310 Case101 Study: Increasing How to Drive Business Interactivity in Results through Virtual Classrooms Blended Learning Sandee Tracy Tagliati Rusiniak & Sivasailam SR Consulting Thiagarajan The Thiagi Group
Major Wireless Carrier Case Study March 23 25, 2011 Problem Statement The front line leadership training was designed ten years previous to fit the need of a new CEO entering the picture who wanted to evaluate the current leader effectiveness. The course was written to end in a pass/fail component with videotaped coaching session based on a coaching form the participants were required to follow. The workshop was very stressful for participants, due to the pass/fail component which was videotaped and shared with the participant s leader. If the participant failed the video assessment, they faced losing their job. The coaching form coincidentally was also used as a disciplinary form by the HR group. A survey was conducted to find out how many workshop participants were using the coaching form six months or more after completing the workshop. The results came back at less than 3%. This data combined with the annual employee survey results strongly indicated leaders were not effectively coaching in several departments of the organization. The survey also indicated a lack of accountability and timely feedback. Analysis A needs assessment was conducted by the Instructional Designer. Interviews were conducted with a sampling of past participants and their direct leaders. An interview was also conducted with the Chief Learning Officer to determine scope and direction of the new program. One of the findings of the analysis was that participants felt there were too many subjects covered in a five day program, and they were not able to retain most of the information that was covered. Because of the pre-workshop build up from peers and leaders about the pass/fail component of the video assessment, most participants admitted they only concentrated on what they needed to do to pass the assessment. The designer looked at the current training and associated materials. She researched what other front line managers in similar industries were learning and the expected performance levels. Current internal leader competency expectations were studied, and Sr. leaders in the organization were interviewed. Page 1
Challenges The biggest challenge was change management. There was some resistance to the program change from key stakeholders. The Chief Learning Officer had a strong personal attachment to the current training program. Several of the SME s and Instructors were also very involved in the original design and were very resistant to the major changes being discussed. The Instructional Designer conducted extensive research about success in other similar leadership programs, and built a strong business case including how costs would be reduced significantly. She also included how the application statistics would increase. Second challenge was the hurdle of obtaining buy in from the leaders in the field, since the new program was perceived as additional work for them. The Instructional Designer worked with corporate communications team to create a strategy which included the input from the field leaders. The communication stressed the benefits of a new program, showing leaders how additional time was not needed, but would require a change in behavior for how they used their current time with participants. Instructional Strategy The instructional strategy was partially influenced by the book by Kenneth Blanchard, titled Know Can Do. This methodology suggests that a participant needs to be exposed to the material they are learning several times in order to retain it. The Instructional Designer decided to use several different techniques to present the material more than once. The delivery method decision was to have a blended approach. Because of the desire from the Chief Learning Officer to retain an assessment component, and the need to build more accountability into the program, the blended approach made the most sense. Pre-work The three major content pieces chosen for pre-work were assertive communication Situational Leadership II, and setting expectations. The pre-work content consisted of e-learning courses from which participants were required to take notes. They were informed that they would be facilitating a dialogue from their notes at the workshop with their peers, and they did not know in advance which of the subjects they would be presenting. Page 2
Participants were also given a worksheet to complete to help them prepare a Leadership Teachable Point of View. This is a process where the participant spends time reflecting on what events in the past helped form who they are and how they make decisions today. They were expected to conduct a 15 minute presentation at the workshop. Workshop The first morning of the workshop, participants share their point of view presentation with their table groups. This presentation causes participants to be authentic and open up to each other. This begins a bond and builds trust between participants that has proven to make the workshop experience more meaningful. Each participant was given a road map to begin on the first day of the workshop. The map contained five leadership roles which were associated with the organization s leadership competencies. The expectation was that all participants would work through the week filling in the map, documenting their strengths, opportunities and needs for each of the five roles. They were also expected to determine what they would hold themselves accountable, for how they would grow people and business results, and how they would hold others accountable (for each role). At the end of each section of training, participants were given reflection time to fill in their maps on what they selfdiscovered. Each section of training began with participants facilitating a table dialogue from their notes taken while completing the per-work elearning courses. The facilitator covered some additional content and application examples. The participants then paired up to practice the conversations they would be assessed on during role plays. The assessments were conducted in a round robin format with peers and facilitators providing feedback after each pair completed the role play assessment. The participants worked in table groups of six with one facilitator at the table. Post Workshop The post workshop began with a debrief session with the participant, their leader, and a representative from the Associate Relations group. At the first meeting the road map was shared, and conversations for planning next steps for completing the action plan committed to during the workshop were held. Leaders were provided a leader support guide that walked them through every step of the post workshop process. The guide contained information on roles and responsibilities (of all parties involved in the post workshop), the content, and suggested questions to spark dialogue for each of the worksheets. Page 3
For the next 7 weeks, the participant and leader worked through worksheets provided to discuss each of the five leadership roles and outcomes of actions taken to as agreed to during the debrief. At the end of the 8 week period, the participant filled out a summary worksheet which captured the follow-on work that was completed since the workshop. The summary sheet contained the tasks that went well, and any challenges the participants had in completing their road map action plan. A conference call was scheduled for 8 weeks after the workshop, and participant attendance was mandatory. A level three evaluation survey was sent to each participant, and they were required to submit it before the conference call. If the participant did not attend the conference call or submit the level three surveys, they were not marked as complete for the workshop. There was also a separate conference call for the leaders of the participants to share their wins and challenges in the post-workshop process. The accountability of leader attendance was reinforced by the Executive Vice President of Human Resources who also attended the post-workshop leader call. Table Top Review The new course was presented to the Chief Learning Officer, and to the SME s of the project. It was accepted with a couple of small changes. Content was developed, and the workshop was scheduled for pilot. Pilot Train the Trainer A train the trainer was conducted before the pilot. Participants were the facilitators who would be conducting the pilot and the Instructional Designer. During the TTT the participants practiced the activities, and also the assessment process. A few minor changes were made based on results of the practice sessions. Page 4
Pilot The pilot was conducted with 12 participants, with a mix of departments represented. Three participants were from the customer service organization, three were from retail sales, three from engineering and three from IS. The experience of the participants ranged from 10 years of management experience with other organizations to newly promoted leaders with little or no management experience. Two facilitators conducted the pilot with the assistance of the Instructional Designer. Participants were seated at tables of four, mixing up departmental and geographical areas as much as possible. At the conclusion of the pilot workshop, the instructional Designer did one-on-one feedback interviews with the participants. Participants shared what they learned, and what they planned to do differently when returning to the job. The feedback was very positive and robust. Examples from the comments made by participants were: I m excited, motivated it changed my life! Things are going great! I was asked to help train a new manager! One week after the class I got my new team, including 5 new hires! I got to use Situational Leadership right away, and it works. I also explained my leadership POV and set expectations with each team member. I read my LDW binder every day. I ve worked with and assisted 3 teams since the class; people say it (LDW) has changed me personally. I m holding others accountable now. I am using LDW learning totally! I m motivated & excited LDW gave me a kick in the pants! I m excited and confident! I ve got my team now, and we re going good. Feedback interviews were also completed with the leaders of the participants. Some examples of comments from the leaders were: Josh has learned how to do effective self-discovery questions. Before LDW he was telling, not asking questions. He also has a very positive morale, and spreads it to his team and peer group. Ashley is more direct in her conversations than she was before attending LDW. She is less emotional and better able to handle conversations than she was before. I have seen Ashley using the dynamic coaching model regularly and it allows her to drive and follow through on her commitments. She is more succinct and direct, and her team appreciates and responds much better to her. Page 5
After Action Review After completion of the pilot, an After Action Review meeting was held with the Instructional Designer and the facilitators of the pilot. Discussions took place about the changes that would need to be made, based on the results of the pilot. It was agreed that a couple of content areas would need to be moved to another time spot, and more time was needed for practicing before one of the assessments. It was also decided to remove one piece of content and put it in an appendix in the back of the participant guide for after hours reading. Transfer of training went from 3% from the old curriculum to 94% with the new version. Lessons Learned Because of accountability expectations, HR associate relations should have been included up front as a stakeholder. Better communication was needed and commitment from the participant s leader up front. The requirement that all participant s leaders engage in pre-workshop conference call was difficult to manage due to work schedules of field placed participants. The post-workshop paper process (worksheet) was difficult to manage, not all participants had fax machines conveniently available. Also leaders were not always available to sign worksheet as being complete. Changes We Have Made HR Associate Relations Representatives are included in the post-workshop process. An Impact Map is used as part of pre-work process Changed from a road map linked to competencies to Impact Map which is linked to participant s personal goals and has a clear line of sight to business result connection Participants now set three goals with their leader for what they are expected to achieve during the training before attending so they understand what is expected of them Pre-workshop call is now a pre-recorded Webinar Participants and leaders must complete the Webinar instead of a pre-workshop conference call. This addressed the problem of scheduling everyone for one time over several locations and time zones. If participants or leaders have questions during the webinar, they contact the facilitator of the workshop and get their questions answered. Page 6
Some content was removed and added to after hours reading. (Less is better) Moved to an automated follow-up system that measures results. Instead of faxing a paper based worksheet, participants now post their results on a collaborative learning site. Participant s leaders are expected to respond to the post and facilitators provide feedback. The automated system tracks progress of the participant, and if posts are not made as expected, they get email reminders and their leader also receives the notice. Facilitators can go in at any time and view the progress of the participant. The automated system also produces reports that give the training department insight into areas of strengths and areas of opportunities. Page 7