BLOG.AFRIENDOFOURS.COM

Is Professional Development Needed for CLO's?

2009-05-06T14:40:00Z

As a long-time member of both ISPI and ASTD, I've always felt that I learn more from talking to and networking with, other CLO's. ASTD acknowleges that about 33% of ICE attendees are new entrants to the field; the sessions are proportionately geared for that audience.

Recently, on the Chief Learning Officer Forum, I asked the question:

"If you could attend seminars related to the management of the learning function, the integration of HR functions to create full-bodied talent managment systems, would you be interested? Just curious about this. CLO magazine and the CLO conferences wouldn't exist if this weren't the case, but I'm wondering specifically about seminarsl, webinars, etc."

This answer was sent by Lisa Bradley-Mitchell:

"I received your question from the following two perspectives: “Do CLO's need to participate in ongoing professional develop?” And, “Is there a need for development opportunities geared specifically towards the CLO and advanced/seasoned practitioner audience?” My answer to both questions is YES.

Regarding the first question, I have had the unfortunate experience of working for a CLO who, in addition to being very narrowly focused regarding learning and performance, was not at all interested in furthering his knowledge/skills. Of course, this translated into limited development opportunities for his staff. The few development opportunities that were permitted did not extend beyond the realm of training-specific topics. CLOs must continue to learn, develop and grow in order to foster, support and encourage growth within their department and the organization their department has been established to support.

In response to the second question, which is probably your intended question, although I have not functioned as a CLO yet, I have been in this business for over 20 years. During my career, I have held roles including designer, instructor, manager, director and consultant. There is tremendous benefit from interacting formally and informally with others who are responsible for leading the learning function. The ability to discuss issues, challenges, opportunities and accomplishments with peers is very helpful. I too have participated in workshops and seminars (and lately webinars) that are clearly geared towards new-comers to our field, despite the well-crafted, high-level objectives provided in the promotional materials. Although I try to remain open to learning in every situation, I would leap at the opportunity to attend events similar to what you have described above."

I was particularly intrigued by her reaction to the way individual development is typically handled by Human Resource Executives:

"Lisa,

The second question is indeed what I intended, but I'm intrigued by your response to both. As someone who has been a CLO in lots of organizations, I could easily "shift" your comments up a level to say that many--no most--EVP or VP of HR that I've worked for sound like your former manager--and with similar consequences: a continuing struggle to justify professional development activities for my staff members. It makes you crazy to have to say something to your boss like, "...don't you think the CLO ought to be a role-model for staff development?"

What that also tells me, is that there is a lack of understanding of the competencies required for the Chief Learning Officer position, which I suppose also falls at the feet of the VP/EVP of HR. I once found myself interviewing for the job of "Director of eLearning" only to discover that an individual with an identical job description was already in the IT department. When I revealed what I'd found to the CLO, the job went away. Lots of organizations don't seem to "get it".

I asked the question because one of my former staff members suggested that I start a blog to share what I've learned over the years and I wasn't sure it was worth my time. It's helpful to know that there is an interest for individuals who may be new to the function or aspire to it. I guess I should put some effort into figuring out a way to distribute that knowledge."

About Measurement and Accountability

2009-04-07T14:17:00Z

Lately I've been seeing a lot of business networking discussions about training evaluation and measurement. People are still looking for strategies. If you're truly looking for new methods, check out Robert O. Brinkerhoff 's success case method. Bob makes things practical and efficient. Cuts to the chase: does it work? what did the person do? can it be replicated by others?

However, I find it disheartening that after having watched this discussion unfold over 27 years, we still haven't addressed the age-old issue of training transfer. I have been a strong advocate for measurement and ROI over the years. I've even written several articles about it. At this point, I'm left with a question:

Why is it that the training function is the only corporate function that feels it has to justify it's existence? Of course, many corporations engaged in continuous improvement, six sigma, etc. are measuring everything they can, but I believe there is a psychological difference--a core assumption--that any human resources function is overhead and not profit producing, is therefore suspect and expendable.

This is so wrong-headed. If you have clear understanding that the performance of a corporation is wholly dependent on the performance of it's people, then an integrated human capital management function will drive the corporation directly. A fully-blown talent management system means that competence is tied to performance and managing performance is the job of line managers. You don't need "coaches" from the training department or "mentors"; you need line managers who understand that their responsibility is to ensure that the people who work for them are able to--and do perform. Social networking, peer mentoring, performance support systems, job aids, line-manager-as-coach are all legitimate methods for ensuring performance, but ultimately, line managers bear the responsibility for the performance of his/her staff members.

Sometimes I think we make things way to complicated. We are too eager to try the latest techniques without looking at the bottom-line structure of the organization. Hold line managers responsible for the competence, capacity, and performance of their organizations.

As a social scientist, I've been trained to believe--and do believe--that you can measure anything. I used to teach the concept of "operational definition" to new research students by explaining that you can even measure "love"--the issue is not about your ability to create a metric, but whether the person you love is using the same metric, e.g.: the following conversation with my ex-husband (note the "ex"):

Do you love me?
I take the garbage out don't I?

No, I mean do you love me?
I'm still here aren't I?

I'm Sicilian. I was raised in an extremely "high-touch" family. Performing personally distateful acts and longevity in the role are not metrics I use. I'm more interested in kisses, hugs, hand-holding, etc. (The "etc." is most important.)

So, measuring a manager's performance? How many of the manager's staff members are performing successfully against KPI's? Is the organization he/she manages delivering on its KPI's? These are pretty simple to measure; but, can you measure their "AQ"?

"AQ" is a wonderful concept developed by Carl Hiassen in one of his novels. It stands for "A-hole" Quotient. (I'm being as delicate as I can.) My point is that a manager may get folks to do what they're expected to do, but make them miserable. Miserable staff members ONLY do what they're expected to do, and then they'll find a way to get out of there as quickly as they can.

So we can measure their performance more easily than we can identify the fact that they are lousy managers. We can measure the thing that "matters" more easily than we can measure the thing that really matters.

Why It's So Hard to Explain What We Do.

2009-04-06T09:51:00Z

Performance Consultants, Chief Learning Officers, Talent Managers, and OD professionals have a common mission: to ensure that an organization is able to deploy the skills and knowledge needed to produce necessary outcomes in order to achieve company strategy. It's a long sentence, but it's not as complicated as it sounds. It just can't be summed up in a sound-byte.

I've spent a lot of time recently putting together a description of the kinds of deliverables I'm able to produce and the the type of contributions I can make to organizations. I've always found the task to be difficult and have struggled to figure out why it's so hard. There are very few corporations of any size that are without Human Resources Functions and the disciplines encompassed are pretty easy to grasp: compensation & benefits, recruiting, labor relations, payroll, even human resource information systems are pretty well recognized functions.

On the other hand, Human Resource Development, Talent Management, Performance Consulting, and good old "Training & Development" have always meant different things to different folks--even among human resource professionals. It was always easy to explain the "training" department. People have to know how to do their jobs, they've got to understand standard procedures and compliance requirements. No problem. It's when you begin to treck more deeply "into the weeds" that folks start to get lost.

This always starts when you begin to ask what "training" is about. It's always about performance--getting the job done that needs to be done, whether it is a series of clearly, pre-defined tasks, or a set of decisions for action. Where most problems begin is at the point where you start to define what it is you want people to do. Training always works backwards from outcomes. A corporation needs to produce some tangible outcome, the ability to produce that outcome requires that specific skills and knowledge be applied.
The causal chain from identifying individuals who have the capacity to do a job, teaching them to do a job and then actually producing the expected outcome gets fairly complicated.

Most organizations don't think this way. The tradition instead has been, to hire people who have skills and knowledge, tell them what you want them to do, and they do it. If they don't; you fire them and find someone who can. That's one way--and it works if all the pieces are there, you really do know exactly what you want them to do, and the outcomes you desire don't change over time. It works much better in manufacturing than in knowledge or service work.

So what do talent managers and performance consultants do? They start from the end. Like all good strategists, they start from the vision, mission and strategy of the organization. If the vision is clear with a solid foundation in the mission and the strategy is aligned, a good "Chief Learning Officer" should be able to discern the types of skills and knowledge that are needed to implement the strategy--the competencies that are core to achievement of the mission and necessary for the implementation of strategy. Some of these competencies are pretty static because their tied to the core business: Beer companies require Brewmasters and Brewers. Some competencies are more volatile and ties to new strategies--a new local marketing strategy requires that marketing competencies be pushed closer to the frontline, for example.

Folks who do what I do might simply say that we ensure that the skills needed to produced the necessary outcomes of the organizations are available where and when they are needed. More specifically, we ensure that the ability to create that competence is available. Whether it's actually put to use is always the responsibility of front-line management. We are enablers, but we can't take responsibility from the frontline. We have a pretty large toolbox available to help us in our endeavors: process analysis and design, job re-design, job aids, performance support, performance management systems, knowledge management, eLearning, self-paced learning, simulations, games, and good old instructor-led training and coaching.

I've always been frustrated when a Subject Matter Expert says something to me like, "I can't tell you what I do. You won't be able to teach it to somebody else. It's taken me thirty years to learn it. It's an art." OK. So I sound just like them. Performance Consulting is an art. Ya betcha. But, it can be taught and if that's true. It can be explained.