Follow Us Twitter Link | Email Us email us | 1.888.745.2520

Archive for the ‘mentoring’ Category

Maximize the Value of New Hires

Monday, August 30th, 2010

By William Seidman

Recent scientific breakthroughs have led to the development of a methodology and supporting technology that increase new hire program effectiveness by both improving the quality of the learning experiences and enabling easy integration of the best of the classroom and mentoring experience. This approach is proven, with significant impacts such as:

• Reduced ramp-up time of new sales people from 4 months to 4 weeks

• Reduced ramp-up time for manufacturing floor engineers from 24 months to 8 months.

Seem far-fetched or too good to be true? It’s not.

Paradigms for New Hire Development:

Most new hire programs rely on either intense, classroom-based training or ad hoc on-the-job mentoring (OJT). Both approaches have some strengths, but also significant weaknesses.

The primary advantage of intensive new hire classroom training is that it occurs in a controlled environment where the organization can determine what the new hire experiences, when they experience it and how they experience it. Unfortunately, many new hire training classes simply provide too much information, too quickly and with too little context and application to be effective

OJT mentoring programs, on the other hand, are all about learning through observation of colleagues’ performance, discussion of key functions and supported practice. The new hire gets to experience, at least for a period of time, what the work actually demands. But, OJT experiences are often quite random and the learnings derived from the experiences are completely dependent on the effectiveness of the mentor. Unstructured OJT may be more engaging, but it is not a particularly reliable means of ensuring that new hires have the attitudes, knowledge and skills they need to ultimately succeed.

A few organizations try to use these two approaches together by providing classroom training followed by supported OJT. This too has faltered because too often the class is still overwhelming and the hand-off to the coach is unstructured, leaving the coach to determine what the reinforcing experiences will be. Integrated Class and OJT

Recent studies have shown that the key to ultimate new hire success is not in simply using these approaches together, but instead by integrating them into a single, unified experience. Breakthroughs in four areas – positive deviance, fair process, neuroscience and mass customization — plus the emergence of “persuasive technology” have led to the development of a methodology that effectively integrates new hire training classes and high impact OJT support. More specifically, the model has 4 key parts, which I’ll be talking about next.

Answering Some Thoughtful Questions from Management Consultant Robert Morris

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

By William Seidman

I was recently interviewed by management consultant Robert Morris. Our conversation was posted on the  First Friday Book Synopsis,  part of ”The Employee Engagement Network.” I’ll be sharing some of the highlights (some edited for brevity) here.

Today: What I know now that I wish I’d known when I founded Cerebyte, the major challenges our clients face, and the difference between leadership and management..

Morris: What do you know now that you wish you had known when you founded Cerebyte?

Seidman: Our most valuable insight is this: how hard it is to establish an innovative product and process even if everyone says they want it and even if it has incredibly strong proof points to support it. More specifically, we thought there would be an openness to innovation in the area of performance improvement because almost every organization talked about the need to improve performance and there was widespread agreement about the ineffectiveness of the available approaches (e.g. training classes) at improving performance. However, there was actually a tremendous amount of resistance to change, even if everyone thought it was a good thing to do. It was only when the science actually caught up with what we had been doing, and became widely accepted that the resistance to change decreased.

Morris: Although there is great diversity among Cerebyte clients, in terms of both size and nature of business, which major challenge do all of them face? How specifically does Cerebyte help them to respond effectively to that challenge?

Seidman: They are serious about making the changes in their organization required to significantly improve performance, usually in a particular focus area. In many cases, it is a “change or die” situation for them so motivation and disillusionment with traditional approaches are high. We help organizations improve performance, faster, more completely, more predictably and at less expense than has previously been possible.

Morris: Do you differentiate leadership from management?

Seidman: Yes, though primarily in the leadership programs we develop for our customers. To us, leadership is much more about creating a compelling vision and providing the support and resources that enable the team to achieve the vision (in our terminology, it is about guiding “transformation”) while management is much more about the administration of the business (i.e. “transactions”). We find that this difference is most important when there are significant challenges to the organization. Managers retreat from performance improvements to a survival mode – Did I make my numbers today? -whereas leaders look at the challenges as an opportunity to drive the organization forward, even if it means taking some significant risks.

In addition, we know that “operational excellence,” which is the focus of management, is a subset of leadership —  so if you have great leadership, you get the best of both worlds. It doesn’t work the other way though. Managers, even good ones, literally think differently than great leaders and need extensive education to become leaders.

Training for Learning and Real-World Application

Monday, October 12th, 2009

By William Seidman

I’m working in two settings now where there’s a tension between traditional classroom instruction and experiential learning.

Most training organizations like to train, which means classrooms, instructors, and – sometimes -elearning.

Most people prefer to learn, and they learn better when they can immediately apply what they’ve learned.

The art of training is to make classroom content tie tightly to real experience.

The art of experiential learning is to ensure that the right content is learned.

The trainers often want to drive the program, but this really doesn’t work.

Experiential learning is more powerful and effective, though it absolutely needs formal classroom instruction for specific skill building

Most of the people we work with stop talking about training and start talking about “learning activities” that include many forms of experiential learning as well as classrooms and elearning.

This broader definition is a good idea – the best idea - because it leads people to retain what they’ve learned and to be able to apply it to their real world.

The Power of Emotional Connection in Learning

Wednesday, August 27th, 2008

By William Seidman

David Brooks is writing a book on “neuroscience and sociology” and is interested in the science (and mechanics) of learning. I heard him speak at the Aspen Institute - you can hear his talk here.

Some of his points re learning:

  • emotional connection is vitally important
  • genuine caring is the single most important factor
  • most brain function is beneath consciousness and knowledge must penetrate to deep levels to be sustainable

To coach well you must create a strong emotional connection with your coachee. If your coachee knows that you care and that you listen, the chances of success increase hugely. Establishing an authentic relationship – and then, coaching well – is the best way to go.

Emotional connection provides a powerful platform for working together.

The Teaching Method Called “Creative Disruption”

Wednesday, August 13th, 2008

By RG

The way the US school system educates our kids is basically flawed. We spend more per child ($9000) than nearly every other country, but our results are comparatively poor. How can this be? An article by Clayton Christensen (he wrote The Innovator’s Dilemma), Michael Horn, and Curtis Johnson last week that suggests that individualized teaching, supported by computer-based learning, might be an answer.

But who makes sure kids really get it? Testing well isn’t everything. We need to be sure that students grasp concepts and principles and can make decisions based on them in the future. Students – whether kids or adults – need a mentor to validate that they are understanding concepts and principles. This is where conventional teaching and training falls down.

True understanding comes from:

  • focusing on great content
  • validation from a mentor that they really “get it”
  • appliying new learning to real situations
  • practicing the new thing until neuro pathways are set.

There needs to be both high tech and high touch for really effective learning.

 
Better Tag Cloud