| |
Training Article
Below,
you'll find extensive information on leading Training articles
and products to help you on your way to success.
Five Easy Pieces To Performance Measurement
It's still hard to believe. Last year I ran a marathon — all 26.2 miles of it.
I also completed more than 40 measurement projects related to sales performance development. Which would you rather tackle?
Like running a marathon, measuring the business results of soft skills is viewed by most people with a mixture of fear and loathing. They think measurement demands vast amounts of time, effort, and expense. And though it's supposed to be good for you, many people think bottom-line measurement is just too risky. As a result, many don't even attempt it.
It's time for a change in thinking. The truth is that the measurement starting line is very wide and the race is not reserved for the genetically gifted few. Ordinary people with no special training are conducting meaningful measurement and revolutionizing their organizations in the process. You can, too.
During the past several years, I've helped dozens of companies determine whether their performance development efforts are making a difference. Large or small, all of those organizations valued - and had attempted - some form of training measurement. A few succeeded brilliantly. Others displayed conviction and technical know-how, but stumbled short of the finish line.
What follows are five measurement lessons learned the hard way, in the trenches with primarily Fortune 500 companies. These lessons are grounded in the principles of collaboration and common sense. They have proven to be invaluable guideposts for line sales management and training functions alike. Using these lessons has enabled our firm to complete 40 to 50 measurement projects every year. By adhering to these same principles, your organization can also consistently track its progress in meeting specific business goals, challenges, and needs.
Lesson 1: Focus on the Business
You've heard often that effective performance development must be linked to the goals and objectives of your organization. It's true. That principle is called "alignment," and it also applies to measurement. Strong alignment is the genesis of all successful measurement.
Now, every measurement project we launch with our clients begins and ends with a detailed view of their business goals, challenges, and needs. That sounds deceptively simple. In practice, most failed measurement efforts lack a clear connection to the desired business outcomes. There is a critical distinction between training goals, challenges, and needs and business goals, challenges, and needs.
Both line and training functions tend to see performance measurement on their own terms. How does that
happen?
One reason is that the training group will focus, often exclusively, on measuring participant reactions (smile sheets) and classroom learning (pre- and post-tests). This is familiar territory for professional educators. If, by chance, the initiative fizzles, then evidence that "learning has taken place" is a tempting defense. This approach may suffice for technical or product training, but it doesn't fly for tracking the effects of negotiation, leadership, or consultative selling skills development.
I recently asked a group of 10 training directors from the divisions of an $80 billion corporation about their measurement efforts over the last 12 months. Most had tracked participant reaction and classroom learning (Kirkpatrick's levels 1 and 2¹), but only two divisions had linked training to new behaviors (level 3). None had quantified the actual business results (level 4). The measurement efforts of this corporation were, in fact, typical of those I've encountered in other organizations.
Tried-and-true smile sheets and pre- and post-tests are valuable tools, but meaningful measurement demands greater insight into driving business issues.
Another problem is that sales executives tend to develop bottom-line myopia. They want to measure performance development solely by monthly or quarterly numbers, sometimes to the exclusion of all other indicators of performance.
One line executive at a large, high-tech company was focused primarily on tracking closed business. "To win in this market, our people need to be better negotiators," he said. He was right. But a deeper analysis revealed a more complex picture. His division's margins had slipped, competition had increased, and discounting had become a crutch that account executives used to close deals. Major accounts expected and got deep discounts, so the company's competitive allowance sustained the vicious cycle of discounting.
In that case, we discovered that the critical measure of the company's negotiation skills training was not the amount of closed business, but rather the reduction in the use of the competitive allowance.
Together, line and training functions must dig deeply into the underlying forces that affect revenue, customer or client relationships, and business results. There are no shortcuts.
How will you know your measurement project is focusing on the business results? One sure sign occurs when the director of training and the vice president of sales meet to talk about improving performance and growing the business. If that sounds unlikely, keep reading.
Lesson 2: Build a Bridge Between Line and Training
Meaningful measurement requires collaboration. Focus on your organization's business issues provides a shared purpose and a sense of mission. It is the most fundamental reason for building a relationship between line and training functions. So, why doesn't it happen more often?
I've observed an almost universal tendency: Training professionals don't initiate enough, and line executives don't participate enough.
For example, the training professionals at a medical equipment company asked me to help them devise a way to track the bottom-line impact of their sales training. I suggested that we get input from the vice president on what to measure, but they resisted. They said, "We want to have this done before we go to him." Not surprisingly, the measurement project never got off the ground.
Beware of measurement in a vacuum. Often the training group is made solely responsible for measuring the effects of performance development. Training professionals may try to select specific measures and collect sensitive data on their own. Without insight and involvement from the line organization, they're forced to guess at critical measures and cajole other departments for data and resources. Frustration is a common result.
In one major telecommunications company, the accounting department actually refused to provide the training group access to the necessary sales numbers. Measurement cannot be delegated to training departments without b organizational ties.
What about line executives? There is a major difference between management support and management involvement.
For example, busy executives at a bio-tech company were extremely supportive of performance development. They rallied the troops and signed the checks. But they were reluctant to personally invest time and become involved in measurement efforts. The board wanted to see results, but the measurement effort stalled. How was that problem solved?
We put on a pot of coffee, brought together the line and training functions, and walked away with specific business objectives linked to the training. Measurement then focused on key business issues, such as growing revenue in the 20 top accounts and insulating them from competitive threats.
Instead of pointing fingers, training professionals have the responsibility to initiate aggressively, and it's the responsibility of line executives to participate actively. In every case of successful bottom-line measurement I've seen, both line and training functions were deeply involved in tracking progress toward common goals.
Lesson 3: Track Progress, Not Proof
Nothing keeps organizations from attempting measurement more than a proof mentality. If your objective is to track the impact of performance development in your organization, I've found that absolute proof is impossible — and totally unnecessary.
At a recent conference, I had the opportunity to talk with Donald Kirkpatrick. I asked, "Since you introduced the Four Levels in 1959, have you ever seen indisputable proof?" Without hesitation, he said, "No, I've never seen it." But he quickly added, "I've seen a lot of good evidence, though."
For pharmaceutical companies seeking FDA approval of a new drug, or for physicists splitting the atom, the search for proof is appropriate and necessary. Such empirical researchers ask "Does
Freelance Work
|
|
