Last Reminder – We’ve Moved!

A reminder, we’ve moved our blog!  It can now be found at www.forum.com/blog.

There are 2 ways you can keep up:

1. Subscribe by email (easiest)
2. Subscribe by RSS

Shortly, we will post a Thinkers50 video interview, as well as the most colorful (if not always P.C.) quotes from our Strategic Speed case studies, so please be sure to re-subscribe.  Thanks for reading.

Resubscribe to win copy of Strategic Speed

We’ve moved our blog!  The blog is now integrated into our website at www.forum.com/blog.  This is part of an effort to streamline our site and content.

Please take 10 seconds go to http://feeds.feedburner.com/forumcorp to re-subscribe.   We will give away a copy of our new Harvard Business Press book, Strategic Speed, to the first 5 people who resubscribe.

The blog content is as vibrant as ever.  Over the past few weeks, we’ve posted:

• An HBR Video IdeaCast
• Several podcasts on the speed/quality dilemma and leading global teams

So, please re-subscribe.  We don’t want you to miss out on upcoming free webinars or events in which we will give away additional copies of Strategic Speed.

Also, please follow us on Twitter @TheForumCorp.  With any questions, or for comments on things you’d like to see or hear from us on our blog or Twitter, please contact Steve Barry at steve.barry@forum.com.

Thank you for subscribing.

When Rewards Backfire

I recently had an experience with a small-chain retailer.  I’d been referred to the chain by more than one fan.  My shopping experience was great, and when I was handed a $40 voucher after I’d made a $400+ purchase (way more than the amount of a typical purchase of mine), I felt like I’d found the next case-study in great customer experiences.  I was looking forward to spending that $40 incrementally over the 8 weeks I had to spend it.  I returned to the store soon after with my eye on a $6 item; at the time I needed nothing else.  And that was the problem.  I had one $40 voucher:  If was going to use the voucher on my $6 item, I’d lose $34 in value, since the voucher was good for one-time use only.

Okay, not great, but, from what I’d seen, it seemed like this chain did value its customers.  So I wrote the store and asked for four $10 vouchers.  Common sense, right?  If I had originally spent just $100, the store would have given me a convenient $10 voucher, so I assumed that I should be eligible for the same convenience—times four.  I sent my e-mail, confident I would be accommodated.

Unfortunately, my expectations were not met.

In the return email, I learned that the policy was the policy and there would be no change. I was advised to manage my needs and combine my smaller purchases to meet the value of the voucher.  Huh?  Why couldn’t my simple request be accommodated?  How simple and grief-saving it would have been.  Did anyone who worked for the chain ever try to use one of these vouchers?  My guess is no.

Ultimately, I was able to get the change made, but the good feeling I had at the time I made my original purchase had evaporated.  While I’ll still occasionally shop at the store, I am unlikely to become an advocate for it.  The irony?  If I had never been “rewarded” with the voucher in the first place, I would still be a fan.

This was yet another reminder of the importance of all aspects of the customer experience.  This store had great products and great people, but its policy was not customer-centric.  Leaders who are profoundly customer-focused understand that all aspects of the experience must be considered from the perspective of the customer.  It is not sufficient for a policy only to appear to be a reward for customers, it must actually be one.

Do You Love Your Haters?

“Haters.”  A head of sales for a Fortune 100 business unit recently used this term to characterize a group of people contributing to the unit’s profitability problems.  What do you think he meant by “haters?”

• Industry regulators
• Leaders in another division of the company
• Customers
• A rival New York City-based rap duo

If LL Cool J happens to read our blog, he’ll be disappointed to hear that the rap duo is not the right answer.  Instead, it’s customers.  Haters are customers who have budget and need products or services, but who are so difficult to deal with that they suck up time and resources and ultimately hurt profitability.

Of course, this head of sales was focusing on the haters simply to prove a point:  his business unit’s strategy was unclear, and its execution was poor as a result.  To improve, the unit completely re-segmented its customers, shifting from a purchase-volume to a buying-behavior criterion.  The new segmentation strategy provided a crucial framework for qualifying buyers and opportunities.  At this writing, it is already showing positive returns for the business, as salespeople are now better utilizing their precious time and company resources.

While some of your own customers may have come to mind for you when you read the definition of haters, your customer knowledge may not be as complete as you think.  If you validated your segmentation strategy more than 12 months ago, it is likely out of date by now.  As I noted in earlier research, every recession shuffles the deck, setting up new pecking orders in many industries.  Combine this with today’s continued economic uncertainty, and you can be sure many of your customers have changed why and how they buy.

Knowing your haters is only half the battle.  The other half is dealing with your salespeople still loving the haters.  Salespeople’s customary disciplined, consultative selling approach to selling is now giving way to a much less effective approach:  pitching products to anything that moves.  This is natural and understandable, given that most salespeople are coming off their worst earnings year ever now.  Natural, yes.  Effective, no.  Winning sales organizations today understand how the buying behaviors in each of their customer segments have changed, and align their sales strategies and salespeople with the new realities.

How about you?  Are your salespeople aligned and equipped to execute your segmentation strategy, or are they operating independently, shooting at whatever moves—including the haters?

New Frontiers of Learning

In our previous post, Elizabeth Griep, Forum’s Advanced Workplace Learning Practice Leader, addressed webinar questions on the “Virtual Classroom.”  In this post, she is back to share her insights on more questions.  The theme this time is “Learning beyond the Classroom.”

Though Elizabeth covers many facets of learning beyond the classroom, this topic is huge and extends beyond these questions.  We’d like to hear about your experiences as well.  To share your thoughts, experiences, and questions:

• Post a comment/question below
• Join our discussion on Forum’s LinkedIn page:  http://bit.ly/amo5M6
• Attend our next webinar on Advanced Workplace Learning   February 24, 2010  05:00 GMT   http://tinyurl.com/yjhd4m9

Do you include informal learning in your curriculums?

“Informal learning” is a term that’s gaining currency in the L&D world.  It’s used in several ways.  Because “informal” can sometimes imply “accidental,” we prefer the term “integrated learning.”  Integrated learning is one of the three contexts for learning:  event-based, sustained, and integrated – and takes place in the midst of the work.   The trick is to make learning informal in the sense that people seize opportunities to learn as they arise in everyday situations, but intentional in the sense that the learning isn’t left to chance.

Since the early ’90s, we’ve built integrated learning opportunities into many of our curricula.  Today we’re experimenting with other types of integrated-learning methods, including:

• Facilitators helping to run business meetings or “clinics” in which skills and strategies are intentionally applied to business problems
• Arranging yearlong organizationwide conversations on a topic or strategy, using webinars and social-media tools
• Setting up peer-to-peer coaching systems
• Equipping leaders to be true coaches and cultivators of learning on the job

What are you doing in your organization to “formalize” informal learning?

How often did participants check in and report on their progress (in the networked learning approach)?  What was the pace, timing, and duration of this part of the solution?

Participants were not “required” to follow any interaction schedule, since learning in this way entails some desire on the part of the learner to pull information.  We did provide them with some general guidelines and advice for scheduling their time, so that they would not find themselves rushing to complete weekly assignments and applications at the last minute.

Participants must receive quick responses to their discussion posts early in the learning.  We set a guideline for the facilitator:  Respond to posts daily by 8 P.M. (in the facilitator’s local time zone).  We were able to tell how participants were progressing by monitoring the pace of the discussion.  When some appeared to fall behind, we picked up the telephone or sent a private e-mail to check on their progress.

Is participation in the networking site (for example, blogging) a mandatory element of the networked learning program?

Yes.  We do help people to get comfortable with participating in the networking site by making easy blogging/discussion assignments at the beginning of the learning stream and by providing tips and techniques for effectively using the tools.

How do companies reward business-related virtual learning at home?

This is a multifaceted question.  Answers may be influenced by local labor laws or union regulations.  Employees need to be given time to participate in virtual learning just as they are given time to participate in traditional classroom learning.  Virtual learning time is significantly less, because the employee is not re-locating to a different city or even a training room across campus.  Managers play an important role in rewarding learning, regardless of the environment, by building learning into performance-management processes, recognizing accomplishments, and supporting employees in taking time for learning.

A key for successful workplace learning is supervisor involvement.  This often is a problem.  What proven measures did you take in order to ensure supervisors’ active support?

Virtual classrooms provide unique opportunities to involve supervisors.  Requiring them to serve as guest speakers or participate in key business discussions at key points in the learning is an effective technique.  In the CWT example that Barb shared, the primary audience is managers and supervisors.  We involved senior managers and directors in a steering committee in the design phase.  The senior managers also led kickoff events for their teams, and many of them participated in the first session of each learning stream.  As with all learning, manager support is critical; therefore, the supervisor’s manager must also support his or her engagement by tying it to key performance metrics.

I often wish that technology could provide a magic solution for this systemic problem.  It continues to come back to “you get what you measure.”  There is no better way to measure learning than to integrate it with performance management.

What percentage of the employees participated in the blog or discussion area?  What is the breakout for each generational group?

One hundred percent of the employees participated in the blog/discussion, since it was designed into the approach as an assignment.  We have not looked specifically at generational participation in blogs to this point, but you raise a very good question.  The research on learning-approach preference indicates that, once people know how to connect (for example via chat, blog, or discussion thread), you can get them to engage if you provide enough value for them.  My observation in the last year has been that it tends to depend more on participants’ general type (introvert/extrovert) and their comfort with technology than it does on generation.  We will be doing more extensive research into this in the next 4 months, so keep checking back for new insights.

How much more time are facilitators spending on leading learning beyond the classroom than on leading traditional classroom training?  Is it sustainable?

In the networked classroom (one that uses social media and virtual classroom tools) we have found that scheduling time is critical for both the facilitator and the participant.  It helps to establish a rhythm, set expectations for response timing, and generally make sure that people don’t get overwhelmed by the interactivity.

In the course of a 4-week networked learning session (the equivalent of 2 days—or 16 hours—of traditional classroom session) we found that facilitators spent an average of 18 hours engaged with participants. Factor in travel time and overall facilitator time investment in learning beyond the classroom usually decreases.

The question of sustainability is interesting.    Many universities offer distance learning with quite a lot of interaction between participants and educators, so I do believe ours is a sustainable model.

What metrics did you use to measure progress/success?

In the CWT case we described, we used post-session reviews to collect Level 1 (satisfaction) and Level II (knowledge) data.  Level III (application) data was collected in debriefs of application assignments.  We have not collected Level IV (ROI) results so far.

The Virtual Classroom

Wow, people are interested in the new frontiers of workplace learning.  Really, really interested.  As luck would have it, those new frontiers are where Forum is going!  So, let’s go.

As we like to do, we’ll use this blog space to answer questions from our recent webinar on advanced workplace learning.    The questions fell into one of  two categories: those on virtual classroom (this blog post), and those on learning beyond the classroom (next post).  Special thanks to which Elizabeth Griep, Forum’s Practice Leader of Advanced Workplace Learning, for her insightful answers to these questions.

We also want to hear from you on these topics.  Please add your own comments, and come to our LinkedIn page to discuss the questions that seem to be at the root of all of the other questions:

• What are the most effective ways to increase people’s intent to learn?
• How are soft skills best learned in virtual classrooms?

Question#1: How do you use virtual classrooms for skill building?  In an effort to keep learning costs down, how do you recommend teaching salespeople skills in a virtual classroom, when part of the learning includes body language that salespeople would encounter?

Ideally, we include some in-person practice and feedback sessions in a virtual solution.  For example, a subset of virtual classroom group members who are co-located with a coach or manager might do some “real” practice and get feedback.  We might also use standard conferencing technologies, as many sales conversations take place over the phone.

In the cases in which fewer than three people are co-located, we have had some success using webcam technology either via Adobe Connect (our preferred platform) or Skype.  With Adobe Connect we put people in breakouts that leverage real-time webcam video.  They then practice and give feedback.  .  What tools and techniques are you using in your organizations to effectively develop “soft skills” in a virtual environment?

Question #2: Do you offer virtual classroom training for sales reps?

We do.  Most of our traditional classroom offerings can be delivered using a virtual classroom approach.

Question #3: Can you give an example of how breakout rooms work in virtual classrooms?

We use breakout rooms in a virtual environment very much as we use them with a traditional classroom—for small-group work and practice.  It has been interesting to observe the similarity of behaviors in virtual and traditional breakout rooms:  Participants arrive, chat a bit to get to know one another, play a bit with tools, then get down to the work.  The facilitator can “visit” the virtual breakout rooms to check in on progress and can make announcements to all rooms, providing time checks and additional instructions using a broadcast feature.  At the end of a breakout, small groups return to the “main room,” where the facilitator runs a debrief—taking the large group into each breakout room in turn to view the work of the small groups.

Question #4: What type of technology platforms are you using for these webinars/virtual classrooms—especially with the video component?

We currently use Adobe Connect, whose Flash-based platform increases the reliability of video, screen sharing, and functionality on a global basis.  In our virtual classrooms we conduct breakouts, run multiple web cameras for participants and the facilitator, share documents, and show Flash-based video.  We have also found that it’s important to be flexible with technology platforms, as some organizations have their own platforms or preferred technologies (LMSs, web-conferencing systems, and so on).  And new technologies are rolling out almost monthly.  The key is knowing what functionality is required for the learning to be effective and then engaging facilitators who can work effectively in this environment.

Question #5: You said that engagement is increased by 80 percent when you put participants (in addition to presenters) on video.  How have you managed this in large groups?

We have not used video in groups larger than 15.  Not everyone may be on webcam in every session, but when people can be seen by others (even if they are seen in only a very small screen area!) they tend to do less multi-tasking and become more engaged in conversations.  When participant webcams have been unavailable, we have put up photos to encourage personal connection between participants.  Using video is not the only way to increase engagement; what creative things have you done to ensure that participants stay engaged?

Question #6: Did people join virtual classrooms from their desks, or were they required to be away from their normal work environments?

Participants joined from various locations including home offices, airports, office cubicles, and conference rooms.  Many who joined from an open-floor-plan environment (for example customer-service employees) found it less distracting to move to a conference room or private office instead.

Strategic Speed: Behind the Scenes

We’ve discovered the keys to speed of strategy execution, and they’re not what you might think:

• Clarity: Shared, clear understanding of your situation and direction
• Unity: Wholehearted agreement on the merits of that direction and the need to work together to move ahead
• Agility: Willingness to turn and adapt quickly while keeping strategic goals in mind

These three concepts form the core model of strategic speed.   Business leaders have responded favorably to the model’s simplicity and accuracy.  But it didn’t come that easily to us.

We originally talked about “celerity” as a key to strategic speed.  For those of you born after 1896, celerity means “rapidity of motion or action.”  We eventually decided against including celerity in the model for a few reasons:

1. It sounded like celery.  Good for soup, not for business.
2. No one knew what the heck it meant.
3. If we used such old-fashioned language, we feared we might have to grow handlebar mustaches, use subtitles, and walk around really fast like people in old-time movies.

All valid reasons.  But the final straw surfaced when we analyzed our case studies deeply and realized that tactics like urgency and tight timelines create “rapidity of motion.”, but do not necessarily increase value over time.  Since celerity doesn’t do both (reduce time to value and increase value over time), it is not a key to strategic speed.  And that, friends, is a look at how close we came to bringing celerity back.

Fires and Festina Lente

In our recent post, we began exploring fire-fighting in business.  Everyone wants to speed up important initiatives, but often companies fail to achieve true speed because their leaders and employees are too busy dashing around with a fire hose.

Instead of telling your people to hurry up, consider telling them:  “Festina lente.”

Festina lente was one of Augustus Caesar’s favorite expressions.  Roughly translated, it means “make haste slowly.”  Today we have similar expressions.  In November 2008, as U.S. President-Elect Barack Obama was assembling his cabinet, he promised to proceed “with all deliberate haste.”  In the 1954 U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education, the court ordered school segregation to be abolished “with all deliberate speed.”  And we’ve all heard the expression “go slow to go fast.”  Most leaders know that real speed requires slowing down when you need to.  Instead of running from fire to fire—festina lente.

Most people think of fire fighting as responding to unexpected crises.  But there are other, more subtle, ways that leaders create a fire-fighting culture: an environment in which fires are common and heroics are the order of the day.  Consider these situations:

• A leader announces an important strategic initiative and drums up a lot of buy-in, but fails to announce the metrics—or even basic signs—by which people will know whether or not progress has been made.
• A leader allows projects to be treated as fads:  People pick up work with initial enthusiasm but then, as it wears off, they’re allowed to drop the project and move on to something else.
• A leader emphasizes one particular activity over all others (such as “doing deals” or “completing customer calls in 2 minutes or less”) and rewards people for the quantity and speed alone.

In these circumstances, people tend to move fast.  Urgency is palpable.  Leaders hand out awards left and right.  But … nobody’s making any real progress.

The mantra of leaders in truly fast organizations is something more like festina lente. Though it translates as “make haste slowly,” slowly fails to capture the connotations of lente, which include toughness and suppleness.  So perhaps we could translate the phrase as:  “Make haste—and at the same time, be intentional.  Be flexible.  Be aware.  Don’t lose sight of what you’re trying to achieve.”  If everyone in an organization behaved that way, fires would have a hard time getting started.

Do You Fan the Flames or Fight the Fire?—or Both?

By Steve Barry

“How can we execute on a strategy if we’re busy fighting fires all day?”

This question came up in our recent webinar on driving strategic initiatives.  Fire fighting is a seemingly bulletproof “yeah, but”:  “Yeah, I know that is the new strategy, but (insert your own ‘fire’ here: the client’s going to walk, we’re out of coffee filters, etc.).”

Some fires simply must be handled immediately.  But others can be delegated, ignored, or even prevented.  Often the problem is that people  unknowingly fan the flames of the very fires that suck up their time.  So, if you are frustrated by fire fighting, think about these questions with regard to yourself and your culture.  Do you  …

1. Find that fire fighting gets your adrenaline going more than disciplined executing on tasks?  Does it provide more of a feeling of worth?
2. Reward people for “responsiveness” more than for execution-oriented behaviors?
3. Often have people scrambling with urgent e-mails?
4. Have enough time/resources allotted to the initiative?
5. Spend time on fire prevention?  That is, debriefing a situation with your team to discuss what triggered the fire and how to avoid it in future.

What do these questions bring up for you?  Do you have any advice for your fellow firefighters?

Leader as Archeologist

by Steve Barry

A friend of mine consults with hospitals.  At the end of a particularly grueling and frustrating engagement, I asked him over drinks what he learned.  “All change,” he said, “and resistance to change, comes down to politics.”

I was reminded of the “four hurdles to strategy execution” from Blue Ocean Strategy:

• Political (opposition from powerful vested interests)
• Cognitive (organization wedded to status quo)
• Motivational (unmotivated staff)
• Resource (limited resources)

When I think back to the recent case study interviews for our Strategic Speed research, “resources” was often immediately listed as a “speed bump” in execution.  When we dug a bit deeper, we got to more “cognitive” levels—people in the organization wedded to “the way we’ve always done things.”  (One organization’s people went so far as to wear buttons that said “Status quo” in a circle with the line through it.)  And when we dug deeper still, people would say, “Can you shut the camera off?”  That was the good stuff, of course.  Many times, political interests (perceived or otherwise) would be at the root.  And the perceptions often impacted motivation.

So, I wonder:  Is there a stratification of speed bumps that we need to dig down to and uncover when undertaking a new initiative or transitioning into a new role?  Are there other layers beyond these four hurdles?  What would the stratification look like at your organization?