeling unreal and embarrassing for the participants.

TheHRD made an interesting observation when he said "I've found that in our culture people like to use it...not because they find it real but because they find it helps to practice".

Doug made a nice quip and said "I have scriptophobia, a fear of role play."

And Mr Airmiles provided a great comment, "There are other ways to practice and apply classroom learning - Micky Mouse Land role plays aren't one of them...".

There's plenty in the comments you can read and learn from, and I'm grateful for the contributions. I have to add my tuppence though. For me, you just need to consider the purpose of using role play at all. If it's a service based offering you have, create a duplicate environment, a simulation of sorts, where the person can not only practise what they've been taught, but become conscious of the environment they're in, the people they have to interact with, and apply themselves naturally.

If it's to practise a learned behavioural skill such as Assertiveness, or Feedback, this is much harder to control for in a training environment as the situations you create will never be true to life. You can't account for emotions, reactions, beliefs, culture, that a person holds within them. In these places I've always found it more useful to encourage planning of conversations and discuss those as the preparation can raise awareness, you then have to trust they'll actually 'do' it when they go back to work.

In the main, I don't believe role plays have a place in training any more. There are better and more effective ways at embedding learning - skills practice, simulations, video feedback, are all If you do choose to use them, just be very clear about the objective. They'll work fine as thought starters, but won't help to truly practise skills.

Thanks to all above for contributing this week.

Death to the CV!

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Wed, 05 Jan 2011 09:06:00 +0000

A few weeks back I met a Twitter friend Mervyn Dinnen for the first time and had a very good chat about all things social media, how we found ourselves using it, and about life in general. Mervyn's at a point in his career where he's trying something daring and I wanted to support this with a post of my own. He's looking for his next career opportunity, and I don't doubt that he'll find something. You can read his dedicated blog to find out what he does and what he wants to do. I will tell you though about his methodology for finding this job.

He is doing it without any form of a CV at all. Instead he is using purely social media/networking tools to help him find a job.

A quick point, Mervyn is in a fortunate position that he can invest time in this experiment. I wish Mervyn the best of luck in doing this.

He's calling it social recruiting. Makes sense. What I want to do is take a look at the idea of this and provide some of my thoughts. In effect, Mervyn is saying if a company is interested in him, he won't send over a CV. He wants his blog, his Twitter account, his LinkedIn profile, all to be the source of information that any potential recruiter would need. And based on that, they can contact him for an interview.

What fascinates me about this, is the sheer challenge to conventional job seeking methods. The Employ Kyle campaign saw some innovative use of social media to promote himself. And there have been many people using YouTube to promote themselves. Recruiters in the world today (in-house as well as out-sourced) should take note of what's happening in the world of social media, and learn quickly. I'll make mention of one other recruiter I know on Twitter, Andy Headworth. Andy is an absolute advocate of social media, and puts a lot of time and effort into figuring out how the various tools can be best used. You should check out his site.

Coming back to Mervyn though, he's got some real challenges that stand in his way:
1) Recruiters will insist on a CV - they will not understand how you can't have one, why you haven't got one, and what you possibly think to gain by not providing one.
2) Companies will put pressure on recruiters and on Mervyn for providing a CV - because they want the paper trail. They want the safeguard that says, "we choose to go no further because blah blah blah".
3) Practically, people haven't got time to engage with a candidate in this way - the beauty of what Mervyn is trying to promote here is, you have to visit his site, you have to read his tweets, you have to search him out on LinkedIn. That's far too much time to invest in a time poor economy.
4) It's just not the done thing - regardless of the ways social media is providing new ways of communicating and providing information, at risk of a cliche, the world just isn't ready for things like this. Challenging recruiting conventions is almost as laughable as challenging airport security.
5) His approach will be classed as the latest social media fad/gimmick - companies haven't got the time to indulge an approach like this. Social media? Just stick to email and phone thanks.

I am following Mervyn's job hunt with interest. I hope either you do too, or are interested enough that you'll pass on a recommendation for him.

Role Play? I'm just not into that

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:18:00 +0000

Seeing there are plentiful blogs to welcome you, get you kick started and provide ample advice on setting realistic resolutions for 2011, I'm going down a different track. I'm starting a weekly posting on something within the L&D world which would be interesting to open up to you all. In effect, I want you to write the blog.

The idea is simple enough. I pose a situation, you respond and I'll try write a post to collect thoughts on (potentially) solving said situation. I'll tweet it out once a day until Friday.

Often in training it's necessary to practise the skills you are learning. But, is role play the best way to achieve this? I've never been a fan of role play. But before I get into it, let's have a quick thought about why they're used. Effectively they're used to help people take a look at how they might use a learned skill and receive some feedback on it. That's about it really. Like I said, I want your help in writing this, so let me know your thoughts, and on Friday, I'll pull them together.

Thank you

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Fri, 17 Dec 2010 12:16:00 +0000

To those of you who visit and read my blog, a heartfelt thanks. I've been throwing out a fair amount of stuff on here this year and you've all been kind to read, tweet about and in some cases mention my posts in your own.

Blogging and Twitter for me have opened up a whole community I love being part of. In an earlier post I talked about finding your Third World, and for me, this is my third world. I can be myself on these platforms, if I'm judged for it that's fine, if it passes you by that's fine too, and if you engage with it then I'm simply honoured.

With the Xmas break fast approaching, many people I enjoy talking with will be going quiet which means I'll be genuinely anticipating the New Year so fires can be lit, battles can be fought and arguments had.

Nothing else to say except for thanks.

The Myth of Gen Y

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Sun, 12 Dec 2010 23:42:00 +0000

So the title of this post makes the content fairly self evident. But why am I concerned about exposing the theory of Gen Y? Essentially because I think we've been lead to believe something which is only a half truth. A lot is being said in the sphere about how we have to prepare for and understand Generation Y. Here's the thing, I'm not convinced.

Over the years, there have been many a workplace theory that we have meant to give due consideration to. But there are some basics which have always been true. Management has always needed to understand what makes a good leader/manager. Giving your employees a range of benefits has always been an important retention strategy. Having a corporate social responsibility strategy that you actually follow through will always provide a strong brand image.

This theory on generational differences suggests that this Generation Y is meant to be a force of change in the workplace that we cannot ignore the importance of. There's a lot of information regarding Generation Y and what defines them, a lot of which I won't bother going into and will assume my readership is either aware of what the theory suggests or knows how to use Google.

It's really only over the last few months that I've had some niggling doubts about what is being suggested about Gen Y. I don't believe we need to change our approach for this Gen Y. I think we've been dealt a red herring.

I believe that although Gen Y do present a difference in attitude to work, this is by no means unique to them. Gen X presented an equal challenge to attitudes to the Baby Boomers. Gen Y are not a special bunch. They're approach to the work environment and their expectations about what they can achieve are perfectly in line with what they have been lead to believe.

Global economic crisis and subsequent actions aside, Gen X have laid out a very bright picture for any ambitious Gen Yers. In doing so, the playing field that is a career is now a very different beast. 2-3 years in post and people think about moving on. That's not unique to Gen Y, that's national commerce saying - there are a vast array of opportunities that await you, and you can cherry pick any of them. We'll take on the best - not just Gen Y. The level of connectedness technology now offers means you can build networks like never before. That's not something Gen Y naturally know how to utilise - they still rely on guidance from Gen X on how to do it. The information available at your fingertips means you can go forth and make yourself a knowledgeable contender in any market. Gen X have provided all that information, and are the ones who know how to manipulate it so that Gen Y can access it.

Before I follow that track too long, this isn't a rant against Gen Y, it really isn't. Instead it's a rant against generational theory. I believe that in fact what we're witnessing is the beginnings of a new way of working for everyone - and it's all due to the advances in technology. Not the attidude changes of generations - that will be a constant every generation will have to face.

This is still a working theory but it goes something like this. Those who will be successful in the age we are in now, will be those who understand digital, how it connects to daily life, and how to make each of those interactions meangingful and beneficial for mankind. They will have an appreciation for the need to help people not only in their own country, but the world - because they either see the moral benefit of doing so, or because they can grow an ethical business that achieves this. Brands will no longer determine what messages to believe, they'll respond to the messages they're being given. Marketing will take on a whole new meaning - technology means you can now see someone's Foursquare check-in and as such send them direct and relevant offers that they will respond to. Workplaces will continue to experiment and find different ways of providing a flexible working lifestyle - opportunities aplenty for fresh thinking and innovation about the way we work. Politics will continue to be faced with challenges of power and greed, and no amount of goodwill will take away this powerful draw.

I don't believe any of that will be provided by Gen Y. Gen Y are of course important for the successful future of business and life, but they aren't the Messiahs of the future. There may be the minority who will make unexplainable and unbelievable success. Just look at Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg. Three very different people of their generations, and today three of the most well known influential figures ever. Okay Gates is technically a Boomer, but he's close enough in age to be a Gen Xer.

What I'm trying to say is, we shouldn't be catering for Gen Y as they provide nothing new. We should be catering for a new way of interaction and engagement. I'm going to suggest some ways to think of this with some names that come to mind presently:

- Traditionalists - these are folk who are not interested in accepting change, the cynics of society who claim global warming is a myth, that social media is a fad and that green is not a feasible way of living. They'll be used to the changes in technology and society but only because they have no choice. They won't care about moving careers because they don't believe in careers.
- Digital Heroes - these are folk who get and understand the best way to use all things digital. They're acceptant of what's changing in the world and how to adapt to that. Life is about engagement, fulfilment and positive behaviour. They will care about progression and success.
- Mavericks - these are folk who will challenge society and everyone they come into contact with. Life is about intellectual pursuits and a truly beautiful future. They won't accept the status quo because they won't believe that we're truly being innovative or producing anything which pushes boundaries. Careers will be insignificant for them.

Sure I'm being no better than the generational theorists or palm reader or horoscope writer in making claims about the future and how to interact with different people, but I do believe that what I've described above is a more accurate and meaningful way of thinking about the way we currently work and will likely work in the coming years.

UPDATE:
I've seen some other posts today that resonate with my post today very strongly. It seems, this may truly be a bit of pop science which has very little research to be meaningful. The interesting thing for me is this. It seems consultancies and Gen Y advocates are just as guilty of over-generalising as the businesses that are believing the hype. Yes, the attitudinal differences between generations are vast, no this isn't new, in fact we should be more worried about what's going to happen with email compared to social networking tools.

Here are links to sites blogging about the same thing:

From Mervyn Dinnen on The Original Flexible Workforce

From Flipchart Fairy Tales on Millenial mumbo-jumbo

From TheHRD on Generation Y

L&D? That's not what I do.

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 08:35:00 +0000

A few things over the last couple of days have inspired me to re-think what I'm trying to achieve professionally. In reading the December issue of Harvard Business Review, a lot of articles in their resonated strongly with me about the need to look at the way a business functions and building the right support networks to help those needs. Be it a wellness programme, how to use social media to engage with your customers, whether or not your staff are allowed to use social media, or looking at what leadership looks like in your organisation, there's clear discussions that need to be had about the best ways to enable any and all of those.

I shadowed an external trainer yesterday to gain an understanding of what he was helping a group to understand and achieve. The topic matter was straightforward enough and in fact we are well placed as a business to deliver this same topic ourselves internally. He used a few models and exercises to provide context and direction, but it's nothing new or licensed to the trainer, he just saw a few good models from his career and is using them in training. Nothing wrong with that.

And I watched a video post by Nick Shackleton Jones about Affective Content and how we're really only open to training when the right motivations are in place. This is a fascinating post about how ineffective learning is - be it traditional stock and trade, or be it e-learning. True learning for most people takes place when the emotional need is highly motivated. For example, when you start a new job, we often describe it as a steep learning curve, because we are literally engaging the brain to learn a new way of behaving. After a given amount of time though, this will plateau and any learning after this point will most likely come from on the job experience.

So what is it I need to be doing? Become a business consultant and advise how an organisation should be structured? Hunt down external trainers who charge obscene amounts of money for training that could be facilitated internally? Wait for employees to self-realise that they need to engage in some learning and then come find me?

Although facetious, those are serious and searching questions. L&D is now no longer about training, or about developing courses, or about how good a facilitator you are. It's about sharing knowledge. Businesses are so busy in this day that a lot of departments have become siloed and worried about staying alive. Businesses have always been guilty of that in fariness, there just seems to be a greater lens on it at the moment. And that's where L&D needs to really come into its fore. I don't know everything, and I shouldn't know everything, but I do know how to get the knowledge from Bob to Bert. And that's what I do.

It's been a year

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:08:00 +0000

It's been a year! Always keen to know what others think I'd like you to complete a survey on my blog. If you think the survey questions below don't capture what you want to say effectively, then please contact me through Twitter or email me.

Thanks for the 1st year folks.

Create your free online surveys with SurveyMonkey, the world's leading questionnaire tool.

The science of... Occupational Psychology

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Fri, 03 Dec 2010 11:21:00 +0000

I did it! Yay me! A complete look at the Science of... Occupational Psychology. The purpose of the series of posts has been simply to provide some better insight into the methodologies that occ psychs use. L&D is my heart and soul, and long may it continue. I enjoy what occ psych has to offer though, and I don't know if I'll venture back into that world proper, but it is a fascinating world. Not least because some smart folks identified a need for a new type of consultant and produced this new profession!

Cynicism aside, occupational psychology will continue to be the specialists that organisations seek to help produce the structures I've mentioned because they've got a business to worry about. HR teams will know these things are needed, but often have so many operational and strategic tasks that need to be achieved, that there's no wonder consultants are sought.

So that's it. There's no more. I'm tired of 2 weeks of posting. Gonna take a break for a few days and go back to my infrequent posting and ranting. It's much more fun. For me, at least. I thank you :)

A great and obvious suggestion from Martin Couzins. Here's a list of the posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development

The science of... Learning and Development

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:38:00 +0000

HA! I could really fall flat on my face on this one if I don't get it right. Especially after many of my self-righteous rants over recent weeks. And here it is. The truth about L&D. Let's dance.

Learning and Development has been around for a long time. You could argue anyone involved in delivering knowledge is an L&Der. You could also argue that L&D is not restricted to sitting in HR. You could argue that L&D should be lead by business leaders. You could argue that L&D is a mickey mouse department in a company. We're not here to argue who should be involved in L&D. We're here to discuss the mechanics of providing an effective L&D function.

Business Needs Analysis

Typically referred to as Training Needs Analysis. I've left the 'Training' piece off the subtitle and called it 'Business' as I don't believe L&D is restricted to 'training'. Purpose of the function aside, the place to start is by identifying what are the needs of the business. This doesn't mean looking at the business objectives and then drawing a line of sight to L&D objectives. It also doesn't mean analysing appraisals to identify what training has been requested.

It's about looking at the way the business operates and identifying the areas where support is needed to develop further. For example, a production line may be efficient at the number of units it produces in an hour. It may not be efficient though at highlighting issues with machinery and reporting these. Or, a project team may work well according to instruction and direction from the project manager, but may not work well together. Or, an individual in a lone role may know how to network well and spread knowledge through a business but time management may be a crucial issue in delivering projects.

By looking at the way the business operates - and that's the only objective place you can gain the information - you can confidently target the L&D intervention needed.

Design and Development

So you've identified the business need. Then comes designing and developing the appropriate intervention. This sounds like it's the easy part. But you have to consider so much when designing an intervention. Be it e-learning, blended learning, training course, workshop, facilitated discussion, coaching, mentoring, job shadowing, accreditation, qualification based, or some other form of intervention there are some basics to be considered.

First comes understanding about the way people learn. There's a lot of research on learning styles, memory (both short term and long term), models about change, the learning process, human behaviour, and it's all relevant stuff. The intervention has to consider whether or not it has considered these variants, and how it will be inclusive of most if not all of them.

Then comes considering whether or not you've actually developed an appropriate intervention. What's the best way for the group to learn the required skill? Is it what you've decided or what the business needs? You may well have a belief that a particular methodology is the best approach, but it may not be appropriate for the group. Take the production line example. Taking them offsite for in-depth case study review and training on risk management may work and be effective, but might be easier if it's done on the job and with real life management of the situation.

Importantly, the design also includes the collateral. Workbook? Handouts? Deck? Flipcharts? Branding? These are all important and although may go unmissed, if done well add to the learning experience.

Delivery

Ah the best part of the job. Well for me anyway. Standing up and showing off your knowledge and being the centre of attention (not like me at all *coughs*). The person delivering has a lot to learn about how to engage with a group on so many levels.

Do you get body language? Not just eye contact, nodding, pacing, proximity, boredom and obvious behaviours like that. But things like - curious looks, note taking, the tone of voice someone takes, the way one person reacts to another, and more - these are the key behaviours that need to be understood, so that they can be responded to.

Do you get language? It's easy to miss the essence of what someone is asking if you just take it at face value. Have you listened to the way the question has been phrased? What about how they're responding verbally to others? And the way they're commenting on what you've said. It's vital to be tuned in to these things so you know in what direction the conversation needs to be lead.

If it's a course, then you may also need to consider the use of exercises. Should they be practical? (Yes) Can they be theoretical? (Possibly) What about role plays? (only as a last resort) Should I use case studies (If appropriate) What about theoretical? (Again, if appropriate). The aim of any exercise should be always to raise awareness of a missing skill that needs to be learned. Through the exercise there should be learning that says "this is how you do it".

Evaluation

The oft missed piece of any training. I blogged about this a couple of weeks ago. Essentially though what you're looking to confirm is - was the training effective and helped improve a skill or not? Read my previous post for more info as I'll just be repeating myself.

And that's the heart of any L&D function right there. I don't think I've missed anything. I may have skimmed over certain bits, but this is all about looking at the science of it. The science piece here is about the process identified above. Pull me up if I've missed something and be sure to add your own stuff in the comments.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Appraisals

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Tue, 30 Nov 2010 16:17:00 +0000

Look. I had to get to this one eventually. I’ve been pushing it aside long enough. It was us ok? It was occupational psychologists that said: You need to set SMART objectives, you need to do annual appraisals, you need competency frameworks, you need to give effective feedback. IT WAS ALL US. There. I’ve said it. Now, here’s the science...

It’s nothing you don’t know already. You want to recognise and reward performance but how can you do it unless you appraise your staff? It’s a win-win argument. I can review the objectives I’ve set you, review your projects, review your behaviour and appraise how well you’ve done. Then – and only then, can I decide on what level of salary increase you are likely to deserve. The logic is flawless.

The appraisal provides an opportune moment to provide feedback, develop your staff, give some coaching and all in one neat package. HOW COULD THIS FAIL?

Because of complete, total and utter misunderstanding of the truth behind appraisals. An appraisal should only ever be a summary of every conversation you have ever had with your direct report. The annual review was meant to be the one point of the year where you formally sit down and do the review of the collection of your reviews you’ve already been doing.

And that’s where it all started to go horribly wrong. Everyone knows about the initiatives for continuous improvement that came and went. Total Quality Management, Management By Objectives, Competency Frameworks, Coaching. These are all excellent models. The one and only reason they are looked on with such hatred is the piss poor education about how they should be implemented and used.

The best – truly – appraisal I had was a 45 minutes discussion with my first manager in my 3^rd year of working for him. He understood what he was meant to do over the course of the year. We had regular catch ups, he regularly reviewed my work, I regularly received feedback, he would give me coaching when I clearly needed it, and he recognised my work. The annual review was then a formal point to sit down and say “Well, what do you want to do next year?”.

The reason appraisals are given a bad name is because the process is not understood, respective parties aren’t sure what they’re meant to be doing, no follow up is taken, and the review ends up being a 3 hour meeting producing a 15 page review document. I am not exaggerating on any of those things I’ve mentioned. I have experienced all and am shocked by all.

So, where’s the science? It’s in the application of the process. It doesn’t really matter what document you have, what framework or model you adhere to. The important piece comes from understanding the process and engaging with it fully. Seek out training, understand the process, ask questions, find out what’s expected – fully engage yourself with the process. It will make for a much more valid and reliable appraisal process. And that will sing to the heart of every occupational psychologist who came before me, and will sing to every one of your staff who you involve in this truly developmental process.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Ergonomics

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:29:00 +0000

Last week I posted 3 pieces in my series of The Science of... Occupational Psychology. I'm going to try and be disciplined and finish them off this week. Next up then, we look at ergonomics.

Ergonomics is all about the design of a physical object and the way we interact with it. For example, take your standard chair. It has a particular design and purpose. The study of ergonomics informs us about what enables good design and what doesn't. This particular topic is not restricted to occupational psychology. It also crosses boundaries with Health and Safety, Art, Architecture, Home Furnishings and even Technology.

So why would an occupational psychologist be concerned with the design and use of an object? Well, when you think about it, one of the outputs of the way we interact with an object informs about how much we enjoy and are pleased with that object. If you have purchased a new chair for work and it is comfortable, aids your posture, and is adjustable to your liking, you will have an association with this object. That association will stay with you until you are convinced the object needs to change.

A lot of research goes into the design of pretty much any object you can see on your desk. Your telephone, laptop, monitor, mouse, chair, pedestal, desk, tray stack, and more, have undergone some level of research and development into identifying the ideal way they can be utilised. What this enables is a pleasant work environment that you are comfortable with and have good memories of. If you consider Herzberg's theory of motivation, where he discusses motivational and hygiene factors, ergonomics is clearly a hygiene factor. Get it right and people will be passe about their interaction with it, get it wrong and you'll have hell to pay.

In the wider context then, this also plays out with how office spaces are designed. Open plan or walled up offices? Same building or remote work spaces? Dedicated desk, or hot-desk? All these play an important part in an employee's state of well-being and engagement. Sure, ergonomics doesn't directly affect all those, but the design and use of the objects that enable all those will have an affect.

I've not gone into the actual science of ergonomics, as this isn't my field of speciality. Instead, I wanted to give an insight into why it's important. Consider for a moment if the mouse you are using were instead oval shaped, you held it by encasing the whole thing in the palm of your hand and the buttons were at your finger tips. How would that change your experience of, interaction with and association with that mouse? That's what ergonomics aims to uncover and provide insight into.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Competency Frameworks

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 17:11:00 +0000

Seems like an apt one to choose seeing I went on a competency framework workshop today. I have an issue with the workshop, but will save that for another post once this series is completed.

So today's post in the Science of... Occupational Psychology is all about competency frameworks. What a beast this is!

Where in the world do I begin with this? Ok here it is, the age old mantra about competency frameworks - You know your staff can do the technical side of their job, and that's measurable, but how do you measure how they behave? With a competency framework!

Ok, so look, I know they can be contentious, but they mean well. Something about the road to hell comes to mind. And, I'm in the middle of developing our own company competency framework. They're not bad. They just get sidelined. But this post isn't about justifying the existence of competency frameworks, it's about how they get constructed. I warn you now, there will be jargon, I can't help it today.

Company Values

The first place to start is to identify and define what the company values are and how these are understood by staff. What this means in reality is to do an audit of how staff define and understand the values. Is it the cleaner at Nasa scenario or is it a blank face?

Once you've got this, you have a fair place of understanding what the competency framework needs to look at. That's to say, is performance the issue? Is it interpersonal skills? Is it communication? Is it development? Is it being fun? Or a mix of these?

Job Analysis

This is the crux of it. This is where it all starts from. Meeting with staff, carrying out focus groups, interviews, workshops, offsites, party's (well not quite). The key questions here are about:

- what are the key activities you do day to day?

- what are the behaviours expected of you at work?

- what are the positive behaviours you see and are rewarded for?

- what are the negative behaviours you understand are not in line with company values?

The responses from those produce rich information about understanding the behaviours cum competencies that staff currently exhibit. This isn't about what management want them to exhibit, it's what they're currently exhibiting. This information then needs to be grouped, or themed to produce the core competencies.

These competencies then form the standard, consistent basis that everyone will be measured against. You then need to produce indicators of those behaviours e.g. "making the right decision" would need a positive indicator such as "able to collect accurate information to make informed decisions" and a negative indicator such as "makes no effort to gather information, making judgements based on own subjective opinions".

This is a lot of work. A LOT OF WORK. While at my last company, a team of us spent 2 weeks doing nothing but producing the competency framework for the client who needed it. It was the bane of my life. But extremely satisfying once complete. If only because it was complete.

Throughout this process though, there needs to be regular reviews with the business to ensure the competency framework is being produced in line with the language, culture and values. If a team does this in solo, you run the very high chance of producing something which might be excellent but simply not fit for purpose.

Education

So it's complete. It's produced. You can now announce to the world you have a new competency framework. Everyone cheers and forgets about it 2 minutes later.

The key thing is to embed the framework in every part of your being as a business. First hit the obvious places - recruitment, appraisals, promotions, objective setting. Those will be the high profile areas that everyone will already understand and then be able to draw the line of sight of how the competency framework will only enhance and strengthen those processes. There will need to be training and roll out of the framework, but this should be with the objective in mind of updating the current processes - not a new way of doing things, an improved way of doing things. What the framework enables you to do is to give structure to all these processes - and that structure comes from staff not from HR. What's the importance of that? It's a business initiative, not a HR initiative.

This will take time. At least a year. Then once you've got that, you can think about other initiatives the competency framework should be used. Talent management, leadership development, business planning, learning and development, culture development, employee engagement - you get the idea? You have a core base from which you are already measuring staff. You're not just taking it further and demonstrating how you can use it strengthen the company culture and brand.

Iteration

How often should it be revised? When managers start to complain en masse about it's applicability to the business. Not 2-3 years, but when you have every department coming to you with feedback that says - I cannot use this anymore we need to update it.

And what do you do in that case? Follow the above process. It's a long, involved process. But once developed and used effectively, it becomes a core piece of the way a business functions.

Is it really objective?

No. It's still based on interpretation of each competency and of each indicator. How does "Making the right decisions" differ from "Ability to discern quality information"? Or "ability to communicate well with all staff" to "understands how to engage actively with others"?

It's objective insofar that it's developed in conjunction with the business. If a sole developer or consultancy or business unit takes charge then it will be subjective as there's no business context that underpins it. It is validated through the business. It's use is only validated when managers actively come back to you and say - "I found it useful to use the competency framework because I got stuck on how to further develop my staff".

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Psychometrics

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Wed, 24 Nov 2010 16:55:00 +0000

Yesterday I started a series of posts on: The science of... Occupational Psychology. Today I continue with talking about psychometrics.

You mention psychometrics and people immediately think about profiling, being boxed in, being classed as unsuitable, and a host of other negative associations. It's all hogwash of course. These things are spouted by those who have zero concept about how psychometrics should be used, their value and the insight they provide.

Personality Theory

Where do we start? Well the first thing to understand is that psychometric tests are all about providing an easy to understand frame of reference for personality. This frame of reference is often steeped in two schools of thought. They are either based in trait theory or type theory.

Trait theory is about a scale of behaviour. The theory argues that we all have a range of behaviours, and we will exhibit various strengths of those behaviours. For example, we all have the capacity for 'social boldness' but we may differ the extent to which we display that behaviour. We can have a strength in this behaviour or it can be a weakness. The most popular psychometric that uses trait theory is the 16PF personality questionnaire - distributed by OPP Ltd in the UK.

Type theory is about either exhibiting a behaviour, or not. The theory argues that we will all have preferences for behaviour, and this is the place we will default to in any given situation. We might be able to learn the opposite behaviour, but this does not mean we can do both at the same time. It means that we develop a maturity in our understanding of behaviours and are able to exhibit both types. Thus, we may be extrovert by preference, but equally able to exhibit introvert behaviours when appropriate. The most popular psychometric tool that uses type theory is the Myers Briggs Type Indicator - distributed again by OPP Ltd in the UK.

Types of Psychometrics

As well as personality based psychometrics, there are also other types of psychometrics which are very commonplace - the biggest distributor of which is SHL in the UK.

Aptitude tests and ability tests measure your ability to do a certain task e.g. analytical skills, inference skills, deduction skills, critical reasoning.

Verbal reasoning tests measure your ability to understand verbal instruction.

Numerical reasoning tests measure your ability to understand mathematical problems.

Construction of Psychometrics

The key thing that sets psychometrics apart from other questionnaires such as Belbin team roles or the Honey and Mumford Learning Styles, is that there is rigorous construction of the questionnaires. Every psychometric developed goes through a process of being validated.

This means it has to show to be reliable. That is, if you retake the questionnaire, your answers will be consistent.

It has to also show to be valid. That is, a set of or bank of questions measure what it purports to measure.

A set of norms is produced to enable a benchmark from the results. That is, whatever your results may show from a psychometric, you are measured against an appropriate norm group, and as such your results interpreted appropriately.

Standardised administration is a key part of psychometrics. Instructions on how to complete a questionnaire must be understood by anyone undertaking the test.

Feedback and Interpretation

The most important part of completing the questionnaires is receiving feedback from a fully qualified person. Qualification means they have attended a training programme where they learn about all the things I've mentioned above. Any person claiming they are qualified will have 2 certificates to prove this. One is the ability to administer and feedback results - a Level A qualification in occupational competence. The second is the ability to use, administer and interpret a specific personality tool. This is the Level B qualification in occupational competence.

A qualified person will be able to take your results and provide insight to you based on the answers you've provided. At no point should this be judgemental or profiling. Instead it should be only about feedback and insight.

Once you've received feedback you should always receive a report that explains the results.

Myths about Psychometrics

There are those who will tell you that you can fake a test, or answer it in your favour. The likelihood of you being able to do this is seriously slim. The construction of psychometrics means that the questions are designed to not be faked. that's why you'll often find that the same question seems to be asked several times in different ways. That's done so you answer consistently. You might be clever, and you might think you can fake it, but you can't. Trust me.

There are those who will tell you that you can't change once you've been profiled. Oh that's just nonsense. First you're not being profiled. You've provided a set of answers and based on the information you've provided a set of results are produced. It's totally based on the information you've given. Second - and importantly - you can change your behaviours. Significant life changing events can have profound impacts on us and they do. Death, birth, job change, redundancy, divorce, marriage, all have profound effects on our condition. And they can influence and change your behaviour. It does normally have to be something quite significant though in order for your behaviour to change.

There are those who will claim they can exhibit all behaviours all times of the day. Idiots. As I've explained above, you can learn behaviours, but that takes time and you will default to a way of being in most situations. You can and will learn how to act differently, but this will often be in relation to and dependent on the situation you are in.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Assessment Centres
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology

The science of... Assessment Centres

noreply@blogger.com (Sukh Pabial) — Tue, 23 Nov 2010 17:10:00 +0000

Is occupational psychology a dark art? Do you know what you're getting when you ask for an occupational psychology consultancy to darken your doors?

Well here's an insight into this weird and wonderful world that I chose to put myself through. I'll be writing a series of informative posts about the variety of topics an occupational psychologist is likely to be involved in.

At it's core, occupational psychology aims to take psychological principles and apply them to the workplace. Concepts such as memory, behaviours, cognitive processes, emotions, communication and many others are fascinating topics. Research tells us truly interesting insights about the human condition ad nauseam.

There are distinct fields that occ psych ventures into: selection and assessment, organisational development, training and development, employee relations, counselling, human machine interaction, ergonomics, performance appraisal and research methods and statistics. Today I'll start with...

Selection and Assessment

This can be broken into 2 categories. The first is concerned the use of assessment centres, and the second development centres. Assessment centres are for recruitment purposes, and development centres for initiatives such as personal or individual development. I'll be dealing with assessment centres today.

For the uninformed, an assessment centre is where you have a day of exercises that are designed to test a variety of skills and elicit behaviours. For example, you might have to take part in a group exercise, an interview, a role related task and a presentation. From each of those exercises, you are 'tested' against criteria that have been pre-defined.

But how do these things get created? You could in all honesty, throw a bunch of exercises together, call a team meeting, decide on criteria to be assessed and Bob's your uncle. I'd recommend you don't do this as fairness and consistency is thrown out of the window.

For excellence though, you need to follow a formula of sorts. The first thing that is done is to do a job analysis of the role you are hiring for. This is done with people who are already in their role within the company. This forms the fundamental basis of the assessment centre. The job analysis provides information about the behaviours you expect someone to be displaying. These then form the criteria for the exercises you are being assessed in.

Once a job analysis is completed, and a list of behaviours drawn out from this, the next thing to do is create a set of exercises that will test the range of the behaviours. This is why there are typically 3-4 exercises in an assessment centre as each exercise will test a specific set of behaviours. You can then see if that same behaviour is displayed in another exercise.

The next stage is probably the most difficult part of an assessment centre - to draw up the competency framework that clearly defines each behaviour expected to be displayed in each exercise. This framework is then tested with incumbents and a group of managers who in effect validate the exercises and the competency framework.

That's not it though! A set of mock exercises need to be carried out with incumbents and typically videoed so that you can deliver effective training to the managers expected to take part. The manager's role on the day is to observe candidates against the criteria and make a judgement at the end of the day if the candidate is suitable or not. The mock exercises and training serve as a platform for consistency and fairness for the candidates and understanding of the exercises themselves.

The final piece is for the manages to understand how to conduct a 'wash up'. The wash up is where you discuss the performance of each candidate once all exercises have been completed and all notes written up. From the mock exercises, there will have been an agreed pass mark, and agreed fail mark, and an agreed discussion mark. The pass and fail marks are self explanatory. The discussion marks are where a candidate has shown some of the desired behaviours but hasn't been consistent with this in all exercises. The managers then need to discuss and decide should they be given a pass or a fail.

And that my dear friends is the science behind assessment centres. I've not talked about psychometrics as that requires a whole post to itself. I've also not talked about development centres as again that will be for another post.

Note, I've not said an occ psych needs to be the one who carries out all of the above. It tends to be occ psychs who are brought in to do all this, but it could equally be done by someone following the process.

Posts in this series:

The science of... Psychometrics
The science of... Competency Frameworks
The science of... Ergonomics
The science of... Appraisals
The science of... Learning and Development
The science of... Occupational Psychology