Climate for Innovation

Much attention has been focused on innovation and revisiting productivity since the Economic Steering Committee’s (ESC) report was released in February.

I first became aware of innovation as a discipline just at the turn of the millennium some 10 years back when I was doing work on organizational climate surveys.

Charles W Prather, Ph.D. in his article How is Your Climate for Innovation lists nine dimensions of the climate for innovation as follows:

1. Challenge (How challenged, emotionally involved and committed are employees to the work)

2. Freedom (How free is the staff to decide how to do their job?)

3. Idea time (Do employees have time to think things through before having to act?)

4. Idea support (Are there resources to give new ideas a try?)

5. Trust and Openness (Do people feel safe speaking their minds and offering different points of view?)

6. Playfulness and humor (How relaxed is the workplace-is it okay to have fun. )

7. Conflicts (To what degree do people engage in interpersonal conflict or 'warfare?")

8. Debates (To what degree do people engage in lively debates about the issues')

9. Risk-taking (Is it okay to fail?)

This was based on the pioneering work of Goran Ekvall in Sweden some 20 years ago where he was able to validate the climate for innovation as a determinant of business success. Ekvall's work has now been further refined and validated by Scott Isaksen and others at the Center for Creative studies, State University of New York-Buffalo.

So, as Singapore embarks on this journey of innovation - organizations, teams and individuals should be mindful of these dimensions as a basis for self-assessment, self-reflection and action.

LEAP

I was at the Fullerton Hotel today doing a team-building program for an MNC involved in providing integrated solutions for the area of genetics and health.

Looking back at the program, the outcomes, the discussions and thoughts arising from the day's session, I could not but help think about how teams can really perform and I came up with this:

LEAP!

Leadership
Engagement
Alignment
Performance

(ha ha - let it be so documented that I came up with this on this day/date....just in case)

Leadership
Leadership is important for teams to perform. The right type of leadership provides the safe and secure environment for teams to work together, explore and create. The right leadership supports the team by providing them the necessary resources to succeed. The right type of leadership allows for failure as a stepping stone to success. The right type of leadership inspires and motivates.

Engagement
With the right leadership, the team will be energized and engaged. And we all know what a big thing engagement is with organizations when they talk about talent and performance management today. Engagement occurs when there is true buy-in to the "cause".

Alignment
When every team member is engaged, then it becomes so much easier for them to achieve consensus, overcome conflict and achieve harmony, gaining alignment to targets, objectives, goals, KPIs, whatever.

Performance
Finally, once the team gets it's leadership, engagement and alignment in order, what results can only be performance. And performance of the long and sustaining nature, not the short-termed malaise affecting so many organizations that rely on incentives or cohersion, preying on employee's insecurities about job security and advancement. Performance that arises from staff who believe in the vision, feel for the mission and live the values the organisation espouses.

I would dearly like to see teams today take this big LEAP forward.

Happy Lunar New Year

2010 began hectic as with the start of every school and work year. But with my daughter beginning Secondary school this year, old routines had to be changed and remained fluid to accomodate the various changes to the time tables for both school, work and family.

Hence I apologise for my tardiness in updating my blog these past weeks but please bear with me just a little more ( I am seeing light at the end of the "scheduling" tunnel).

The Year of the Golden Tiger is upon us - please let me wish one and all

Gong Xi Fa Cai, Wan Shi Ru Yi!

and to the romantics out there - Happy Valentine's Day too! :)

Happy New Year

2010 is not only a New Year, it will also mark the start of a new decade.
Amazing that it’s been 10 years already since the Millennium.

So I suspect this year, many individuals, even if they have not previously been the enthusiastic “New Year Resolution types”, would be hard pressed not to contemplate about life, work and family and find at least an area they would like to “do something about”.

And now, with the global economy showing signs of a recovery, however fragile naysayers say it may be, many organizations I bet are gearing up for the “upturn” – planning and setting targets & goals, managing expectations from their stakeholders.

One of the programs I facilitate is Performance Management and a common recurring theme that crops up again and again that invariably impacts the entire process, happens right at the front-end of the cycle i.e. proper or rather, the lack of proper goal setting.

So whether we are individuals looking to “do something about” their personal lives - like giving up smoking, exercising more, lose weight, learn a new skill, or a corporation - looking to regain lost market share, to improve on profitability, to improve their customer satisfaction index or reduce manufacturing wastes etc , a key success factor is ensuring the Goal-Setting is done right!

Here are some ways to give you a better shot at success:-

1)Set Realistic and Specific Goals

Trainers oft refer to this as setting SMART goals ie
Specific , Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time Frame

For example, do not set a goal to stop smoking in 4 weeks when you are doing 2 packs a day or say you are going to exercise everyday when you can count the number of days you have excercised in the last 6 months on your hands.

Be realistic – like gradually cutting down to 1.5 packs per day by Chinese New Year or I will schedule to do 1 or 2 half hour sessions a week for January.

2) Write your Goal(s) and Action Plan(s) Down

There is no better or constant reminder for you if your goal is written and visible to you on a daily basis. Not only can it act as motivation to achieve, but also a reminder to act, if you are falling behind.

3) Act – Just Do It® as Nike says!

Do not get obsessed with immediate results – just take it one step at a time, small goals at a time. More importantly, just focus on getting started and keeping the momentum going.

4) Celebrate Success & Reward Yourself

Do not forget to celebrate and reward yourself once your goal (no matter how small) is achieved. An example is to reward yourself with new sports gear after successfully doing 2 half hour sessions of exercise per week during January. Or a new watch from the savings of reducing half a pack a day of cigarettes for 6 months!

Finally, go back and set the next (realistic and specific) goal – perhaps 3 sessions per week for February and March and plan a reward of say a new pair of running/gym/tennis shoes when you achieve that.

Suddenly by Q12010, you find yourself exercising regularly – up to 3 times a week. Or you are down to 1 pack per day, then half a pack by May 2010 and then a ¼ pack by September and just 5 sticks a day by November.

So even if you did not achieve your original goal of stopping smoking in 2010 or exercising daily, the improvement would still be significant and worth celebrating. So then work on improving on 2010 in 2011 and so on.

Invariably, these “smaller” goals amount to a great step forward, even if it was not in the time-line you expected.

Not everyone, or every organization can do quantum leaps. And many fail in trying to do too much too soon.

Juggling your personal, family and work lives is not easy. But isn’t it better to ensure we finish the races we started than not even managing to complete them, even if we were leading the pack at the beginning.

As we spend some time in reflection this New Year’s Eve and as we cast our eyes towards the New Year and New Decade ahead, I wish that you will find your “success(es)” in 2010 and beyond!

I would like to also take this opportunity to thank you for joining my blog journey this past year and especially for your emails with your comments and words of encouragement - I am very appreciative of your support.

Here's Wishing You and your Loved Ones a Blessed and Wonderful holiday season!

Happy New Year !

Evaluating Training

Yesterday, an associate and I delivered a team-building program to some 80+ managers, executives and the leadership team of the Singapore office of a global leader in the digital document managing technology and services industry.

On the ride back from Jewel Box @ Mt Faber to the office, we got into one of our regular philosophical discussions about learning and development and this time we gravitated to the topic of training efficacy.

The conversation reminded me about Kirkpatrick’s Levels of Learning Evaluation.

Donald Kirkpatrick is Professor Emeritus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison in the US and also a past president of the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD). He is best known for his highly influential model for training evaluation, consisting the four levels of learning evaluation that essentially measure:

1. Reaction of the participant - what they thought and felt about the training
2. Learning - the resulting increase in knowledge or capability
3. Behaviour - extent of behaviour and capability improvement and implementation/application
4. Results - the effects on the business or environment resulting from the trainee's performance

Kirkpatrick's ideas were first published in 1959, in a series of articles in the US Training and Development Journal but are best known from his book entitled, "Evaluating Training Programs", published in 1975.

Most people would be very familiar with level 1 ie the post training questionnaire. Even Level 2, with some form of assessment to test understanding or competency by way of a written, verbal or practical test is also not unusual. This could also take the form of a pre & post training evaluation by the participant (self) or the participant’s supervisor or both.

But it is levels 3 and 4 that most organizations or rather HR/L&D/OD professionals find harder to evaluate and subsequently justify for training dollar investments. For individual contributors, it might be easier, but in today’s complex and matrix organizations, where results arise from project or team collaborations, it would seem that more difficult for organizations to evaluate a particular training or even a series of interventions to the overall business results.

Hence, it is no surprise that a further addition to Kirkpatrick's model has been suggested by Jack J Phillips in the form of a fifth level - Return on Investment (ROI) level, which is essentially about comparing the results (ie fourth level of the standard model) to the overall costs of training.

Only when organizations really invest in the resources to adequately evaluate training at all the 4 or even 5 levels, the question of training efficacy and return on training investment will continue to be a blot that will not go away in the landscape of learning & development.

Teachable Moments

In the educating of the young/children, you will oft hear of the term “teachable moments”.

Some have even gone a step further to say that one of the most important skills to nurture as a parent or educator, is the ability to recognize and capitalize on these teachable moments in everyday life, which can happen almost anywhere.

And many of these are important lessons pertaining to values, morals and ethics.

My wife just blogged about such a moment with our son this week arising from an episode from his badminton training session last week - about staying focused and not giving up until the game is over.

What is the relevance of this to adults, working life, corporations and businesses you ask?

In my trainings, I always endeavour to facilitate learning for my participants as I take them on a journey of discovery and awareness - whatever the topic, be it team development, conflict management or leadership.

This is done by encouraging the recounting and sharing of their own workplace experiences, as these occasions present countless teachable moments - those that arise from failures or successes, customer praises or criticisms.

The question is - Are leaders, managers and supervisors seizing on these opportunities to model the desired behaviours they want to see within the organisation?

Are they using these moments to coach and mentor to motivate high performers or help the under-achievers?

Are they leveraging on them to recognise talent as well as help develop and retain said talent?

Parents naturally want the best for their children.

Hopefully we also want the best for our staff and subordinates and by seizing on these “corporate teachable moments”, it will translate to a more engaged and motivated workforce that consistently performs and achieves the desired objectives of the organisation.

Use that “teachable moment” the next time it presents itself.

"Fitting" In

I was involved in a Recruitment & Selection training program last week and in line with my focus on group facilitation, quite a lively discussion arose regarding finding someone who would fit the job and also the organisation.

Now then shouldn’t a person who is right for the job naturally be also right for the organisation you ask?

This concept of “fit” is not new and is the main crux of the hiring process i.e. finding the right person that is right for the job but also right for the organisation.

Industrial or organizational psychologists have defined “fit” in 2 distinct ways:-

Person-Job Fit (or P-J Fit).
Person-Job Fit involves what we can refer to as the “hard” aspects about a candidate’s suitability for the tasks that are required for successful performance of a specific job.

These “hard” aspects of P-J Fit include things such as a candidate’s level of knowledge (K) and level of specific skills (S) about the specific subject matter, and could also include their cognitive abilities i.e. tests for literacy, numeracy, intelligence, verbal reasoning etc.

For example in hiring a secretary, an assessment to his/her ability to do short-hand and type at more than 45 words per minute, could be a necessary requisite.

In many cases, P-J Fit also includes “softer” aspects such as the examination of an applicant’s personality traits or work preference or attitude (A) with respect to the job requirements ie tests relating to values, relational style, leadership style etc.

This is by far the easiest part of the recruitment and selection process, evidenced by the numerous assessment tools available to “test” a candidate’s suitability.

Person-Organization Fit (or P-O Fit).
For the second type of fit known as Person-Organization Fit, it would be fair to say that it is much less common for this kind of fit to be properly measured during the hiring process using a valid assessment tool.

Instead, this type of fit is typically based on anecdotal evidence and based a lot on the “gut feel” of the Hiring Manager (HM) or Human Resource (HR), usually after a face-to-face interview.

“I have a good feeling (or vibe) from this candidate”. “I’m more comfortable with that candidate”. Do these sound familiar?

But how many times have we also found out the hard way that the new recruit is just not performing to expectations, usually not from the job competency standpoint, but from the way he/she relates to the rest of their colleagues, in terms of the values that are not in synch with the organization’s, or does not seem as motivated to succeed etc.

The simplest way to look at it is that the candidate does not seem to fit the “culture” of the organization. How oft have we heard about the famed US or Korean or SME “work-cultures”?

So it is important to not only understand what our company’s organization culture is like ie is it formal vs informal, task or people-oriented, results or process-oriented, team orientation, orientation towards learning and development etc but also how well a potential candidate can ‘fit” and eventually thrive in those sorts of environments.

So, in addition to getting the “P-J” fit right, organizations would do well to spend a bit more effort and resources to get the “P-O” fit as it would yield both tangible outcomes like reduced turnover and lower costs of hiring but also in other intangible ways like a more happy, committed and productive staff.