Google Ad #1 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #3 - desktop - 728x90

Google Ad #1 - mobile - 300x200

Google Ad #3 - mobile - 300x200

ATD_Half_Page

Googel Ad #1 - Side Bar - Content pages

ATD Footer Logo

Bill Waite

Putting together a worldclass team

As Watershed’s Vice President of Strategy and Business Development, Bill Conran focuses on evangelizing the message of utilizing analytics to improve the workforce. He is known for making complex solutions easy to understand and showing how software can create safer, more enjoyable organizations.

Bill Conran

When executives want to measure the ROI of training, they rarely focus on hard skills. In fact, 90 percent of the time, they are trying to find the value of their investment in soft skills training. It is usually harder to identify the connection of those skills to strategic objectives. Resources are always limited, and there will always be more requests for the budget than dollars to fulfill those requests. So, as leaders make choices and trade-offs, they will be looking for evidence of ROI. You should recognize the importance of these inquiries to present a compelling case. When the executive asks for justification, what should you know?When making an investment, there are two measurements you should pay close attention to. The most obvious is the result you hope to get from making the investment. The other is the behavior or action you believe will create that result. For example, your organization may be seeking to increase the number of leads you receive. That is the result you are targeting. The behavior, or action, would be the purchase of online advertising. If you want the result of an increased number of prospects for the sales team, the action you may take is hiring and training more inside sales reps. What are the behavior and result measures for coaching?Leaders commonly make the mistake of saying the result measure for coaching is the act of coaching. The result measure of coaching is NOT coaching itself; rather, it is the outcome or goal that coaching was applied to. For example, you may be trying to reduce staff turnover—that’s your result. Take note of the current turnover rate and target what rate would represent a satisfactory change. Lower turnover means fewer new hires, saving significant costs ranging from a third to double the annual salary per hire for recruiting, training, and other startup expenses. Beyond those savings, consider the productivity boost from a more engaged and stable team. These benefits offer a clear metric for your result. Your behavior is to train your teams in coaching and to assure they practice and use it. The behavior of coaching now has a quantifiable result upon which to weigh the cost of coaching, helping you understand the real return on your investment.Deciding to invest time or money in coaching means either you are facing a challenge you wish to overcome or seizing an opportunity for growth. Here are some examples of how you can apply coaching to a strategic objective:Business PriorityResultsBehaviorsROI (Possible Metrics):Enhance leadership effectivenessIncrease in leadership competenciesDevelop leadership skills across all levelsKPIs related to team performance, project completion rates, and overall organizational productivityChanges in voluntary turnover rates and length of employee tenurePromotion rates, internal mobility, and leadership succession planning effectivenessBoost customer satisfaction and loyaltyIncrease in customer satisfaction scoresImprove service delivery and product qualityPercentage of customers making multiple purchases or renewing servicesCustomer Lifetime Value (CLV) or repeat customer revenueNumber of complaints, support requests, and ticket resolution timeOptimize operational efficiencyReduction in operational costsStreamline processes and reduce wasteReduction in operational costs, such as labor, materials, or overheadTime taken to complete core processes, such as production cycles, customer orders, or service deliveryUtilization rates of equipment, technology, and other assetsFoster innovation and creativityIncrease in the number of new ideas generatedCultivate a culture of innovationPercentage of revenue generated from newly introduced products or servicesTime taken from idea conception to product or service launchAmount of cost savings generated from innovative process improvementsStrengthen cross-functional collaborationIncrease in the number of successful cross-functional projectsImprove interdepartmental communication and teamworkKPIs for cross-functional teams, such as output, quality of work, and achievement of key milestonesThe time it takes cross-functional teams to resolve complex issues or challengesEmployee engagement scores or satisfaction surveys focused on teamwork and interdepartmental cooperationThere are four simple questions that can help you build the ROI case for a coaching program:What are we aiming to change?Where do we currently stand?Where do we aspire to be?What is the value of achieving this difference?When faced with questions about ROI and the impact of coaching is unclear, it’s important to reflect on your objectives and the measurable differences you aim to achieve. Coaching isn’t merely an assumption of improvement; it’s the catalyst that propels all your strategies forward, enhancing effectiveness and ensuring smoother operations across the board.

The ROI of Coaching: A CEO’s Perspective

When we think about virtual meetings, managers often think, “They’re just not worth the time and trouble,” so they settle for a conference call or an email blast.  In many cases that mindset is correct: if the meeting won’t be productive, why bother? You should rethink that, though, because there’s a significant return-on-investment (ROI) if virtual meetings are properly planned and led.Any time we talk about ROI, we need to clearly define our terms. What, exactly, are we investing? Well, in the case of a truly successful web meeting or virtual session, it is both money and social capital. Bear in mind that the platform you use (WebEx, Adobe Connect, Microsoft Lync) has very little statistical impact on these numbers.Let’s do the mathFirst, let's start with the basic facts, then plug some numbers into them:Study after study reveals that people feel 2/3 of their time in online meetings is wasted.The average online meeting lasts a little longer than one hour. ( It's actually about one hour and 15 minutes, but let's keep the math simple and use one hour as our base.)This math won't include the cost of the platform itself, or the phone bill. Let’s just consider the human costs—time, sanity, and we won't roll in after-work bar tabs.Okay, now time for some simple math:How many people are on your average meeting?Multiple that number by their hourly salary. As a base, $50,000 is about $25 dollars an hour, so let's work with that. Five attendees works out to $125 for an hour meeting, right?Not so fast. There is the amount of time you spend preparing for the meeting. Surely that adds at least half that much time, or another $65 or so. Of course, if each person isn't spending at least half an hour preparing for the meeting you may have discovered at least one reason they don't go so well. We're up to $190 or soAs we know, a bad meeting leads to either rework or another meeting so it's safe to assume that leads to another meeting. Let's call it $400 even.If two-thirds of that meeting is wasted, we've flushed about $266 right down the tubes. And that’s just one meeting.This doesn’t include the cost of the technology itself, which is wasted if nobody uses itNow, how many meetings a day do you hold? WebEx alone hosts more than 11 million meetings each day. The numbers should make your head hurt.Those are just the basic financial costs. Now add in the social costs: teams that are disengaged from their work, deadlines missed or rework caused by lack of good information, and general frustration and grumpiness, which can lead to unproductive behavior, turnover, and terrible team morale.Tech alone isn’t the answerSome people will have you believe that the right technology will solve that problem. To a degree, that’s true. Whichever web platform you use should have some basic synchronous features like white boards, chat, screen sharing, and so on. Webcams and breakout rooms are nice tools, as well. But technology alone won’t solve the problem for two reasons.First, most people don’t use the tools well (or at all). Studies show that 75 percent or more of people use only 25 percent of the features available in webmeeting tools. Additionally, more than 80 percent of meeting leaders have never received any training or coaching in the proper use of the technology before trying it out on live victims. Not a recipe for success, you’ll agree.Second, if meeting leaders have a perfect understanding of the powerful technology at their disposal, it’s essentially wasted if they don’t have the skills and motivation to do the human things that make all the difference.  Do your teammates participate and add value, or are your webmeetings just a chance to sit on mute and answer email?Bottom line: Planning and leading meetings are core skills for all managers, team leaders, and anyone working in a remote or virtual environment.  How is your organization helping people develop the core skills they need to get the most from their teams in this new world of work?Earn an ROI certificate from ATD and learn how to measure business impact using a proven methodology. 

The ROI of Better Virtual Meetings

In our last Being a Can-Do Leader blog post, “Too Much on Your Plate? Try Multi-Impacting,” we made the case for using the strategy, “purposeful multi-impacting,” as a way to get more done in less time. The essence of this strategy is for leaders to make decisions and pursue a course of action in ways that will simultaneously achieve more than one desired objective.But, of course, when you are in a leadership position, your goal isn’t just to get more done in less time. More importantly, you want to make sure that you do the right things as a leader. This means that  you need to purposefully focus on fulfilling your leadership responsibilities whenever possible.Thinking TPL                                 So, how might you keep a purposeful focus on your leadership agenda? Chances are you’ve already had a quick look at The Answer. The answer, that is, in the form of the Can-Do Leadership Zone below. Now, let’s take a closer look at this ball-in-the-box graphic.Can-Do Leadership Zone  This three-dimensional graph is an easy-to-remember representation of the fundamental people management responsibilities that all leaders inherit when they take on a management position.The three axes are tagged “Task,” “People,” and “Learning.” They are meant to remind us that, if you are going to be the sort of leader who excels at building teams that can get the right things done with a high level of know-how and commitment, these areas will require your continual attention as a leader. For shorthand, we call giving appropriate attention to the relevant Task, People, and Learning issues as “Thinking TPL.”Getting on the ball as a leaderNow, as for that ball in the box that we call the Can-Do Leader Zone, it is there to remind us that in order to get the right things done with enthusiasm and skill, leaders must continually give appropriate consideration to addressing the relevant task, people, and learning issues whenever they can. Give some consideration, that is, not just to one of these leadership dimensions, but to all three. Reminding yourself to Think TPL can help you remember to do what needs to be done to lead your team into the Can-Do Zone.Thinking TPL in real time Nice theory you might say, but how might this actually work in practice?  Here’s how Kim, a recently promoted manager in a Big Four accounting firm, put the Think TPL mantra to good use as she led her first big audit project.Her boss told her right up front that, although he wanted her to continue to use her considerable auditing expertise to do some pieces of this project herself, now that she was in a leadership position she would ultimately be evaluated not only on how well her team performed, but also on her ability to develop the skills and capabiities of her team.Mindful of the importance of getting her team into the Can-Do Zone, Kim realized right from the get go that continuing to remind herself to Think TPL would help her recognize opportunities to fulfill her leadership responsibilities.   Thinking T reminded Kim that whatever else happened, her job (first and foremost) was to get the audit done correctly and on time. At a minimum, Kim had the continuing responsibility to make sure that her team members were clear about tasks they needed to perform to achieve the desired results. Also, she would need to see to it that at critical junctures along the way the proper things were getting done. Thinking P reminded Kim that several of her former peers who now reported to her have been  frustrated and unhappy with their past project experiences at this firm. She would  need to continue to find ways to help these particular team members get fully motivated to drive for high levels of performance. She did so by discussing with them what their main concerns had been, and seeking their advice on what would help them be more engaged and productive, given the realities of this project.Thinking L reminded Kim to continue to make a conscious effort to find multiple opportunities to develop the current and future capabilities of her team. When she was doing work alongside her team members as a player/manager, she tried to teach as well as do (achieving T & L). More important, when Kim was considering who should do what (T & P), whenever possible she gave skill-building stretch assignments (L)—rather than always delegating assignments to her most skilled team members (achieving T, P & L).  By making Thinking TPL a habit—before swinging into action—you will keep focused on fulfilling your leadership responsibilities in a purposeful, systematic way in a wide range of situations.  Do this, and you’ll always be on the ball as a leader!Coming up next: Want an easy-to-remember acronym that will keep you properly focused when thinking about the people axis of our leadership model? Our next Can-Do Leader Blog, will show you how checking your team members’ VITALS will enable you to unleash an engaging Can-Do spirit.

Being a Can-Do Leader: Want to Be on the Ball as a Leader? Think TPL!

The role of the radiological monitor-ing team may he the key to survival for personnel within your plant. Whether you operate from one small building or conduct your business over a wide area, the problem is the same.

Radiological Defense Training In Southern Bell

 In my last post, I explored how certain personality differences--described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) assessment—give rise to an approach to work that is often confused with procrastination. MBTI preferences for either Perceiving (P) or Judging (J) describe how we organize the world, and at what point we want to make a final decision. The tendency of those preferring P to usually wait to make a final decision until close to the deadline—and thus begin the actual production portion of a project later—is often mistakenly labeled as procrastination. This behavior stems from the need to gather as much information as possible before closing off any options, not from a lackadaisical approach to work. Although often misunderstood, their most effective and efficient energy actually comes close to the deadline or end of the project. Those preferring Judging, on the other hand, are most efficient at the beginning of the project, and naturally employ a work style that incorporates making decisions and going into production mode much earlier in the process--a characteristic that our culture more frequently associates with productivity and efficiency. Within teams, simply knowing that these differences exist can pave the way toward a less stressful, more productive work environment that enables individuals to more fully leverage their natural talents. However, intellectualizing J/P differences is one thing, but actually implementing changes that allow team members to deploy both work styles within the same project is quite another issue. Individuals can achieve top-notch results employing either approach, but teams can also encounter major problems if these radically different work styles aren’t effectively integrated. Making Team Tradeoffs That Don’t Sacrifice Individual Effectiveness Often in teambuilding we talk about “flexing” one’s preferences to work more effectively with someone with an opposite preference, which involves operating outside one’s preferred style. For most of us this is a growing experience and a necessary part of career development. However, while flexing works quite well when bridging Introversion/Extraversion differences, for example, it is actually quite difficult to flex your work style between Judging and Perceiving without diminishing your effectiveness. Those preferring J who try to operate within a P work style will perform below their abilities, and vice versa. Rather than expecting individuals to flex their natural styles, teams need to make structural trade-offs that will allow every member of the team to work within his or her own preferences. Agreeing on Deadlines The most immediate area where this can be applied involves deadlines and milestones. Both J and P preferences find deadlines to be a helpful tool in accomplishing goals. Yet the way that those preferring P approach deadlines may be confusing to J-preferring colleagues, and vice versa. Those who prefer P are averse to the kind of arbitrary or fake deadlines which are sometimes imposed by those with J preferences for the purpose of motivating their P colleagues going into production mode earlier in the process. Meanwhile, those who prefer J might use deadlines as a tool to keep a project on track and are usually motivated to complete projects significantly before the deadline to avoid the last minute rush. Those preferring P tend to view deadlines as markers indicating the point at which something truly must be completed. This also helps them determine when they need to start working on the project in order to maximize their productivity—which for them is closer to the deadline. Consequently, if J-preferring team members try to impose arbitrary deadlines on P-preferring colleagues as markers or motivators to keep a project on pace, they’ll know they really have more time, and will view these as “fake” and often won’t take them seriously. Furthermore, this creates a situation that likely forces those with P preferences to complete tasks early in the project, when they’re less productive because they haven’t had sufficient time to explore all the possibilities for the projects direction. You can get better results from P-preferring colleagues by setting deadlines that accurately reflect a project’s realities, allowing them to plan their work in such a way that lets them get most of the project done at the end, when they’re most productive. When negotiating milestone dates, be sure that they are visibly tied to the real-life consequences of not meeting that deadline. If, for example, a client needs a set of blueprints by a certain date, the milestones should reflect the actual steps that need to be taken in order to make that happen--not just the J-preferences need to complete a project significantly before the actual deadline to allow time for revision. Accepting a Larger View of What Constitutes “Reality” On the flip side, those preferring P must appreciate that their J-preferring colleagues operate most efficiently on a more scheduled timeline. What’s more, they must respect the fact that some J preference team members may not do their best work when handed a project at the last minute. So, if you must deliver a set of blueprints to a J-preferring colleague for review or iteration, understand that they really need to do this earlier in the process in order to offer their best, most efficient work. Adopt the point of view that this is not an arbitrarily early deadline, but rather one that is necessary to ensure the quality of the project. Be willing to set and adhere to milestones that accommodate the J’s need for more structure, and earlier project completion. Bottom Line: Don’t Ask a Pea Factory to Produce Carrots Furthermore, a P-preferring manager working with a predominantly J-preferring team must take into account that last minute changes to a project may have a profoundly negative effect on the group’s ability to deliver excellent results. J-preferring individuals tend to work along a more even pace, accomplishing a great deal of a project’s tasks near the beginning of the process. Throwing a last-minute curve ball at a team that primarily prefers P might be okay, because they don’t go fully into production mode until the end of a project. In other words, they’ve been spending their time getting their ducks in a row, and in manufacturing parlance, the “factory” hasn’t yet opened. A predominantly J-preferring team, on the other hand, will have likely gone into production mode much earlier, so significant changes in direction can’t occur late in a project. It’s like asking a factory to produce canned carrots when it’s already started producing peas. If you want carrots, ask for them before the factory turns on its conveyor belts.

Brokering Peace in the War Over Deadlines

 Jan starts her business writing course by asking participants to write a persuasive email that has the goal of getting its reader to agree to attend a meeting. Most participants write an email that is too long, and 84.3 percent of the emails have grammatical errors. These results are exactly what Jan expected.Jan then shares with the group a variety of business emails, and asks them to choose two that they feel are most persuasive. Jan asks, “Why are they good?” “They both quickly explain exactly why I would want to be there,” Katarina, answers. Percy adds, “Mine was far too long and twisting. No one would read it all or reply.” He quickly sees how this course can help him. People Aren’t Blank Sheets We often build instruction as if people are blank sheets of notebook paper on which we are writing. This is clearly a mistake (that causes problems) on numerous fronts. Pre-existing knowledge is the foundation to build additional knowledge. Jan‘s exercise helps her participants discover pre-existing knowledge in a fun way. It is our job to help learners connect what they know to what they are learning. It is these connections that help learning make sense. In essence, your courses need to help learners perform three critical actions: activate directly related, accurate knowledgefill in critical, missing knowledgefix misconceptions. For example, in order to teach others to balance a checkbook, we can:Help people “activate existing, related knowledge” by showing them how balancing a checkbook is very much like how they managed the cash they earned babysitting as a teenager to pay all their bills and have enough saved to go out with friends. Let’s say you ask, “How can we do this?” Their answers relate to the process of inputs to and outflows from a checking account.Make sure that there isn’t any missing, critical knowledge by giving them a calculator to do basic addition and subtraction. If there is missing information, we would need to fill in gaps. Ideally, we would have determined this information in advance to know what information needs to be included in the course.Fix misconceptions by letting them know that they don’t need to know advanced math to have a checking account. When such misconceptions exist, they can really interfere with learning.Why Prior Knowledge Is SO Important Research shows that when we are able to connect what we’re learning to accurate prior knowledge, we learn more and retain that knowledge more easily. That’s because all learning is a refinement of prior knowledge. The implication is that we need to consider prior knowledge every time we deliver instruction. Doing so makes it much easier for people to learn. For example, if percentages didn’t make sense when you learned it years ago, a new lesson on interest rates will fail to make sense or “stick.” In addition, learners also must also be able to access prior knowledge. Sometimes participants have already learned something, but they can’t easily remember it. They may be overwhelmed or afraid. (See Dave Ferguson’s blog post on avoiding too much cognitive load and my blog post on when to train to automaticity for related information.) What If Learners Don’t Know Enough? (Inadequate Knowledge) Consider the following scenario: I know that the best ratio for coffee to water in a French press is one part of very course ground coffee to about 14 or 15 parts very hot water (almost boiling). I also know that the brew time is generally about 6-7 minutes. Do I know enough to make good coffee in my French press? No. This is what we call necessary but inadequate declarative knowledge (the basic facts or the “know what”). In this example, I know “what” but I still don’t know “how.” “Know how” is called procedural knowledge. The declarative knowledge I have is accurate, but I still can’t do the task. Likewise there are times when someone can do the task (they have the procedural knowledge), but they don’t have the understanding of what they are doing. For instance, have you ever been on the phone troubleshooting a technical problem with someone who is using a script? When you ask them a question, they can’t answer it unless it is in the script. So when L&D professionals say, “The only thing we care about is performance,” that isn’t exactly right either. People need to be able to perform (know how) with understanding (know what) so they have the nimbleness to change their performance as needed. What If What Learners Know Is Wrong? (Inaccurate Knowledge) Sometimes what people know is simply wrong. For example, there is a popular but erroneous misconception called the “Equal Transit Time Theory” that explains how airplanes fly (aerodynamic lift). Actually, planes fly because the wings force air downward, which forces the wing and the plane upward. Misconceptions damage further learning and can lead some learners to be resistant to correction. Scientists are still debating how wings work and planes fly! Likewise, L&D folks are still debating learning styles and other learning myths! See Dr. Will Thalheimer’s blog post debunking such myths as “people remember 10 percent of what they read and 20 percent of what they hear.”    Bottom line: We can’t assume that people actually know, what they say they know. We also have to uncover misconceptions and help people replace them with accurate information, especially when misconceptions make further learning difficult. Resources [National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum, _Background Knowledge_](http://aim.cast.org/sites/aim.cast.org/files/ncac\_BKNov3.pdf)[Strategies for Activating Prior Knowledge](http://www.classhelp.info/Biology/Strategies%20for%20Activating%20Prior%20Knowledge.pdf)How to Assess Students’ Prior Knowledge

Science of Learning 101: Why You Need to Know What Your Learners Know

As the CEO of Bulldog Drummond, Shawn is responsible for strategically directing each of Bulldog’s key engagements, ensuring there’s an “Uncommon Sense” methodology at the center of everything the company does. This approach maintains that the biggest opportunities can be realized, and the most complex challenges solved, by using a powerful combination of simplicity, common sense and determination. He brings twenty-plus years of innovation, design, brand and business-building experience to companies from Fortune 500s to purpose-driven startups.Shawn helps leadership teams transform large, multinational companies and passionate entrepreneurs launch new companies, products and brands. He has worked with executive teams at companies including Adidas, Bolthouse Farms, CMT, Diageo, Eddie Bauer, Heineken, H&R Block, IDEO, MTV, Mattel, Nike, PIRCH, Starbucks, Samsung, Taco Bell, WD-40, Westfield, and World Vision, among many others.Following a life-changing trip to Malawi in March of 2004, Shawn has become committed to finding creative and sustainable ways to make a measurable difference in the world by helping people and companies realize their full potential. He sits on the board of The Honest Kitchen, the advisory boards of FEED Projects and International Farming, is the co-founder of YouSchool and Y-Malawi? and a faculty member of The Honor Foundation. He writes feverishly for Fast Company, PSFK, and is a sought-after speaker. Shawn lives in San Diego with his wife and three children, is a dawn patrol surfer, wanna-be photographer and avid cultural voyeur.

Search results for 'Bill Waite'

Categories

Refine By