Application of training

DEC’s Networks University – Part 1

About 10 years ago, the company for which I was working hired a new vice president of sales.  I saw in the announcement that she had worked for Digital Equipment Corporation and that her time there overlapped with my own 11 years there.  One day, I stopped in to see her.  I told her that her name was familiar and she said that my name rang a bell as well.  She asked me what I did there and I said that, among other things, I had created a program called Networks University.  “Oh!” she exclaimed.  “I just loved Networks U.  I’ve never seen anything like it, before or since.  It was just the best program.”  And this was more than 20 years later.

While subsequent posts will provide background on the creation and operation of Digital Equipment Corporation’s (DEC) Networks University, here are some basic statistics on this remarkable program.  While it took a few years to get everything up to speed, once we got there we were running Networks University:

  • Twice a year in the U.S. for an audience of around 600 people
  • Twice a year in Europe for an audience of around 400 people
  • Once a year in the Pacific Rim for an audience of around 200 people
  • Each week-long program included 40 to 70 separate sessions, ranging from one hour to three days
  • For each 6-month cycle, 80% of the content was brand new
  • In terms of the content of the session, it was all planned by 2 to 3 people (more were involved in the logistics of the events)

Network U was unique, not just for Digital, but in the computer industry (we had many people hired from other computer companies attending the program and they said that their previous companies had nothing to compare).  Networks U was not a “training program” in the traditional sense, but more of a “learning event” where everyone in the networks world (sales, field service, software services, marketing, engineering, support groups, etc., came together to share what they had learned and to learn from each other.

When you walked into the hotel where we held a session, there was an electricity in the air, an excitement that I have never experienced in any other program I created or attended.

Did everything work perfectly?  Of course not.  With each iteration of the program, we made improvements and corrected things that didn’t go so well in previous programs.

My hope is that by sharing my experiences with the program other training professionals can benefit from my own experiences.  In the next blog entry, I’ll provide some background on Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), a company that pioneered the mini-computer.  While DEC no longer exists, at its height around 1987 employed 125,000 people around the world.

Academic vs. Policy Research — Standards for the Training Profession

Academic Research vs. Policy Research – Standards for the Training Profession

I often make the distinction between academic research and policy research when discussing standards for the training profession.

With academic research, methodology is the sine qua non.  When you want to earn a Ph.D. in any field, you study the methodologies of that field.  Your oral exams test whether you have mastered the methodologies used in that field.  When you write a dissertation, it is judged not so much on getting positive results, but on whether you have followed the methodologies correctly.

In policy research, a decision maker may say “I have to make a decision on this matter in two weeks.  Get me as much information as you can in that time frame so that I can make the best, most informed decision possible.”  With policy research, it is not that methodology is unimportant, but that making the decision in the time given is more important.

The profession of training is rooted in academic research.  Therefore, we believe, if we follow the methodology, the result must be good.  Unfortunately, this can result in sub-optimal results.  If we cannot have training ready when it is needed, we have failed.  If we cannot meet the needs of our employer, we have failed.

One definition of a professional is a person who puts more weight on the standards of his profession than on the needs of his employer.  Certainly, this is a good thing in many fields.  We don’t want a CPA to put false numbers in the annual report to benefit her employer.  We don’t want our doctors to decide on a course of treatment because the hospital with which they are affiliated needs the business.  But, as training professionals, do we have a similar code of ethics to guide us?

Many years ago, I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) – a company that no longer exists but that, at its height in the mid-1980s employed 125,000 people around the world.  DEC had a large Educational Services organization – 1500 employees – responsible for all internal and customer training and documentation.

DEC’s Educational Services group had been built on an academic research model – methodology was everything.  There was a 5-inch binder that specified that methodology – everything from how to write a question for a needs assessment to what font sizes to use in student materials.  The quality of any project was measured on how well you followed the methodology.  Was the methodology a good one?  Well, the company often won industry awards for the quality of its customer training materials.  And the organization did a lot of groundbreaking research, for example with the introduction of the Interactive Video Instructional System (IVIS) that was the forerunner (in the early 1980s) of today’s e-learning.

In the computer industry of the 1970s and 1980s, a new mini-computer (DEC’s main business) took three to five years to develop.  Therefore, there was a lot of time available to follow the strict methodologies mandated by the organization.  But with the advent of new engineering and manufacturing processes in the later 1980s, the development cycle for new products became shorter and shorter.  The Educational Services methodology specified that it took 12 to 18 months to develop a new program.  When the product development cycle became 9 month or less, Educational Services couldn’t meet the demand using the existing methodologies.  Unfortunately, the organization was so tied to its methodologies (“That the way we have always worked and it is the way we will continue to work!”) that it could no longer meet the needs of the company.

In the mid-1980s, I was recruited by a newly-formed Networks and Communication (NaC) business unit to lead all training efforts related to its set of products and services.  At the time, I was employed by the Educational Services organization.  The first thing I was asked to do was to examine how the company trained its sales and sales support personnel on these products and services.  After conducting my own needs assessment by talking with everyone in the NaC organization and with samples of field personnel, I concluded that Educational Services, using its existing methodologies, was not getting the job done.  So I developed a new model for NaC training and presented it to the management team of Educational Services.  I was told, “That’s not how we do things.”  I explained why the current methodologies could not meet the needs of this rapidly-growing business unit, and was told, “That’s not the way we do things.”

These were professionals – they were more tied to their academia-based methodologies than to the needs of their employer.

The result of this conflict was that I left Educational Services and went to work for the NaC marketing group to implement my plan, which would later become known as Networks University.  In subsequent blog posts, I will tell the remarkable story of Networks University – a very successful model for training that was unique not just for DEC but for the computer industry of the time.

A Plethora of Models — Why so many and how do you choose?

Choose any training topic — leadership, coaching skills, performance management, etc., etc., and you will find any number of books, articles, training programs, and consultants with their own “unique” approach, guaranteed to be the “definitive model.”

Back in the 1980s, when I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC), I was involved with the company’s engineering and manufacturing organizations around the topic of Quality.  At the time, there were three major experts identified with the quality movement, each with books, training programs, consulting engagements, and large followings across many industries.  DEC had a unique culture, where people were encouraged to experiment with different approaches and find the solution that worked for them.  In the quality arena, there were adherents to all three of these approaches, and the people who belonged to each school of thought had their own success stories and an almost xenophobic dislike for the adherents of the other approaches.  Because the culture would not allow any one person to mandate that one of the three approaches would be implemented company-wide, more time was wasted arguing over the “best” approach than in implementing any approach.

Which approach was the best?  I didn’t have the answer then, and I don’t have it now.  Each of the approaches had its adherents and its wonderful success stories.  But the one thing that the success stories from all three approaches had in common was that a company selected a single approach and implemented it across the company.  And it was the dedication to a single approach and the alignment of the entire organization to that approach that made the difference.

When I first came to the American Management Association (AMA) to lead the design and development of its programs, I did a quick analysis of all the programs in its catalog that were targeted at first-line managers.   There were more than half-a-dozen, and each of them included some instruction on coaching skills.  And each, ranging from one hour to several days of instruction on the topic, had its own model — a 3-step model, a 5-step model, a 9-step model, etc.  The models were all different, but they were really all the same.  The biggest difference in the models was how detailed each model was in its explanation.  I argued for my entire 4 years at the AMA (without much success) that we should have a single model that could be used across all programs.

In a previous job, where I was the one-person director of employee development, I got certified to teach a particular coaching skills program and taught that program to hundreds of managers across the company. Was the program I chose the “best in the field?”  I don’t know — I guess it depends of what you are looking for and what criteria you use to evaluate the many programs out there in the marketplace.  Why did I choose this particular program?  Because it was the right length for my audience, it covered the subject matter well, and it included a lot of in-class practice to help people master the skills it taught.  Could I have been as successful if I had chosen to adopt some other program?  Sure — as long as it met my evaluation criteria.  I chose this one because the training certification program for it was being given locally, was reasonably priced, and was offered when I was looking to start the program.

So, why are there so many different coaching models, so many different approaches, so many books on coaching skills, so many training programs?  The answer is pretty simple.  If I am a consultant or a trainer and I go to a potential client and say “Bob Smith has a terrific 4-step coaching model that I teach in my classes,” the client would (or should) start thinking: “If Bob Smith’s model is so great, maybe we should hire Bob Smith to come teach it to our people.”  That’s what I would do.  So, if I want to get this potential client signed up, what do I say to make my case?  “You know, Bob Smith has a very well-known and successful 4-step model for coaching skills.  But I have found that by adding two more steps to the model, I can make it even better.  Therefore, you should hire me to teach my 6-step model and your people will get the best solution in the marketplace.”  Is my 6-step model really better than Bob Smith’s 4-step model (or better than every other model out there)?  Probably not.  But only by differentiating my product from the others in the marketplace can I distinguish what I am selling.

This is not to say that there are not different approaches to teaching coaching skills and there are some real differences between these different approaches, just as there were three different approaches to implementing a quality program.  What is important is not to get overwhelmed by the plethora of models and programs being offered.  Study the field.  Look at the major approaches and select the one model that you think will work best in your culture.  Once you have selected a model, look at the alternative training programs being offered that use that model and choose one.  Don’t get overwhelmed by the plethora of choices.  Don’t get stuck in “analysis paralysis” model.  If you want to be successful in introducing coaching skills (or quality or any other program) to your organization, choose an approach — one approach — and implement it across the organization so that people are getting the same training, using the same skills, using a common vocabulary — these will be major factors in your success.

I’m back!

Please pardon my absence from blogging for a while.  Early this year I had an unfortunate heart attack that sidelined me for several months.  Now, with three stents in my coronary arteries, and completing a multi-month course of cardiac rehab, I am now in good health and feeling good.

In my 40+ years in the training/learning field, I have been fortunate to have a number of managers who allowed me to try new ideas which, for the most part, resulted in very successful programs.  While I have written 7 books on corporate and individual learning strategies, I still have many stories to tell.  I plan now to write a long series of blogs and articles to help transfer some of my experience to others.

I have been pleasantly surprised throughout my career where I have suggested new approaches that seemed simple to me, but had never occurred to the people I worked with.  In these blogs, I plan to relate many of these stories.  Some of my colleagues may find some of these stories simplistic and obvious, but my hope is that some of these stories may spark an idea for some of my colleagues.  In other blogs, I will share some of my own philosophy of learning and development that I hope at least some of my readers will find useful or, at least, challenge them to rethink how they do things — even if they decide that their current practices fit their situations perfectly, it never hurts to consider other ideas.

I hope that, through this series and through my earlier books, writings, and presentations, I can establish my legacy for the field.

Dan Tobin

Feeding Your Leadership Pipeline

AN EFFECTIVE LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT MODEL – Part 2-B: Educational Sessions and Action-Learning Projects
The four elements of the leadership development program (LDP) model are as follows:

– Formal Education Sessions
– Action-Learning Projects (ALPs)
– Individual Development Plans (IDPs)
– Mentoring and Coaching

In this blog post, I’ll focus on the first two elements: formal educational sessions and associated action-learning projects. The last two elements will be the focus of a future blog post.

Formal Education Sessions

As mentioned earlier, the topics for these sessions include topics related to not just leadership skills, but also execution skills and business acumen. I am also talking here about a series of education sessions, ideally 8 sessions scheduled quarterly over a two-year period. (Remember that a single session on any topic, no matter how good it is, is unlikely to transform a group of Hi-Pos into instant leaders.) There are dozens of potential topics for these sessions and the LDP should encompass a mix of the three areas, with the exact topics being chosen to match the needs of your Hi-Po group as perceived by the organization’s leadership team.

It is important that the Hi-Po group see the connection between each session topic and the needs of the organization. The best way of ensuring this connection is to get the organization’s leadership team involved in each session. In my book, I have an entire chapter on potential roles for the organization’s leadership to play in the LDP.
Each educational topic will lead to a group or individual action-learning project, as will be discussed below.

Action-Learning Projects

Action-learning projects (ALP) require the LDP participants to immediately start applying what they learned in each educational session. A lot of research has shown that retention of educational material increases dramatically when people start using the content immediately.
With education sessions scheduled once a quarter, this allows a three-month window for each ALP. Some of these projects should be assigned to teams of participants, with each team chosen for diversity of business unit, function, and geography, and some to individual participants. I suggest that the first several projects be team projects to help participants build ties with other participants.

What types of ALPs should be assigned? There are several considerations here. First, remember that the participants will be working on the ALPs in addition to their regular jobs. We generally set the expectation that the LDP will require participants to invest an additional 10% to 15% of their time, over and above their regular jobs, to the program, so we’re talking about 4 to 6 hours per week. Second, participants will be required to report back on their projects at the start of the next educational session. With quarterly sessions, this means that they will have about 13 weeks to work on the ALP.

The next consideration is what types of projects should be assigned and who should choose the topics for the projects. The ALPs should NOT be mission-critical assignments – if there is a mission-critical project that the organization needs done, it should put together the best possible team from the entire organization, not just a group of untested Hi-Pos. Better to assign what we’ll call “nice-to-have” projects – projects that will contribute to the success of the organization, but which are not mission-critical. Remember that the LDP is designed to develop AND test the capabilities of the Hi-Pos, and not every project will necessarily be successful.

My favorite source of action-learning projects comes from the meeting minutes of the organization’s leadership team. If you review these minutes over a period of a few years, you will find that there are many ideas that have been discussed and found of interest to executives, but have never been deemed so important that the organization actually assigns staff to implement. For example, in a group I once worked in, we had examined the meeting minutes over a 5-year period and found that there were issues discussed 5 years earlier that were still being discussed. It wasn’t that these issues were unimportant, but that they never were given a high-enough priority to assign people and resources to their resolution. These are ideal ALPs – if the ALPs on these issues are successful, everyone will welcome the solution to these longstanding issues, and if the ALPs are NOT successful, the issues just remain unresolved, e.g., maintain the status quo.

The fact that the LDP participants know that they will have to report their results to a panel of organizational executives at the start of the next program is generally all the motivation they will need to do a good job. And if they do not do a good job, it’s better know this before they get promoted to a more senior position in the organization.
In my book, Feeding Your Leadership Pipeline, I present a lot more information on choosing action-learning projects. The appendix to the book also describes a dozen potential educational topics for the LDP and suggests the types of ALPs that might be attached to each topic.

In the next blog post, I’ll discuss the final two elements of the LDP model.

As always, your comments and feedback are more than welcomed.

Are you getting your money’s worth from investments in leadership development?

Many companies have spent large sums sending a “high potential” individual to an external leadership development program, only to complain that they got no value from the investment. The major reasons why there has been little to no return are that the organization has not done a proper job of planning what that person needs, has not prepared the person before sending them off to the program, and done little-to-nothing to follow-up with the individual after the program. In my article, “How to Get Maximum Value from an Executive/Leadership Development Program,” I present a multi-step approach that will ensure that the individual attending the program and the organization as a whole get maximum value from it. Click the “Articles” tab above and click on the article title to read it.

As always, you comments and your own stories of experiences with these types of programs is most welcome.

The Virtual Follow-Up Session

Here’s an idea I came up with and used successfully when I was at the American Management Association: The Virtual Follow-Up Session.

How many times has a student attended training and was eager to try out the newly-acquired knowledge and skills back on the job only to be stymied. When we attended the training, we may have thought we understood what was being taught, but back on the job we find that we didn’t understand it as well as we thought, and rather than make errors in applying it to our work, we return to the old methods. Or… we run into a roadblock in the implementation that wasn’t discussed in class and we’re stymied?

What now? The class is over. The instructor isn’t available to us. What do we do?

As trainers, we may have received great ratings in the end-of-course evaluations, but what good is the training if the participants can’t use what they learned back on the job?

The Virtual Follow-Up Session is a 60 – 90 minute video conference or conference call held about two weeks after the class concludes. Several days before the call is scheduled, the instructor sends an email to participants to collect their questions and concerns. These may include questions such as
– “I thought I understood this topic when we discussed it in class, but back on the job I find that I didn’t fully understand it. Can you go over this topic again?”
– “I ran into one of the problems we discussed in class and I tried what was recommended, but it didn’t work. Can you suggest another approach to overcome this problem?”
– “I ran into a roadblock that we didn’t discuss in class. Any suggestions on how to get through it?”

At the AMA, we tried holding these sessions for our corporate customers. We found that only about one-third of those who attended the class participated in the follow-up session, but almost everyone who took part in the follow-up session felt it was very valuable.

Give it a try, and let me know how it goes.