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

Carrie Berg is vice president of L&D for Teladoc Health. She has more than 20 years of healthcare experience in sales, sales training, marketing, strategy, commercial effectiveness, L&D, talent and organization development, and leadership. Before joining Teladoc Health, Berg held various leadership roles in sales training, education, and development and consulted several startup organizations to build dynamic learning programs. She has participated in multiple certificate programs, graduated from the KPMG Women in Executive Leadership program, Leadership California, and is accredited in Insights Discovery and Situational Leadership. Berg is also a member of Chief and the Forbes Human Resources Council. She graduated from Winona State University with an MBA from Anderson University and is a doctoral student in organizational development and leadership.

Carrie Berg

March 2023

Upward influence is an essential competency that leaders must learn.

Making Waves

Got Government Talent Challenges? Get Answers at ATD 2015

Do you think of compliance training as a one-time activity to mitigate risk or avoid getting dinged on an audit? If so, you’re not alone. Compliance training often carries with it a stigma of being boring or dry. Regardless, it is still an important and necessary aspect of business—one that can come with significant consequences if you fall out of compliance. Naturally, it begs the question: If employees view compliance training as boring, and HR and L&D teams see it as a one-time, annual event, how can employees be expected to retain what they learn? Likewise, how can their behaviors change if no one enforces the information? And how can businesses continue to avoid risk? Organizations can address all of these issues with a mindset shift in how they create and deliver their compliance programs. That shift can be achieved by treating compliance training the same way we treat continuous learning.What Is Continuous Compliance Training?Continuous compliance training is about building a culture and strategy within your organization through learning to manage and address risk continuously and effectively. It ensures that you meet regulatory requirements while upholding the safety of your employees, customers, and systems. While continuous compliance training is often linked solely to data security, it can be expanded to cover all areas of compliance risk, from cyberattacks and workplace safety to sexual harassment and discrimination. It is also important to note that continuously evaluating and managing your level of compliance does not mean running a report or viewing a dashboard to monitor course completions. Completion rates are not evidence of the effectiveness of your compliance. Qualitative information, on the other hand, helps determine the effectiveness of your compliance programs—for example, post-course exams, evaluation surveys, and conversations to determine the level of information the employee retained from the course. Role-playing or on-the-job observation could also be helpful to determine an employee's ability to demonstrate what they’ve learned.Why Does It Matter?Continuous compliance training matters more than ever. Companies are functioning in a much riskier environment compared to even just a few years ago. The COVID-19 pandemic and remote work adjustments have made certain data risks more pronounced. And as mentioned previously, not just data risks. The death of George Floyd and subsequent growth in the Black Lives Matter movement put a glaring spotlight on employee behavior and social responsibility risks as well. This prompted organizations across the country to develop or improve their diversity, equity, inclusion programs and implement or revamp their corporate social responsibility initiatives to regain public trust.Additionally, the #MeToo movement caused employers to rethink their sexual harassment prevention strategy. Several states have passed laws to expand their sexual harassment compliance training. Some states even call for the training to be more meaningful and relatable. Thus, it might be easier to consider what could happen when companies think continuous compliance training doesn’t matter. By underestimating the need to implement these programs, organizations could be faced with:Disengaged and complacent employeesHarsh fines and penalties from auditors and regulatorsIncreased susceptibility to discrimination lawsuits or security attacksExposing their systems, employees, and customers (and their data) to riskHow Can My Organization Make the Shift to Continuous Compliance Training?As with anything, transitioning from your one-time annual approach to compliance training to a fully-fledged continuous strategy will take some planning. Here are ideas to consider before you get started:It might go without saying these days, but for optimal results, you’ll need a trusted learning management system (LMS) and online learning courses, whether bought, designed, or both.Select a trusted content vendor that regularly updates its compliance courses to meet changing industry, state, and federal requirements.Content must be engaging and relevant to remain top of mind for your employees. Select content that includes scenario-based learning, checkpoints throughout the course to assess knowledge retention, or an interactive “choose your own adventure” type of course.Incorporate points, badges, or leaderboards to boost friendly competition among individual employees, teams, or departments.Training doesn’t only have to be online. It could be on-the-job training or other in-person activities that you can still track in the LMS.Find an LMS that makes it easy for you to track and report on your compliance training.Align your continuous compliance training strategy with your company’s overall risk management strategy.Finally, measure the true effectiveness—not completion rates—of your program.Editor’s Note: This article is adapted from the Schoox Corporate Learning blog.

Making Compliance Training Continuous: A Better Approach to Behavior Change

Procrastination is probably on most managers’ “Seven Deadly Sins” lists. But don’t be too quick to assign the moniker of “procrastinator.” According to personality type theory, as described by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®) instrument, certain work style and cognitive preferences, which look an awful lot like procrastination on the surface, indicate anything but laziness.The MBTI instrument categorizes personality type along four categories, including Judging/Perceiving, which describes how people make decisions. Those with preferences for Judging (J)—whose work style dominates the corporate world currently—tend to make decisions quickly, and work more efficiently and are more energized at the beginning of a project. Conversely, those who prefer Perceiving (P) tend to make decisions later, and work more efficiently and are more energized toward the end of a project. It’s easy to see how an outsider, who can’t see what’s going on “under the hood,” might easily dismiss this tendency as procrastination, which usually entails delaying something because you simply don’t want to deal with it. However, for someone with a preference for Perceiving, quite the opposite is occurring. Instead, these workers are likely taking more time to gather all the information possible in order to make the most-informed decision. While those preferring J feel unsettled waiting to commit to a course of action and like to do it early on, those preferring P feel unsettled if they close off options before they’ve fully vetted them. Both approaches are valid and offer unique benefits. But it doesn’t take much vision to understand why—in a business climate riddled with the consequences of rushed decisions—the P approach might provide balance to an “I need it yesterday” culture. Yet, this particular cognitive and behavioral orientation, while common in the population at large, is marginalized in business, education, and society—often from childhood. **You’re a Slacker, and So Was Your Old Man!(No McFly Will Amount to Anything!)** From early in life, those with a preference for P receive messages that negate the value of their natural approach—and praise when they make more immediate decisions. This carries on into college, where you’re expected to choose a major before you even crack open a textbook (never mind that many of tomorrow’s most critical jobs probably don’t even exist yet). In fact, you could say that P preferences are programmed to self-identify as procrastinators and, as a result, learn to fake the J approach to school and work. How many times have you heard someone joke about the fact that they procrastinate, but can’t help it because they work better at the last minute? If that person is successful, chances are low that they truly procrastinate. More likely, they prefer P but have stereotyped themselves, because of a negative perception of what a preference for Perceiving really entails. In organizations, we don’t like when people delay making decisions. It’s unnerving because the merits of this work style are not understood in our J-biased corporate work culture—and we can’t necessarily discern what’s going on inside a person’s head. We can’t see that they’re actually gathering facts and weighing options; we don’t know that this process is so important to them that they’re willing to take all of the time that they possibly can before committing to a course of action. Efficiency Kicks in at the Project’s End As the deadline approaches, however, P preferences will quickly commit to a course of action and become efficiency machines, operating just as efficiently as those that prefer J tend to at the beginning of a project. This isn’t necessarily because they perform any better under pressure than anyone else, but rather that they work more effectively if they’ve had time to assemble the puzzle pieces in their head. On the other hand, if they’re required to operate in a Judging-oriented manner, focusing on the production end at the beginning of a project, they tend to work less efficiently. To put it in laymen’s terms, they may “doddle” a bit. This has nothing to do with their work ethic—they simply haven’t had sufficient time to formulate what they want to produce. And they’ll often change courses midstream, because along the way they’ve discovered a better approach. The Pot of Gold at the End of the Rainbow Admittedly, for someone with a Judging-oriented outlook, the idea of allowing someone who prefers P to follow their natural work style within a modern business setting probably sounds like following a rainbow to its end in search of a pot of gold. However, in this case, there is a substantial pot of gold in terms of value to the organization. First, this approach provides a critical counter-balance to the J-driven propensity to make decisions and act on them quickly. To be sure, the Judging-oriented approach offers tremendous value, particularly in projects that require milestones. But sometimes decisions are made too soon—and organizations are locked into a course of action that turns out to be less desirable than one that materializes later. If both Judging and Perceiving perspectives are respected, however, teams can achieve ongoing, yet tempered momentum. Second, understand that those that prefer P really aren’t at their best when they have to conform to J-driven processes. If they’re allowed to operate within their natural work style, they produce higher quality work. To put it simply, you’re getting more value out of them by giving them the flexibility to do things their own way, and positioning them for greater career success by allowing them to make best use of their talents. Finding Common Ground We’ve established that P frequently conforms to a J world. But should it be the other way around? The reality is that it’s probably unrealistic—and perhaps equally unbeneficial—for either side to completely flex its behavior to the expectations of the other side. Those preferring Perceiving have to understand what things look like to a manager or co-worker with a J preference, and provide assurances that things are indeed progressing toward a desirable outcome. This may involve agreeing on certain markers that indicate progress. A Word to the Wise… If you prefer P, understand that when your J-preferring colleagues flex their own work preferences to your style, you’ve got to deliver the goods. If you don’t, you may not get another chance to prove the value of your approach. The good news: As you consistently deliver quality results, your J colleagues will become increasingly supportive of your work style.

Why You Might Want to Give Procrastinators a Chance

Russ Spaulding is a Learning Strategist with the Defense Intelligence Agency’s (DIA) Office of Learning and Career Development. He has over 28 years of learning and development experience within the Department of Defense. He began his career as a naval intelligence officer supporting an electronic warfare squadron aboard the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier for two nine-month deployments to the Western Pacific and Indian Ocean. After performing as a current intelligence analyst for the Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff, he has spearheaded reserve training efforts as Officer-in-Charge for Reserve Intelligence Training Programs at NAS South Weymouth Massachusetts, implemented the Post Graduate Intelligence Programs for Reserves at the National Defense Intelligence College while serving on the teaching faculty; coordinated reserve training for the Naval Criminal Investigative Service; and served as the focal point for the talent management of over 400 reserve intelligence personnel supporting DIA's 2 Directorate for Analysis as a Reserve Liaison Officer. Numerous military awards include three Defense Meritorious Service medals. In a civilian capacity, he has performed as a senior program manager in DIA's Office of the Chief Financial Executive focusing on the assessment and evaluation of performance-based budgeting before taking positions as a senior instructor and learning development specialist in DIA's Office for Learning and Career Development. In these roles, he has received numerous special act awards. He holds a masters degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University along with facilitator certificates from the Goldratt Institute, the Pacific Institute and FranklinCovey. He has a passion for co-designing innovative and practical research-based learning and evaluation strategies leading to peak performance and mission accomplishment. About

Russ Spaulding

Andy Maus oversees all Compass One Healthcare human resource departments. This includes the overall people strategy carried out by the field HR, talent management, talent acquisition, and learning & development teams. Andy joined Compass Group in August 2019, and reports to Bobby Kutteh, Compass One Healthcare’s CEO, and Cindy Noble, Compass Group’s chief people officer. He is a member of the Compass One Healthcare executive management team. Before joining Compass Group, Andy worked across several industries and functions within HR.Most recently, he spent time at US Foods, where he held a variety of leadership roles across corporate and field HR, and mergers and acquisitions. Andy also spent time at Discover Financial Services and Sears Holdings where he led corporate HR, supply chain HR, and learning & development.Andy currently serves on a board for Cure PSP, an organization focused on curing various forms of Parkinson’s. Andy holds a Bachelor of Science in psychology, a Master of Arts in industrial/organizational psychology from Western Michigan University, and a Master of Business Administration from Northwestern University, Kellogg School of Management.

Search results for 'Carrie Berg'

Categories

Refine By