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

Emil Minev is a senior L&D consultant and program manager at Paysafe. He is an L&D expert with more than 15 years of experience in global organizations. He joined Paysafe in 2015, where he leads the training agenda for more than 3,000 employees worldwide. In his role, Minev is responsible for designing, developing, and delivering award-winning, leadership and management development programs, as well as supporting key business initiatives, by managing selected development programs across the organisation. Prior to Paysafe, Minev gained extensive experience delivering learning solutions in Europe, the Middle East, and Asia, as well as managing people development, performance management, and employee engagement programs in multinational organizations such as HP and Coca-Cola.

Emil Minev

June 2021 - TD Magazine

After experiencing marked growth and expansion, Paysafe changed its strategy for identifying and nurturing high-potential employees.

The Rise of Front Runners

 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

How often have you leaned across your desk or paused in an office doorway to ask a colleague a question? Or raised your eyebrows at a team member during a meeting with a tricky client, in silent, supportive communication? Along with water cooler conversations, these small confidences and day-to-day interactions are the building blocks of great working relationships. But what happens if those you work closest with are spread across oceans, borders and time zones? Can you still build the same quality of relationship with a virtual teammate? Not too long ago it would have been almost impossible. Sitting many thousands of miles apart from your colleagues, the constraints of different time zones, traditional communications technology, languages, and cultural norms would have created a tangible block to great relationship building. Indeed, in my last blog, “Bagels: The Secret to Building a High-Performing Virtual Team,"  I discussed the importance of building trust and rapport in teams. Central to this is the ability to absorb body language cues, participate in informal chat, and pay attention to the tone of voice—all of which are tough to convey remotely. So how do you overcome these challenges and build a strong virtual team? Technology can certainly play an important role. With the rapid advancement of social media platforms, web-based video conferencing, and real-time chat capability, technology has transformed the accessibility of disparate global teams and the ability to bring them closer together. Numerous web-based services offer free or low-cost video conferencing, messaging facilities, file sharing, and other resources that can enable even the most dispersed of teams to feel more closely connected.  In fact, I often find that many of these resources are already built into the information management system used by my corporate clients. However, only a fraction of the capability is generally used. So, why not explore what may already be at your fingertips—and make it work for you. As with many aspects of business, you’ve got to get the basics right. In the busy world of work, basic courtesy often gets left behind, and that’s no less true of virtual teams as it is with those who sit together in an office. I often find there can be a tendency for global team members to fire off emails to each other as their day ends, leaving colleagues on other continents to arrive in the office to a full inbox of demands. Treat global colleagues as you would those sitting next to you, with courtesy and friendliness.  When in doubt, pick up the phone and talk to your colleagues at a mutually convenient time, or use instant messenger for a quick chat. Then you can follow up by email once both parties are “on the same page.” Of course, a “mutually-convenient time” can be a challenge for some global teams. I would argue that on most global conference calls you will find at least one person who would rather be in bed. One of my Japanese clients, for example, is almost permanently exhausted by his bi-weekly 2:00 a.m. team call.  Everyone else on the team didn’t think it was a problem because he has never complained about it, whereas in reality he was simply being polite—as is the cultural norm in Japan. It’s common sense, really. Think about something fun you like doing with a friend, like swimming.  Now consider the only time your friend invites you to swim is at 2:00 am, after they get off their night shift.  Would you look forward to a 2:00 a.m. swim?  Probably not, and that’s for something you like doing! It’s even worse when it’s a business meeting that’s keeping you from a good night’s sleep. When working across multiple time zones, it’s important to choose meeting times that work for everyone, not just your own schedule. At the very least, schedule meetings at different times so everyone shares the pain!  Another key tip in creating great communication across the globe is to choose the right mode of communication channels for the audience. For instance, one of my clients is a large global pharmaceutical company doing business in over 100 countries. They have quickly learned how critical it is to choose the right communication technology to communicate with local doctors and hospital staff when conducting time-sensitive clinical trials. “Taiwanese and Malaysian doctors prefer to be contacted by phones and not email, but Singapore doctors don’t like phone calls. They prefer emails or going through a third party coordinator,” a senior clinical research associate told me. “If we use the wrong mode of communication, we may not get any responses at all!” Finally, try to create an opportunity to replicate those small interactions that happen all the time between colleagues who sit in the same office. They are the glue that bonds individuals and turns them into teams. A client of mine works for a Chinese/U.S. firm, with teams from both countries supporting the same major Korean customer. On conference calls with the customer, the U.S. team frequently finds it hard to understand business terms used and points made by the Korean customer. The team use a private chat facility, during the call, to quickly discuss or explain points to each other and compare notes. This enables them to acknowledge shared challenges and present a more effective and united position to their shared customer. Here are five tips for using technology to build a productive and cohesive virtual team.  Take advantage of what’s out there. Good communications technology no longer comes with a high price tag. In fact, there’s a lot of it out there for free. Talk to your systems team and find out what facilities your company has already that could assist your global team. If not, try Google.Be flexible and considerate. As a good colleague of mine, who is based in Houston and has team members in Dubai and Afghanistan, puts it: “I start my day as my team ends theirs!” As a global team leader, it’s not possible to create effective team communication without a little give or take on time management.Encourage different modes of communication. Choose the right ones for each job. People have a variety of preferences in terms of how they receive and share information.  A sound principle for all communication—not just in relation to global teams—is to use different methods to get your point across encompassing text, video and voice options.  Create an informal mode of communication to encourage “chat.” Instant messenger is widely available and a standard feature on most information management applications. Indeed, it is actively encouraged by many firms as a fast and easy way of swapping messages between colleagues.Make sharing part of the culture. There are a host of file-sharing tools available, such as Lotus Notes, Google Docs, Dropbox, that allow teams to document technical procedures and share resources and information. These tools also enable global companies to maintain consistency, reduce duplicated effort, and ensure quality control across their various countries of operation. Building a strong virtual team is one of those occasions when business can learn much from social media. Building communities, sharing files, and bridging geography and time zones is what the likes of Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook do best. Yet global business has been relatively slow to adopt and adapt social media for its own uses, even when the technology has been available. By activating some simple and cost-effective tools, I have seen how easy it can be to create a virtual water cooler, replicating the important moments that we take for granted in face-to-face communication and, in doing so, building rapport and understanding between people who live and work in opposite corners of the world. What strategies do you use to build an effective virtual team? Share you ideas in the Comments below.

Create Your Own Virtual Water Cooler

In my previous post, I discussed how typical mentoring programs often lack support and guidance for mentors. Mentors can be the linchpin in an employee’s development. Neglecting them risks everything mentoring programs are trying to accomplish.But what happens when, despite all your best efforts, you need to let your mentors go from the program?Moment Number 2: Keep Your Coffee Warm and Your Clients Happy by Developing a Mentoring Contingency PlanOne morning, I had just sat down at my desk with a fresh cup of coffee when I saw several new emails come through with the subject line, “Urgent: New Mentor Needed.” This organization had implemented a new annual cycle of their formal high-potential mentor program a few weeks earlier. This was the second cycle in the current format and everything had been going well—until now.As I skimmed through the lively email discussion, my coffee got cold on my desk. It turned out that one executive had strong objections to the mentor his direct report had been matched with. The mentor—let’s call him Connor—had left a really bad impression on the executive a few years back. Even though the match had been made with a lot of care—individual development plan goals and performance review strengths were matched along with DiSC-style profiles—the relationship was not going to be approved.The executive was so upset over the situation that he was calling the entire process into question. He had such a poor view of this one mentor that it colored his view of the entire program, and he was starting to get vocal about it. Everything else in my day stopped so I could get on the phone with all the parties involved and work through the situation.Let me stop for a moment to acknowledge the elephant in the blog post. This is one of the reasons that many people are proponents of informal mentoring programs, as well as formal programs in which the mentees are solely responsible for finding their mentors. Had this particular mentor-mentee matching process been different, the executive may not have been surprised and the firestorm could have been avoided. There is no doubt that in many situations, other options are far superior to the formal administration of mentor matches I’ve described. However, in this case, for this organization, and for the goals targeted by this program, we chose to pursue a more formal process.That morning, I spent a good amount of time reviewing other beneficial matches with the upset executive and some of the leadership team. Eventually, with my untouched coffee on my desk, I was able to remind everyone involved why we were doing things the way we were, and return my customers to a state of satisfaction. But, the fact remained: Connor was out of the program as a mentor.I could argue that the feedback due to Connor was not mine to give, but in any case, I was the one who had to make the call. Here are the main points I prepared for my conversation:Thank you for volunteering to mentor others; this is a critical need for the organization.Originally, we matched you with a mentee working on XYZ skills, which we know are strengths of yours.Unfortunately, the mentee’s supervisor does not believe that you will be a good mentor for his employee, and has asked us to remove you from the current pool of mentors.Because this program requires several critical parts to hit our target of developing our leaders, we not only need skilled mentors, we also need buy-in from supervisors to make this work.While I do not have more details for you about the feedback, I’m happy to answer any other questions you might have about this decision.If you are still interested in pursuing a mentor position within the program, my suggestion is that you work on the feedback directly with the executive, so we can look forward to bringing you into the program in the future.My intention was to be respectful but honest about the situation. As someone external to the situation, I was obligated to follow through and remove Connor. At the same time, I wanted to make sure Connor saw the opportunity for his own growth and development by working on the feedback he was provided.After this situation, a couple of really valuable lessons about mentoring programs were reinforced for me:Before implementing a mentoring program, be sure to describe the ways in which a mentor or a mentee might be removed from the program and what that process would look like. This might include removal as a result of poor evaluations, supervisor requests, low performance on the job, withdrawal for personal reasons, and so on.Don’t ever surprise your customers, whether internal or external. Remember to communicate early and often with all customers involved in a mentoring program to avoid emergencies like this one. Your customers most likely will include mentees and their supervisors, mentors and their supervisors, program administrators, and program champions or sponsors.I don’t enjoy giving bad news, such as firing mentors. However, I know that Connor did take my advice, sought out the executive, and eventually became a great mentor in the program.Learning from experience means helping us avoid similar risks in the future. There will continue to be days when my coffee sits cold and forgotten on my desk while I’m putting out fires, but as I learned from one of my own mentors, “Every day I win or I learn.” I’m so grateful that the situation with Connor came up and taught me such valuable lessons about working with my customers, and that it turned out well for him, too.I hope that these posts on supporting your mentors and learning how to fire your mentors have been helpful. The third and final post in the series will discuss measuring progress within the mentoring relationship.

Why It's Important to Develop a Mentoring Contingency Plan

Clark Aldrich, in his insightful blog several months ago, said "As I work with organizations in developing e-learning, I am increasingly aware of dead elephants in the room, large reference points that we have to avoid because we can't wrap our minds around them." He then went on to give several examples, where we talk about one thing (the traditional approaches and methods), and do not bring up the related Dead Elephants of e-learning (the new, innovative tools and techniques). Clark ended his post by asking readers "What are some other dead elephants?"In the 10 comments that followed, Godfrey Parkin touched upon what I think is not only a dead elephant, but the huge rotting carcass of a Wooly Mammoth. He said "One very large elephant that nobody wants to talk about is the increasing marginalization (and ultimate demise) of centralized training, and its implications for training departments as we have known them."That was the point of the Snake Oil post. Back then, when it was first published, it was a wake up call for those of us who worked in corporate training departments. Back then, a lot of people paid attention and responded.As I understood the post, the purpose was to start a dialogue, to try and build a business case and discover a migration path from what Sam called "Snake Oil" - training that had been proven NOT to work - to new approaches that DO work (e.g. affective and cognitive learning, mentoring, collaboration, database-driven embedded and portable WIFI 'performance' systems, etc.). In Sam's words, it was an opportunity for us to be " rated on whether you save or make money (or both) for the company."Two years later, after the alarm was sounded, it seems as if many of us have not only gone back to sleep, we're disappearing.People left inside corporate training organizations are still selling Snake Oil. To quote a friend of mine, "This is professional suicide." The new (now old in PC years) learning and knowledge transfer methods that the Snake Oil post listed are still not being discussed or widely adopted.The reason I thought the Snake Oil post was so important - I remember forwarding it to almost everyone on my email contact list - was that it was a chance to bring the Dead Elephants to life and have them enter the room. By doing so, I thought we could move away from the old Snake Oil approach, and begin to employ and incorporate the more readily measurable methods and tools into our work. The net result would have been several years of providing corporate education that would have had a more visible impact upon performance and profitability.Because we did not take the Snake Oil post either to heart or to work, that window of opportunity is lost. And the consequences are apparent.I recently read some research about our industry by Ambient Insights that shows that we - corporate trainers - are gradually going away. We are moving from inside the corporation, where we might have had a tremendously valuable impact, especially in the Knowledge Economy, to the outside. In 2004, there were about 75,000 corporate training professionals in this country. The trends towards off-shoring, outsourcing, downsizing and capsizing indicate that by 2008 there will be about 45,000 of us left.Most of us will be working for companies outside the corporation. As an outside vendor, our influence and impact upon corporate decision making, with regard to education and training, will be minimized. And if the trend continues, and we cannot break away from using Snake Oil, more than 75-80% of us by 2011 will be looking in from the outside, as we develop and deliver corporate training programs .The upshot of all this is that 6 years from now, by 2012, only 20,000 of us (or less) will be working inside companies as part of a training department. As Godfrey Parkin said, we will be even more marginalized, our ideas for innovation and new approaches even more discounted, and our primary role will be as project managers of outsourced contracts. The majority of us will work for outside companies as low paid and/or contract workers. And becasue there will still be money in Snake Oil, that's probably what they will sell.I had high hopes, when the original post was first published, that we could change direction. I knew that we were NOT on the right path every time I bent over backwards, using some clever new system, to try and prove an ROI for a training program. I was looking forward to a new and exciting dialogue about the different role we could play. I was envisioning a more rapid adoption of the innovative methods of learning that were surfacing as part of the Digital Revolution.I had even hoped we could broaden our scope to learn what was going on outside the workplace, look at what was being done in the government, the military, Grades K to 12, and post-secondary schools. My goal back then was to reverse the trends, move away from just being 'the training department', jettison the canned Snake Oil approach, and move onto a better track that could help us become more valuable and valued by our companies.And so, two years later, the infamous Snake Oil blog is posted once again. I still believe, despite the trends, that it's not too late, that those of us inside the company can still change what we are proposing and doing, get away from what measurably does no good (Snake Oil), to what works better if not best. I look forward to 'walking the talk', using the newer and more collaborative technology of the wiki, to discuss the possibilities posited by the Snake Oil blog. As Andrew Williams wrote in his response, perhaps the original post can still be viewed as "an inflection point" in the history of this industry.

Search results for 'Emil Minev'

Categories

Refine By