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

As the chief evangelist at Kollective, Mike determines how customers are using Kollective to solve business challenges, and uses that information to evolve the product strategy. Mike has more than 15 years of experience working with Fortune 500 clients to solve their communication, training, and video challenges.

Mike Merit

Tech headlines for March 2015 include top LMS rankings, e-learning salary infographic, Saba acquired by Vector Capital, and new MOOC whitepaper.  2015 Top LMS Rankings Craig Weiss, named the most influential person for e-learning on the industry's “Top Ten” annual list globally, has published his annual State of the LMS Industry Report for 2015 on his blog “E-Learning 24/7 Blog.” His report contains an independent analysis of 645 Learning Management Systems from all over the world. The ranking is based on different criteria such as support and service, user interface and general features. Here’s a look at the top 10 LMSs. #10 IMC Learning Suite: An all-around super performer. The UI on the front-end is good, the back-end needs improvement, but the feature sets and capabilities are robust. #9 LearnUpon: Continues to get better each year. Very slick UI. Buy today, can go live today (i.e., self-service platform). Multi-tenant, strong feature set. #8 CM-Group Luminosity: Very slick UI, front and back end. Strong feature set, mobile is very robust, gamification is solid, social is there. #7 Blackboard – Higher Education:   BB is back in town.  The UI is very nice, especially on the front-end. Feature set for HE is at top tier status, and the mobile UI experience continues to get better. #6 Docebo: Rock star! UI is very slick for front- and back-end. Weiss still loves the one-click app into the platform, and the inclusion of content into the LMS.   #5 Unicorn Training SkillsServe: Financial Services mega-star. The feature set is outstanding, UI for front-end is very nice, especially the home dashboard and favorites. Built-in authoring tool could easily be sold as a stand-alone it is that good.   #4 Frog:  Jumping high once again, it is the best K-6 system. Period. #3 eLogic Learning eSSential Plus: Takes it up another notch with some serious major wins.  Also, it is being enhanced—with a new look and feel coming by end of Q1. Mobile strong, and gamification is coming. #2 ExpertusOne: The former #1 for the last 3 years is now number two. The reason for the drop: fewer forward-thinking enhancements. That said, this is a very strong system, with its predicative analysis (the first to do it), home-learner dashboard, geolocation in the mobile app, gamification, and awesome UI. #1 Growth Engineering: By far the most modern, hip front- and back-end in the industry with regards to learner and admin.  One of the very few systems that a learner can have fun using. It is constantly adding new features and capabilities. Mobile is rolling out—to include on/off synch and native app with xAPI. For more detail and insights from Craig, go to http://elearninfo247.com/2015/01/27/top-10-lmss-of-2015. Infographic: 2015 Global E-Learning Salary & Compensation The 2015 Global eLearning Salary & Compensation Report Infographic gives some of the highlights from The eLearning Guild’s 2015 Global eLearning Salary & Compensation research report, which examines trends in pay for eLearning professionals, exploring global and regional salary trends and breaking down salary by variables including industry and company size. The report is based on the responses of 5,127 The eLearning Guild members, who provided their salary and compensation information as part of their membership data. The 2015 Global eLearning Salary & Compensation Report Infographic highlights gender-based income disparities, salary differences among Unites States metropolitan areas, how many people received merit increases in the past year, hours worked per week around the world, who gets the most vacation days, and who earns the most. Saba Agrees to Be Acquired by Vector Capital In February, Saba announced that it has entered into a definitive agreement with affiliates of Vector Capital (“Vector”) under which an affiliate of Vector will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Saba common stock for $9.00 per share in an all cash offer. “Over the course of Saba’s comprehensive review, the Board of Directors and our advisors evaluated a wide range of strategic alternatives, and engaged with a number of parties. We are pleased to have reached this agreement with Vector, which provides significant cash value for our shareholders. Our Board unanimously believes that this is the best outcome for Saba, our shareholders, customers, partners and employees,” said Bill Russell, Saba’s Non-Executive Chairman. “Over the last 17 years, Saba has delivered a growing set of innovative intelligent talent management solutions, which are in use today by more than 2,200 global market leaders and innovators,” said Shawn Farshchi, president and CEO of Saba. “Vector has been a great partner to Saba since 2013. We are thrilled to continue the relationship, and take advantage of the support and resources of Vector and their partner network to strategically invest in expanding our product portfolio, further our customer success programs, and continue to the next stage of the company’s growth and market leadership.” “Vector, along with some of the world’s premiere financial institutions and investors, are excited to help Saba move beyond its financial restatement process and put the focus squarely on the Company’s innovative cloud talent management platform and its blue chip customer base,” said David Fishman, Managing Director and Head of the Private Equity Team at Vector Capital. Andy Fishman, Managing Director at Vector Capital, said, “We are excited to partner with the management team and the dedicated and talented group of employees at Saba. We look forward to them becoming part of the Vector family.” The transaction is subject to customary closing conditions and the approval of Saba shareholders, and is expected to close in the coming months. The transaction is not subject to any financing conditions. Saba senior management is expected to remain in Redwood Shores. Morgan Stanley & Co., LLC is acting as financial advisor to Saba, and Morrison & Foerster LLP is acting as Saba’s legal advisor. Shearman & Sterling LLP is acting as Vector’s legal advisor. Docebo Whitepaper Sheds Light on Future of Corporate MOOCs A new whitepaper from Docebo, MOOCs: from Academia to Corporate, explores the genre’s popularity in the corporate learning world and its future viability in the academic world.According to the whitepaper, on massive open online courses (MOOCs) are still struggling to find a market niche within the corporate world—since it’s difficult for any but the largest corporations to generate a following around a subject that they’re willing to make freely available to everyone. On the other hand, MOOCs seem to abound in the academic world. But those offering the MOOCs are now wondering how to make money from the intellectual property that comprises these courses. Josh Squires, Docebo’s chief operating officer, argues that, while the idea of millions of people collaborating on a single subject in a shared learning environment is exciting, in reality MOOCs are unlikely to attain their original promise. Squires believes that MOOCs provide greater access to learning and a wider range of knowledge from different cultures and countries but technology isn’t beneficial merely because it’s there. Nonetheless, MOOCs have already shown their potential to disrupt the academic and corporate learning worlds—in terms of price, technology, and even pedagogy—even if research shows that MOOC participants tend to come from the already well-educated and privileged in society. The whitepaper is the result of a recent webinar, which featured a lively discussion between four online learning specialists: John Leh, CEO and lead analyst at Talented Learning, an LMS selection consultant who helps organizations plan and implement technology strategies that support extended enterprise learning.Dr. Mike Orey, an associate professor at the University of Georgia.  Aaron Silvers, a designer, technologist, and strategist responsible for helping to bring massively adopted learning technologies into organizations around the world, notably SCORM and xAPI (otherwise known as Tin Can).  He also leads the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee charged with the international industry standardization of the xAPI. Erica LeBlanc, the operations development manager for the IP and Science division of Thomson Reuters, where she manages a team of instructional designers focusing on the creation and delivery of customized sales training courses.  In addition, the whitepaper addresses 10 MOOC-related questions:What’s a MOOC?What’s the future for MOOCs?From a corporate perspective, what types of MOOCs are there? How are they being implemented and why would a corporation want a MOOC? Are MOOCs really a disruptive force in learning?What’s the primary benefit to businesses offering MOOCs?Will MOOCs up-end the fundamental structure of teaching, especially in a corporate setting? What will be the effect of MOOCs in developing countries and immature learning markets?How do you see corporate acceptance of MOOC-based education?How can you close the gap between MOOCs’ high enrolment and low completion rates?Are MOOCs actually disrupting anything?  Squires comments: “There are models that have proven successful within some organizations so, if your heart is set on a MOOC, there’s a case to be made to launch one. However, you should examine your business requirements and evaluate whether a MOOC is needed to solve your issue, or whether some high quality, targeted learning can achieve your objective.” To learn more, download MOOCs: from Academia to Corporate via the Docebo's website, or check it out on SlideShare.

Tech Headlines for March 2015

Mike is the senior director of education and career training for the Institute for Veterans and Military Families (IVMF). He is a native of central New York and enlisted in the army in 1987 as an infantryman; he was assigned to the 187th Infantry Regiment, 101st Airborne, Fort Campbell, Kentucky. He also served as a squad leader, B Company 130th Infantry Regiment, Illinois National Guard. In June 2011, Mike took command of the Saint Bonaventure Army ROTC program in Western New York, and in 2013 he transitioned to Syracuse University as the professor of military science, until retiring in 2015 following 28 years of service. His awards and decorations include a Bronze Star and the Meritorious Service Medal, Army Commendation Medal, Army Achievement Medal, Army Good Conduct Medal, National Defense Service Medal With Bronze Star, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Afghan Campaign Medal With Bronze Star, Armed Forces Service Medal With Bronze Star, Military Outstanding Volunteer Service Medal, Global War on Terrorism Service Medal, Armed Forces Reserve Medal, Overseas Service Ribbon, NATO Medal With Bronze Star, Army Aviator Wings, Combat Action Badge, Airborne Wings, Air Assault Wings, and Thai Royal Military Parachutist Badge. Mike has a master of business administration from Webster University.

Michael Bianchi

Service has been on my mind lately … a lot.Just last week, Amazon launched its new Kindle Fire HD. CEO Jeff Bezos proudly exclaimed that the new product  “is a hardware device that is also a service.” After interacting with the new Kindle Fire, one swiftly realizes that it is simply an interface to Amazon's entire suite of products: streaming media, eBooks (and eTextbooks), games, and so forth.Also this week, Dave Gray (@davegray) and Tom Vander Wal released The Connected Company. A theme emerges very quickly in the book: We're in a service economy. It's not that “making things” isn't important; indeed, making “things that matter” is more important than ever. The point, though, is that any one object is rarely so important that it can stand on its own merits. The objects and things we make are rather the beginning of a conversation that makers and designers have with the people for whom they design and make things. Gray explains it this way:  a product "can be considered a physical manifestation of a service or set of services: a service avatar."With this in mind, let’s turn our attention to, as Craig Wiggins writes, our kind of people. I think many of us look at our various roles with bi-focal lenses: one lens focused on meeting the lofty story we tell ourselves and others about how we help people perform better or develop as individuals; another lens focused on the objects we create, such as e-learning courseware, simulations, and so on—the manipulatives and the Jeopardy boards (that’s for you, Cammy Bean).Consider for a moment the idea that everything we do (and what our peers in our organizations do) contributes to one object in a set of services. We provide more than one service that creates change in our organizations.Take, for example, changes in customer interactions that we help design and implement that result in higher customer engagement. In this example, “higher customer engagement” is the business goal. Success can be determined through positive tweets, an increase in returning visitors to a given e-commerce portal, or an increase in subscriptions to direct marketing collateral. Sure, we may produce one or many products—or interfaces—to “content.” But the product/content is not the end goal; the end goal is to effectively change customer engagement.Therefore, it’s not the things we make that are so important. What is important is the connection to information we help to broker AND the interfaces to that information (portals, courses, performance support tools, mobile apps) that really contribute to change in customer engagement—whether through interaction with employees or other offerings.What does this mean?We must begin to think with a service design approach, which is very different from simply developing a product. When we offer services powered by the Experience API (“Tin Can”), perhaps even using interaction patterns to provide real-time feedback, we not only design services that result in observable (infer: measurable) changes, we also design services that give feedback on how to continuously improve those services.This mindset then triggers a chain reaction: as we improve one piece of the offering suite that results in changes in customer interaction, we improve a whole host of objects/products that depend on that one piece, too. It also invites some larger questions:What conversations are we starting with our products?What services are we demonstrating with the objects we make and design for our peers (and/or our clients)?To what are we connecting our people?How are we leveraging the vast bodies of know-how available to us as curators?How are we making it easier to leverage such information?In a “Tin Can” world, we’re not just designing experiences because they’re more engaging. It’s not, as Julie Dirksen (@usablelearning) writes of creativity, “garnish on the plate.” Rather, we’re able to design services that lead to change that we can measure and (probably) see.

Design with Service in Mind

Michael Dalmaridis is the manager of learning and development at Meridian Credit Union in Toronto. He is an ATD Master Trainer and ATD Master Instructional Designer. He also has a BEd in adult education and a master of education in workplace learning and change.  Learning is more than a job to Michael. He’s passionate about learning in all aspects of his personal and professional life. He believes in providing learning solutions that adhere to best practices and is an advocate for an individual’s potential. He loves to share his knowledge—sometimes unsolicited to complete strangers.

Mike Dalmaridis

A common question I am asked when delivering workshops on applying learning science is “what’s the best way to teach someone \[insert topic or skill\]?” Or, “What is the best way to explain a particular topic or concept?”Let’s think about this. If I want to teach someone how to make a new kind of soufflé, what’s the best way to do it? It depends!I need to know things like:Does the person know how to cook at all?Do they want to know how to make this new kind of soufflé?Has the person ever made a soufflé before?Do they know how to separate egg whites from egg yolks?Do they know how to make a water bath in the oven? Do they even know what a water bath is?Do they know how to use a whisk and how to tell when the whites have been whisked just enough?How I help someone make a new kind of soufflé depends on all these things (and more). But what it doesn’t depend on is the person’s “learning style.”Here’s a truth: Cognitive psychologists have conducted in-depth reviews of the literature in search of well-designed studies showing clear evidence of a connection between instruction tailored to learning styles and differences in student outcomes. Their conclusions: “There is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice.”To be fair, the idea of people having different learning styles is appealing because it is intuitive. Just as height, head and foot size, and eye color and shape vary, people vary in their abilities.People are better at some things than others.Some people have an uncanny ability to remember faces, some can hear a piece of music and play it immediately, and others are extremely skilled at hand-eye coordination. Yes, we’re different, and we have certain preferences, interests, background knowledge, and motivations, but that doesn’t mean that the way we actually learn is better depending on our preferred modality of instruction.Back to the soufflé. Thinking about the “best” or optimal way to teach someone to make the new soufflé depends on the content, the context, the learner and their motivation, and how much they already know (their background or prior knowledge). To teach a complete novice how to make the soufflé, a video, an in-person demonstration, and some step-by-step, scaffolded practice would likely be needed. To the more seasoned soufflé maker, I could probably hand a printed recipe with the “innovative” part highlighted, and off they’d go.I am instructing neither person differently based on a stated “learning style.” Instead, I’m meeting them where they are and either starting from the very beginning and going over the basics using some visuals or live demonstrations, or letting them apply their prior knowledge and experience to learning a new recipe or technique.When I plan my workshops, I think about not discussing learning styles. It’s a subject people feel extremely passionate about, and it tends to stir up sometimes contentious, polarizing debates. Most importantly, these discussions can come at the cost of derailing otherwise productive discussions about improving teaching and learning using evidence that we know positively affects learning.Does it matter if some people believe that they have a “visual or an auditory learning style”? Is it really risky or damaging to keep this myth of learning styles alive?I think it does matter and here are some reasons why:Opportunity costs: As educators, we ought to think like scientists; consider the available evidence and tailor our teaching and learning practices to that. Trying to shape our teaching practices around individual learning styles comes at a cost; every moment of educator training or professional development spent figuring out ways to tailor instruction to learners' individual learning styles is an opportunity lost to help support the implementation of practices that have solid scientific support.Growth mindset: As well as costs in terms of time and money, another reason the notion of learning styles is risky is it creates the belief that certain people are unable, or less likely to learn because the material or mode of instruction is inappropriate for them. Talk about slamming the brakes on the idea of “growth mindset” (which interestingly, does not tend to stir up contentious debates and discussions).Telling people they can only learn in a certain way can both shape and constrain the way they approach learning. We have a tremendous capacity to adapt, change, and grow. It matters, therefore, for learners to believe they can grow and learn and are expected and encouraged to do so. Without that belief, people may lack the motivation to put in the mental effort and perseverance required to learn something new or get better at something. Learning is hard, and we do a disservice to learners if we let them believe otherwise or give them an “excuse” to give up on something they find more difficult.Square peg in a round hole: A person told they are a “visual learner” may try and process new content in the mode of their stated “learning style” even if the style does not fit the particular task. Or they might disengage from a high-quality learning experience because they think it won’t benefit them as it’s not in the “right” mode. This is an incredibly inefficient way to learn.Policy and practice reform: Misconceptions and myths about learning can impede education reform efforts at many levels. If a large percentage of people cling to beliefs on the benefits of a learning styles approach, they are less likely to support or engage with initiatives that oppose it. Some have used the analogy of climate change to illustrate this point. Skepticism and debate around climate change serves only to slow down meaningful policy action—even though there is broad consensus that climate change is real and poses a real risk to the future of our planet.Perhaps because most of us have encountered learning in some form, when we discuss ways to optimize learning, it can seem that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and that we don’t need to consider scientific data and evidence of efficacy. We do not all, however, have the same common experience with medical research, quantum mechanics, violin playing, or architectural design. This likely explains why we may be more willing to accept it when experts arrive at a consensus that a certain medical technique for knee-replacement surgery is no longer valid, or that a certain type of bridge design is better than another for a particular climate, than we are to accept that a common belief around learning is not based in evidence.In Think Again, Adam Grant wrote: “Scientific thinking favors humility over pride, doubt over certainty, curiosity over closure. If we believe we have already found the truth, then we stop searching for or recognizing gaps in our knowledge.” Grant uses the term “idea cults” for those who “preach the merits of their pet concept and ‘prosecute’ anyone who calls for nuance or complexity.”An admirable educational goal is to help make people better consumers of information. Equally so is the need to make educators and decision makers “critical consumers of scientific research” and to normalize the practice of evaluating research evidence. Surely this should trump the status quo of relying on personal beliefs and experiences and that which makes us “feel good”?My hope is that I can stop worrying about engaging in fruitless discussions about learning styles. This is because we are aware of and have respect for the wealth of excellent, reliable, robust research on how people learn and how to create effective learning experiences (details of which are outside the scope of this piece). And, perhaps most importantly, that we, in whatever teaching and learning role we play, continue to be open to evidence that calls into question existing beliefs, allows us to recognize gaps in our knowledge, and ultimately serves our goal of promoting long-term meaningful learning for all learners.

Just Because Learning Styles Is Intuitive, Doesn’t Make It True

Marcus Buckingham is known as the world’s most prominent researcher on strengths and leadership at work and today leads People + Performance research at the ADP Research Institute. Prior to his keynote session, Buckingham spoke with Connection Point about his background and experience and what he’ll share with ATD Virtual Conference attendees. Note: Be sure to complete the StandOut strengths assessment prior to Buckingham's keynote address at noon ET Friday.Your keynote presentation is about how to build strong teams through strengths. Why does this topic, more than ever, merit special attention for talent development professionals?For two reasons: All talent development happens in teams or it doesn’t happen at all. I, along with rest of the ADP Research Institute team, just finished a 19-country study of workplaces around the world, and 84 percent of respondents said they do most of their work on a team. And 75 percent of those respondents said they do their work on more than one team. All work is actually team work.When we think about talent development, we think about performance management; we think about goals—things at the individual level. And that’s not a terrible place to start. But real work always happens in collaboration; it always happens in combination; it always happens in teams. Now is an important time to think about what that means in terms of developing our talent and whether that development really happens in teams.The second reason is our increasingly virtual world. Even before the pandemic, there was increasing virtualization. We don’t know now how much virtualization we’re going to have in our world, but it’s going to be more than we had in February. So, in that context, the challenge for team leaders and for talent developers is how do you get to know people on your team? How can you know what you can rely on from the people on your team? How can you onboard people quickly onto your team? If you’re a team leader, how can you build trust with the people on your team? How do you do that virtually?It’s a challenge, although it’s not an impossible challenge at all. In fact, we have significant data that says that the most engaged teams in the world are those where the employees work from home four days a week. It’s not that virtual working situations prohibit real engagement; rather, it seems they may foster it somehow. Now is the perfect time for talent development professionals to be thinking about how to build teams when they don’t see each other’s faces except on the screen.All participants will complete the StandOut strengths assessment in advance of your keynote. Why is this an important step for professionals looking to identify and recognize their strengths?The Marcus Buckingham Company developed the StandOut Strengths Assessment a few years ago as a way for team leaders and team members to get to know each other quickly. As part of the COVID-19 pandemic, we’ve chosen to give it away. It’s a rigorous, carefully designed and built tool that more than 1 million people have taken. But I, along with the ADP Research Institute, felt that now, more than ever, we need a way to see ourselves, our colleagues, and others we care about through the lens of our strengths.In a world where we don’t actually physically see one another, StandOut is a way for us to see one another—and not through the lens of gender, race, intellectual accomplishment, or level in the company. Rather, we can see each other through one’s positive natural pattern, which you can call their strengths. As part of this session for the Virtual Conference, we didn’t want to just talk concepts but to give attendees tools.On Twitter, you have said that “engagement is about who you work with, not where.” Can you elaborate on that thought? Why is this important to understand?For the 19-country study I mentioned earlier, we asked a lot of questions that measured engagement, but we also asked individuals about their work situation—where they work, how often they go into the office, whether they have one full-time job or one part-time job, and so forth. The most engaging work status for people—and this was before the pandemic—was that they worked from home four out of five days. They work for a company full time—they like the security of that—but they have the freedom to set their schedule physically. What we discovered is that the status in which individuals are away from the office for that amount of time is an engaging work experience under one condition: that they felt part of a team.By far the strongest driver of engagement—in fact, individuals are 2.3 times more likely to be fully engaged—is whether people felt they were on a team and said they were on a team as compared to those who don’t. If people worked from home and aren’t part of a team, they’re disengaged; if they work in the office and aren’t part of a team, they’re disengaged. Feeling part of a team is the single greatest driver to engagement, and we found that working from home four out of five days, when combined with feeling part of a team, has a combination effect. Individuals are connected to a team but are still in charge of their own time. That is a state of mind, not a place. Engagement, collaboration, sense of team—those are states of mind, not physical places.After the conference is over, a lot of us are going to want to continue learning about the concepts you’ve shared. What are some great resources that you would recommend?While we’re all quarantined, I’ve been putting up education and learning resources primarily in two places (for free, of course). The first is Instagram, where I’ve been putting up videos and insights pretty much every day. The other is my YouTube TV channel, MarcusBuckingham TV, which is for our longer-form resources, for example, videos about what the nine StandOut roles mean and live sessions.ATD’s Virtual Conference was designed to provide a safe space for TD pros to come together to learn. What one thing have you learned that has made the greatest impact in your life?That my loves are not your loves. What I love, what I lean into, what lights me up, what ignites me and draws my attention are unique to me. The way I will find my way in life will come from me understanding what those loves are and taking it seriously and figuring out a way to turn them into contribution. They have nothing to do with you or my brother, sister, gender, race, age, or anything. They have to do with the unique clash of my chromosomes—that I’m a weird person and so is everyone else.And if you want to grow your talents or others’ talents, you have to begin by understanding that mine aren’t yours and never will be. Our beautiful, enduring uniqueness is the most important lesson I’ve learned in life.Share your ATD Virtual Conference experience on social media. #ATDVirtualConference

Building Strong Teams Through Strengths: A Q&A With Marcus Buckingham

Being a manager today is more complicated than ever before, especially when it comes to guiding, driving, and evaluating performance. With five generations now active participants in the workforce, managers are being asked to provide feedback more frequently and informally than they’re accustomed to. According to a recent study from SAP and Oxford Economics, the majority of non-Millennials surveyed (51 percent) say they prefer feedback in annual or quarterly doses, while two-thirds of Millennials (66 percent) say they want informal feedback monthly or weekly. So non-Millennial managers may think quarterly assessments are sufficient—but in reality, monthly check-ins would give their employees the direction they need to perform at their best. Why the Current Method Isn’t Effective When it comes to assessing prior contributions, most HR teams ask managers to check in with employees once, maybe twice a year. At that time, managers and employees fill out standardized forms and are forced to reflect on a large period of time. It has become increasingly clear that this is not the most effective way to improve performance and engagement. An issue with an employee may be left unresolved, and likely even forgotten, if left for a one-time check-in months later. Further, because managing happens on the fly, problems and opportunities arise at mostly unpredictable moments. Unless managers check in with their employees on an ongoing basis, they will have almost no influence on or insight into how satisfied they are, and whether they are on track to achieve their career goals. Problems With Eliminating Performance Reviews Some organizations have decided to remove standardization by eliminating performance reviews and rankings altogether, as shown by Accenture, highlighting how far HR teams are willing to go these days to fix the problem. But companies risk creating a gap in talent development when eliminating this process entirely, because the formal managerial accountability to motivate, train, and grow employees has been removed. Employee goals may lose alignment with business objectives, productivity can suffer, and frustrations may grow. It’s important to point out that no company completely gets rid of ratings and rankings. The act of rating involves placing employees in categories based on their value to the organization. Any time a company puts certain employees in a category that is perceived to be more beneficial than another, it has rated them. This also applies to giving out promotions, distributing merit increases based on a fixed budget, or offering a finite number of learning opportunities to the team. HR and management must work together to rate employees in a manner that is accurate, efficient, effective, and done in a way that increases employee productivity and engagement. How Can Talent Development Make a Manager’s Job Easier? Managers, HR, and talent development executives need to work together in order to recruit, develop, and retain talent. This relationship requires the full participation of all groups, augmented by newer processes and tools, with a focus on forward-looking performance management. No one can deny the importance of setting employee goals that are aligned to business objectives. However, rather than using performance management processes that focus solely on assessing past performance, managers can help employees accelerate performance by looking ahead at activities, achievements, and progress made toward future goals. Performance management doesn’t have to be only retrospective; it can also be proactive in driving employee development to meet specific business needs. The right balance between evaluation and development ensures continuous performance improvement. It is up to managers to ensure that employees stay on track by supporting regular goal alignment, providing ongoing coaching, and conducting frequent assessments. Similarly, it’s up to HR to support managers in making performance-focused conversations with their employees part of everyday work by providing tools that incorporate more mobile and collaborative capabilities. When a process is in place that is supported by HR, continuous feedback and more frequent conversations between managers and their employees can either augment or replace the formal performance review process. In the long run, this will save employees and managers the headache of remembering six months to a year of progress and save workers the frustration of not getting the quality, consistent performance feedback that they require. It’s important to note that every organization is different and there is no one-size-fits all solution—the combination of formal and informal processes and tools that makes sense for one company may not make sense for another. Some companies will find continued success with their once-a-year formal appraisal processes; others will discover that providing a framework for more frequent check-ins leads to more goals met and happier employees. It is all about looking at your organization and creating the right mix of performance management processes that work for you and that reflect your culture, values, and vision. Continuous Performance Management The expectations of the workforce are changing, and managers need to adapt to keep their best team members engaged and motivated. If not, the disconnect between how managers and employees view feedback will create frustration and lost productivity in the workplace. Because business is constantly changing, performance management should reflect this and adapt. By encouraging ongoing conversations rather than focusing only on once-a-year employee reviews, companies can better accommodate the future workforce. And by concentrating on upcoming projects, skills, and achievements rather than just looking at past performance, your managers will improve their teams’ future performance and your talent will continue to grow and succeed.

The Secret to Helping Managers With Performance Management

Many industry gurus have been quick to argue that the mere travel savings alone make e-learning solutions worth their weight in gold. Steve Cohen examines whether those claims have any merit?

Growing Talent Management Firms: To E or Not to E?

Dissatisfaction with performance management is at an all-time high. What’s more, performance management activities such as formal goal-setting processes, mid-year and year-end reviews, and extensive rating and calibration processes cost the average organization millions of dollars annually. Yet research shows individual performance management ratings have no correlation with business unit performance. Addressing an Urgent Challenge In response, some organizations have begun to modernize parts of their performance management approach to drive behaviors that are critical in today’s work environment, including: providing informal feedbacksetting clear expectationsworking collaboratively. A few very high-profile companies, including Microsoft and Adobe, have publicly and significantly changed their formal performance management processes. The majority of companies, however, are making incremental changes to performance management by taking more measured steps. With so much noise in the system, and so many different strategies being held up as the example for how to transform performance management, it’s difficult to know what’s right for your organization. What should be your organization’s goal when it comes to performance management? What is the fundamental purpose of performance management? When CEB asks organizations what they use performance management for, the top answers are:making decisions about pay, promotions, or other personnel actionsidentifying poor performers and holding them accountableproviding documentation to defend against legal challenges.But when we ask organizations what performance management should achieve for them, the answers are much more aspirational: help employees develop and growimprove communication between employees and managersalign individual work to achieving the organization’s goalshelp individuals and teams perform to their highest potential.The first list is decidedly administrative in nature, while the second reflects the desire for performance management to improve individual and organizational performance. However, performance management approaches that try to serve too many purposes will not serve any one purpose well. Finding the Underscoring Purpose Different types of decisions require different processes and criteria. For example, an employee’s annual merit increase is typically based on the organization’s budget, changes in the labor market for the specific job, the employee’s salary relative to her peers’ and her performance. In contrast, a decision about who to promote is based on performance and demonstrated potential to operate successfully at the next level. Ultimately, organizations must align their performance management approach with the purpose they most want to achieve. If the fundamental purpose of performance management is to help organizations maximize productivity by enabling employees to perform to their potential, the approach should be designed to accomplish the following three critical goals:Enable employees to align their efforts in a manner that contributes most to the organization’s goals.Equip employees with guideposts to monitor behavior and results and make adjustments in real time as needed to maximize performance.Help employees identify and remove barriers to performance. There is no single best design, but all organizations will realize the value of performance management if they 1) define the objectives they are trying to achieve and 2) focus squarely on the performance management practices and, especially, the behaviors that matter most in driving improved performance. Editor’s Note: The next installment of this blog series will examine the three shifts that companies must make to significantly improve performance management in today’s dynamic, complex work environment. You can learn more about how industry leaders build and sustain high-performance cultures at cebglobal.com.Check out similar articles: Your Employees Hate Your Performance Review

Search Results For "Mike Merit"

Compare Courses