By Marc Ratcliffe 

In reality, a great dessert can help to complete a successful meal. A bad dessert leaves a sour taste in your mouth that can ruin the whole dining experience. In the context of training, the dessert relates to how we close. We want them to have something to savour from the experience that, like a multi-course meal, brings everything together. For many years, I have preached about the virtues of a powerful close through my trainer training programs. Good training closes, bad training ends. You owe it to your participants to finish the session with impact. And like a great dessert, you want to give them something that has them yearning for more.

Next time, deliver your training and finish by putting the “CREAM” on top!

C – Celebrate: Participants have invested time, money and energy in attending training.  As such, it is important to honour and recognise their contribution and investment in the learning. Celebration can take many forms. It could involve formal recognition through the presentation of certificates and other learning awards at the conclusion of training or the broadcasting of student success via newsletters and other communication formats. It could also be conducted in a less-formal way through a round of applause, high-five or the use of a team chant.

R – Revisit: It is important for the participants to go over the content in an interesting way, one last time, prior to the conclusion of the training. This will help them to promote reinforcement.

E – Elicit Responses:  The trainer needs to create moments to check for understanding and have participants involved with their own learning. Common concluding activities that elicit responses include quizzes, game show-style questioning and final presentations made by individuals or groups.

A – Action Plan: Give the participants some time to reflect upon the important concepts or ideas learned in the session. Essentially, you are giving them the opportunity to provide advice to themselves for future implementation. Therefore, action planning helps the participants to transfer what they have learned in the training room to their own situations. By spending some time reflecting and writing, there is a much greater chance that they will both retain and apply the content.

M – Movement: This may be the simple movement out of a classroom or it could be movement to a collage of ideas or a transition to a different space for new learning. Having bodies in motion will help the participants to stay focused and engaged. However, it is a good idea to consider what you want them to do when they are moving. Do you want them to write a response on a post-it note and add it to a poster? Do you want them to do a physical exercise? Do you want them to review a series of posters and summarise the content? Do you want them to connect with other learners as they move around? The key is to have them move with purpose, rather than move for the sake of moving. Be sure to provide clear instructions of want you need them to do.

The closing of a training session is just as important as the opening, as it helps to tie things together. A session shouldn’t end simply because the time is up. Moreover, it should be a considered and controlled process which maximises the impact from all the learning. It is the trainer’s final opportunity to remind the participants of the key messages of the training event and should provide time for both reflection and forward thinking.

Marc Ratcliffe, CEO, MRWED Training and Assessment

Join our upcoming HRDQ-U webinar titled “The Trainer’s Cookbook: Recipes for Learning Engagement Success” on August 5, 2020 at 2pm ET/11am PT.

By Keith Keating

Recently speaking with a senior manager in a learning organization, he said to me: “The business is our most important client; they have the money.”  Pinching the back of my hand to hold my composure, I took a deep breath before I began the long journey of trying to change their misconstrued viewpoint.  In L&D, saying the business is most important because they have the money is analogous to a doctor claiming that the insurance company is most important because they have the money.  I recognize some doctors may hold this priority, as do some L&D organizations– but we know neither is correct.  Patients should be the most important client and focus for doctors, just as our learners should be our focus and most important client.

More often than not, L&D requests do come directly from the business.   The requests usually include a murky description of the problem accompanied by a very clear prescription of the solution.  A common request might sound something like: “We want a 30-minute web-based training (WBT)” or “Create a two-hour virtual-instructor led training (VILT).”  Having been molded into reactive order-takers, we oblige. After all, the business has the money, and the client “knows” what they want, right?  Wrong!

I’ve tried this approach with my doctor: I research WebMD.com for my symptoms, read the remedy, and confidently relay this to my doctor, expecting a reward for the time I’ve saved him from doing his job.  And yet, each time he reminds me that he’s the professional; explains how my two-minute research fails in comparison to his 15 years in the medical profession; and warns how detrimental my self-diagnosis could have been to my health.  Allowing our business partners to self-diagnose–and prescribe solutions for our learners–allows them to jeopardize the health or learner experience for our learners.

Although we would love to respond to the business in the same way my doctor responds to me when I self-diagnose, it’s probably not wise to remind our business partners that we are the learning professionals if we want to keep our jobs.  So what can we do when the business self-diagnoses and self-medicates on behalf of our learners?  One approach we can take is to engage our business partners in co-engineering a remedy that maintains a keen focus on our shared priority – the learner.  Design thinking could be just what the doctor ordered!

Design thinking is a framework for creative problem-solving.  It’s a methodology that focuses on the end user, the learner. Applying design thinking to the L&D setting helps to unlock the users’ needs and problems, even when they don’t know what the problem is or are not able to articulate them correctly (Hello, business partners!).  Historically, design thinking has been well-known for helping to solve design problems with products.  But a lesser-known secret is that design thinking can be applied to problems with services or processes.  In fact, design thinking can be applied to a number of challenges around recruitment, performance improvement, employee engagement and organizational development, just to name a few L&D applications.

Design thinking helps us be better business partners by providing a methodology to follow, evolving L&D from portraying reactive order-takers to proactive solution partners.  Rather than accept the problem statement at face value, we empathize with our learners to understand from their point of view the challenges they face.  And we maintain that connection with our learners throughout the solution design process.

Empathy and understanding are the foundation upon which all design thinking principles rest.  Design thinking helps us take a step back and start with problem finding before moving into problem-solving.  When we take orders without doing the due diligence of understanding the problem, we do a disservice to the business by potentially wasting their money. We do an even bigger disservice to our learners by not providing the right remedy to solve their challenges.  Design thinking is a structured—but not too rigid—format we can utilize to engage with our business partners and our learners to keep our focus right where it belongs: on the learner.

So the next time your business partner self-diagnoses and dictates the remedy for our learners, consider applying the design thinking methodology. Making this recommendation will help you to serve the business as a better partner; ensure the business’s money is well-invested; and refines the focus on our most important client, the learners.  After all, whatever the business challenge or performance challenge, it’s the learner we want to impact. Why would we design an experience that fails to serve their needs?

Join our upcoming HRDQ-U two-part webinar series titled “Design Thinking: From Theory to Application”.

Design Thinking: From Theory to Application (Part 1: Theory) on July 29, 2020 at 2pm ET/11am PT.

Design Thinking: From Theory to Application (Part 2: Application) on August 19, 2020 at 2pm ET/11am PT.

By Patti P. Phillips, Ph.D.

Chief learning officers often must evaluate their key learning programs, collecting several types of data—reaction, learning, application, impact, intangibles, and maybe even return on investment. What if the evaluation produces disappointing results? Suppose application and impact were less than desired, and the ROI calculation negative. This prospect causes some learning executives to steer clear of this level of accountability altogether.

For some CLOs, negative results are the ultimate fear. Immediately, they begin to think, “Will this reflect unfavorably on me? On the program? On the function? Will budgets disappear? Will support diminish?” These are all appropriate questions, but most of these fears are unfounded. In fact, negative results reveal the potential to improve programs. Here are 11 ways to address negative results and use them to facilitate positive transformations:

Recognize the Power of a Negative Study

When the study results are negative, there is always an abundance of data indicating what went wrong. Was it an adverse reaction? Was there a lack of learning? Was there a failure to implement or apply what was learned? Did major barriers prevent success? Or was there a misalignment in the beginning? These are legitimate questions about lack of success, and the answers are always obtained in a comprehensive evaluation study.

Look for Red Flags

Indications of problems often appear in the first stages of initiation—after reaction and learning data have been collected. Many signals can provide insight into the program’s success or lack of success, such as participants perceiving that the program as not relevant to their job. Perhaps they would not recommend it to others or do not intend to use it on the job. These responses can indicate a lack of utilization, which usually translates into negative results. Connecting this information requires analyzing data beyond overall satisfaction with the program, the instructor and the learning environment. While important, these types of ratings may not reveal the value of the content and its potential use. Also, if an evaluation study is conducted on a program as it is being implemented, low ratings for reaction and learning may signal the need for adjustments before any additional evaluation is conducted.

Lower Outcome Expectations

When there is a signal that the study may be negative, or it appears that there could be a danger of less-than-desired success, the expectations of the outcome should be lowered. The “under-promise and over-deliver” approach is best applied here. Containing your enthusiasm for the results early in the process is important. This is not to suggest that a gloom-and-doom approach throughout the study is appropriate, but that expectations should be managed and kept on the low side.

Look for Data Everywhere

Evaluators are challenged to uncover all the data connected to the program—both positive and negative. To that end, it is critical to look everywhere for data that shows value (or the lack of it). This thorough approach will ensure that nothing is left undiscovered—the fear harbored by many individuals when facing negative results.

Never Alter the Standards

When the results are less than desired, it is tempting to lower the standards—to change the assumptions about collecting, processing, analyzing and reporting the data. This is not a time to change the standards. Changing the standards to make the data more positive renders the study virtually worthless. Without standards, there is no credibility.

Remain Objective Throughout

Ideally, the evaluator should be completely objective or independent of the program. This objectivity provides an arms-length evaluation of its success. It is important not only to enter the project from an objective standpoint but also to remain objective throughout the process. Never become an advocate for or against it. This helps alleviate the concern that the results may be biased.

Prepare the Team for the Bad News

As red flags arise and expectations are lowered, it appears that a less-than-desired outcome will be realized. It is best to prepare the team for this bad news early in the process. Part of the preparation is to make sure that they don’t reveal or discuss the outcome of the program with others. Even when early results are positive, it is best to keep the data confidential until all are collected. Also, when it appears that the results are going to be negative, an early meeting will help develop a strategy to deal with the outcome. This preparation may address how the data will be communicated, the actions needed to improve the program, and, of course, explanations as to what caused the lack of success.

Consider Different Scenarios

Standards connected with the ROI methodology are conservative for a reason: The conservative approach adds credibility. Consequently, there is a buy-in of the data and the results. However, sometimes it may be helpful to examine what the result might be if the conservative standards were not used. Other scenarios may actually show positive results. In this case, the standards are not changed, but the presentation shows how different the data would be if other assumptions were made. This approach allows the audience to see how conservative the standards are. For example, on the cost side, including all costs sometimes drive the project to a negative ROI. If other assumptions could be made about the costs, the value could be changed, and a different ROI calculation might be made. On the benefit side, a lack of data from a particular group sometimes drives a study into negative territory because of the “no data, no improvement” standard. However, another assumption could be made about the missing data to calculate an alternative ROI. It is important for these other scenarios to be offered to educate the audience about the value of what is obtained and to underscore the conservative approach. It should be clear that the standards are not changed and that the comparisons with other studies would be based on the standards in the original calculation.

Find Out What Went Wrong

With disappointing results, the first question usually asked is, “What went wrong?” It is important to uncover the reasons for the lack of success. As the process unfolds, there is often an abundance of data to indicate what went wrong. The follow-up evaluation will contain specific questions about impediments and inhibitors. In addition, asking for suggestions for improvements often underscores how things could be changed to make a difference. Even when collecting enablers and enhancers, there may be clues as to what could be changed to make it much better. In most situations, there is little doubt as to what went wrong and what can be changed. In worst-case scenarios, if the program cannot be modified or enhanced to add value, it may mean that it should be discontinued.

Adjust the Story Line

When communicating data, negative results indicate that the storyline needs to change. Instead of saying, “Let’s celebrate—we’ve got great results for this program,” the story reads, “Now we have data that show how to make this program more successful.” The audience must understand that the lack of success may have existed previously, but no data were available to know what needed to be changed. Now, the data exist. In an odd sort of way, this becomes a positive spin on less-than-positive data.

Drive Improvement

Evaluation data are virtually useless unless used to improve processes. In a negative study, there are usually many items that could be changed to make it more successful. It is important that a commitment is secured to make needed adjustments so that the program will be successful in the future. Until those actions are approved and implemented, the work is not complete. In worst-case scenarios, if the program cannot be changed to add value, it should be terminated, and the important lessons should be communicated to others. This last step underscores that the comprehensive evaluation is used for process improvement and not for performance evaluation of the staff.

Negative study results do not have to be bad news. Negative results contain data that can be used not only to explain what happened but also to adapt and improve in the future. It is important to consider the potential of a negative study and adjust expectations and strategies throughout the process to keep the negative results from being a surprise. In the worst-case situation, negative data will surprise the key sponsor at the time of presentation.

Join our upcoming HRDQ-U webinar titled “What Caused It?: Connecting Programs to Results” on July 22, 2020 at 2pm ET/11am PT.

By: Wayne Turmel

Odds are you’re either welcoming people back to your workplace or adjusting to whatever arrangements will be in place for a while. A sure bet is that your team will be configured differently than it was before the pandemic forced us to adjust.

One of the many unexpected consequences of having spent two or three months working in unexpected ways is that your team may look and feel very different to you. Some of the adjustments you’ll need to make include:

• Personnel changes—not everyone who worked with you will be returning. Some by choice, some by circumstance.
• You might not see the same people in the office at the same time. Some people will continue working remotely full time, others will do it more often. A lot of co-located teams will find themselves looking more like a hybrid team.
• Physical changes to the workplace will change routines, schedules and the work environment.
• Team relationships may have shifted, sometimes dramatically. Some tensions that existed before will be solved; others will be made worse. This is especially true of political or social tensions. Nerves will be raw.

As a leader, it will be your job to help focus the attention of your team and get them productive again, as quickly as possible. It won’t be easy, and it will be easy to rush into a sense of normalcy. Here are a few things you’ll need to consider as soon as you can to help your team re-form into whatever shape they will take from now on.

• Talk to everyone individually and find out how they are feeling. This isn’t the usual check-in. Some people will have been bored and lonely during this time. Others will have been locked in with kids, dogs and spouses without a moment to themselves. Some people will be angry and believe this was all a hoax and won’t be shy about saying so. Others may have lost family members or friends to disease, or harbor deep fears about becoming sick. Are they excited to be back? Did they like working from home and want to do it more in the future?
• Don’t expect everyone to just show up and get to work. Work is a social experience. People will want to catch up with each other, share their experiences, and reconnect. The first days will be lots of conversation, perhaps not so much solid work output. That’s not a bad thing in the long run, since work happens better and faster when people have good working relationships. These have been strained for a lot of people. Adjustment will take time. Set expectations accordingly
• Keep an eye and ear out for tension. Between the disease itself and the social/political upheaval that has accompanied this time, people will have strong feelings about things, and perhaps be emotional. There’s every likelihood that someone who was unaffected by the virus will say something that triggers somebody who either fears for their health or even lost a loved one. Agreements to “leave politics out of the workplace,” may be harder to enforce (if they were ever a good idea in the first place.) Be proactive about checking in with people and don’t wait until the shouting starts.
• Be honest about what the new team looks like. Some people will have discovered they like being away from the office (at least some of the time.) Others couldn’t wait to get back.  People who don’t have the responsibilities of kids still at home or sick loved ones may not return to the office full-time while others did. This will require shifting roles and responsibilities. The frequency and style of meetings will change. Be prepared for far more hybrid work arrangements than before this all started.
• Be clear about expectations. Working alone, people may have developed short cuts that don’t fit the company’s processes. Perhaps those in the office will have to handle different responsibilities now that more people will be away from the workplace more often. Some people will just have forgotten some of the tasks that needed to be done before this all happened. Take the time to make sure people are clear, not only what their roles are, but who is handing what tasks and how the team will be configured going forward.

Whatever your team looks like going forward, you can handle it. What’s new will be obvious if you take the time to really assess where people are, how that ties to the work, and communicate effectively.

Join our upcoming HRDQ-U webinar titled “Re-Entry Without Burning Up: Getting the Workplace Back to Normal” on June 24, 2020 at 2pm ET/11am PT.