Results from our survey of over 100+ senior-level corporate learning executives on their top L&D challenges, investments and key objectives for 2018. 

Our VR and Immersive Tech e-book contains 3 case studies from the next frontier of L&D. Download 3 presentations on:

• Virtualization, Globalization and the New World of Work. An Interview with Karmiko Burton, Senior Manager, Global Franchise Training & Capability, Taco Bell
  
• How Wells Fargo Leverages Voice Enabled Intelligence Augmentation to Improve Employee Performance. Interview and presentation by Ken Hubbell, Senior Vice President, Instructional Design Strategy & Innovation, Wells Fargo
• Blending Technology and Learning at Six Flags. Presentation by Jayson Maxwell, Corporate Director of Learning & Development, Six Flags 
• How New Employee Demographics and the Digital-Thinking Workforce are Driving the Shift in Technology. Presentation by Jamie Dalferes, VP Learning & Talent Development, Lincoln Property Management
  

We surveyed 100+ learning analytics leaders to find out what's trending in 2018? Learn more about:

• Budget Trajectory for Learning Analytics Solutions in 2018
• Learning Analytics Solutions Trends
• Top Metrics for determing ROI on L&D Investments 
• Top Challenges in learning analytics adoption

and more!

Reality check your corporate learning framework in this overview of how the biggest and most profitable approach L&D. Take a look at how Walmart, Ford, Nationwide, AT&T and Boeing have:

• Established a big picture vision for learning excellence
• Have tied their learning objectives to business priorities 
• Cultivated a culture of innovation and continuous improvement within L&D as well as across the enterprise
• Promoted self-directed and continuous learning 

Where is the future of L&D headed? What skills, concepts and ideologies do you need to familiarize yourself with now in order to ensure your learning organization stays relevant for years to come? In this infographic, we outline the top trends and innovations shaping the future of corporate learning such as:

• Personalized + Adaptive Learning
• Social Learning
• Microlearning
• Virtual & Augemented Reality
• Artificial Intelligence
• Virtual (VR) & Augemented Reality (AR)
• Adaptability Quotient (AQ)

This Case Study by Bersin explores how Abbvie radically changed how the company develops leaders by adopting an approach that enabled learning wherever and whenever it occurs in the organization and spur business-focused discussions with leaders about development needs.

This 15 page report:

• Describes the key challenges that motivated AbbVie to rethink its legacy development model
• Explains why AbbVie embraced an invisible approach to learning as a development strategy
• Reveals how the company quickly transitioned from static classroom courses to customized, modular solutions
• Demonstrates how business-focused conversations between leaders and talent executives replaced the course catalog as a development tool 

To create a well-rounded report on the current state of people analytics and data privacy, we conducted two separate evaluations.

In Part 1, we surveyed 150+ HR leaders across a wide range of industries to gain an understanding of the current state of people analytics. We asked respondents to benchmark their analytics maturity level, specify how they manage employee records and data to HR activities, and describe the largest impact people analytics has had on their business. HR leaders were also asked to share current priorities and obstacles preventing the successful implementation of analytics.

In Part 2, we conducted an anonymous survey of 100+ full-time employees to gather their thoughts on data collection in the workplace. Employers are increasingly gathering data on employees–from workplace behavior to social media use and other personal information—to produce insights that benefit the business. The findings in part 2 explore employee perceptions of workplace privacy and protection in 2018. 

After surveying 100+ global learning and development leaders to gain a better understanding of where learning analytics is headed over the next few years. The survey results provide insight into budget trajectories for 2019, investment priorities over the next 24 months, top challenges, analytics maturity benchmarks, the most popular metrics for determining ROI on L&D investments and more.

No year in modern history has been more welcomed than 2021. After such a difficult 2020, corporate learning leaders are looking to the new year to help inspire a robust change in learning and continued improvement and innovation across the organization. Of course, to do that a mindset shift or two needs to happen.

Bruce Rosenstein outlines seven specific mindset shifts to help you and your team… indeed the entire organization… thrive inside and outside the 2021 workplace. Right off the bat, he suggests reframing your problems for the year. Don’t just jump to the solution, but think through the situation… bring in outside perspectives… and be open to the real opportunity that what you want isn’t necessarily what you need.

Want to know what other mindset shifts made the list?

Download our newest infographic here. And make sure to share this informative piece of content with your team and peers. 

Editor’s Note

On the surface, all skills and practices look deceptively easy when performed by an expert.

What often appears ridiculously simple to an outsider requires dedicated and concentrated effort that could span weeks, months or even years.

Skill-building occurs when specific techniques and/or methodologies are reduced to habit and programmed into the brain so that the responses of the person performing a specific set of skills becomes automatic.

Training of all kinds require individuals to immediately practice what is learned or taught. Applying skills is a habit, that is, a complex set of practices. And practices can always be learned.

Practices are usually simple. A six-year-old has no difficulty in understanding a piano practice. But, to slightly paraphrase Peter F. Drucker, "practices are always exceedingly hard to do well."

Drucker taught us practices have to be acquired, as we all learn the multiplication table; that is, “repeated ad nauseam until '6×6 = 36' has become an unthinking, conditioned reflex and an ingrained habit."

In short, practices must be learned by practicing and practicing and practicing again.

A gentle reminder: Persistence is an admirable quality. Don't assume practice makes perfect. Practice creates permanence, not necessarily perfection. To achieve perfection, you must practice the right things in the right way.

Introduction

If you’re a pocket billiards enthusiast, you’ll relate to this story. Several years ago, a co-worker purchased a top-of-the-line (Gold Crown III) pool table, a dozen or more instructional DVDs, how-to books and a computer game that enabled him to simulate playing a world-class professional.

He viewed, read, studied and carefully practiced what he learned from all these learning tools. Pocket billiards (i.e., pool) is a game that can be played equally well alone or competitively.

Without doubt, he learned the fundamentals and his level of play improved, but most of his playing was confined to nightly practice sessions in his basement.

Then, one day, he ventured into a New York City billiard establishment populated by the world’s top-ranked professionals. Men and women of all ages were competing in tournaments.

Others were actively engaged in professionally taught clinics designed to improve playing ability.

Still others (prosperous Wall Street types) were busily engaged in one-on-one instructional sessions with world-champions-turned instructors.

In one defining moment, he realized he was an inferior player compared to those he viewed as worthy opponents.

Indeed, he was amazed at the playing ability of those fortunate enough to afford weekly private lessons.

Prior to witnessing all of this, he thought he'd progressed and was satisfied with the skills he possessed.

Now he knew he had wasted a great deal of time and wasn't equipped to play competitively against those he would have thought (in his basement, practicing alone) he would unmercifully defeat.

But that’s not all; He also discovered that many of the players were students of the game.

They shared "secrets," best practices and newly acquired knowledge in skill-building subjects such as making recurrent kinds of rail shots, determining the exact path of the cue ball after contacting the object ball and using the overhead billiard lighting fixture to determine the exact aiming point.

None of these "finer points" could to be found in any of the printed or visual materials purchased by our friend.

His Next Step?

He secured an expensive two-hour lesson from the, then, 12th-ranked player in the world who was an accomplished instructor and a marvelous diagnostician.

His verdict? Our friend’s skills were deficient (he stunk) and in the process of self-instruction, developed many bad habits.

He jumped up too quickly and thereby deflected his aim (he missed a lot). He hadn't acquired the habit of a full backstroke accompanied by a complete follow-through (his stroke was choppy).

The champion player and expert instructor also said, "You understand very little about the basic skill sets that must be mastered before anything else. Self-development is great and all learning relies on self-development, but you need the watchful eye of an instructor to make sure you're practicing the right things and, most importantly, there’s no slippage."

The world champion instructor then proceeded to illustrate a systematic, well-organized series of exercises that required daily doing to achieve learning goals.

Our friend, an Ivy-leaguer all the way, decided to engage his instructor for a series of expensive lessions.

The instructor corrected, mentored, coached, demonstrated and provided take-home exercises related to each instructional session.

At the beginning of every new session, the instructor required our friend to demonstrate, to his satisfaction, that he'd mastered the assigned practices.

As predicted, slippage always occurred and more coaching was required to make the lessons taught become firmly ingrained habits.

A Rude Awakening

Initially, our friend was near-certain he could master the game. Why? Because he thought he had the natural attributes reflected by past academic achievements.

Granted, he had promise, that is, potential. But the key to success in pocket billiards, as in any skill-based sport and most other worthy pursuits, is practice.

Learning theorists have a fancy name for practice: They call it behavioral learning. Behavioral learning focuses on drill, rote, routine and repetition.

Skill-building requires training. Training requires a big dose of behavioral learning.

Indeed, after much reflection, our friend realized the reason individual promise was so rarely converted into performance was the absence of practice. In short, everything degenerates into hard work.

He noted that a lot of the Wall Street types, obviously quite brilliant, never learned the fundamental lesson that brilliance was usually irrelevant in terms of behavioral learning development. (In other words, they didn't practice).

He also observed that "the less brilliant" through practice achieved uncommon performance, that is, they played brilliantly. This should be a surprise-free observation. But it never is.

Many people stay in school until they are adults. In many universities, college students learn book subjects. All that can be measured is how well he/she learns, rather than how well he/she performs. 

Promise of excellence is not necessarily correlated with workplace achievement.

Now back to our friend. Finally, he understood—in very practical terms—what learning experts have been claiming for decades: the achievement of sophisticated skills are relentless taskmasters.

Skill-building demands from the individual a high level of commitment, immense concentration and continual practice with each ascending plateau.

Seasoned performers in any sophisticated skill realize they grow according to the levels of achievement attained once they reach a certain stage. They understand that learning really begins anew with each addition to the repertoire.

This sense of incessant achievement and reinforcement through the self-discipline of practice is perhaps the real secret of motivation.

Lessons Learned

This story is given in such detail because it illustrates three easily forgotten learning essentials: 1) there is a difference between training and education; 2.) training requires instructor expertise and; 3.) continuous learning and knowledge sharing are an integral part of the training process.

1. There is a difference between training and education.

Training, unlike education, requires coaching, mentoring, performance consulting and "learn-by-doing" activities.

Simply put, the difference between education and training is like the difference between taking a music appreciation course and spending years learning how to play a musical instrument.

Many of today’s "training courses"—whether in e-learning form, instructor-led or a mixture of instructional methodologies—are not really training courses, they're lecture and reading programs. The development process will always have disastrous results if the role of behavioral learning is neglected.

Training requires drill, repetition and constant feedback. Most good teachers/lecturers are brilliant synthesizers who are capable of organizing a complex subject into a meaningful pattern; They're also capable of engrossing their audience with dramatic wit and sparkling examples.

The lecture method is a valid technique in the hands of skilled practitioners. But the lecture method is at best only a preparation for learning and is not learning itself.

In too many instances the information goes from the instructor's mouth into the employee's notebook without going into his/her head. Similarly, reading is not the same thing as doing.

Stated differently, teaching provides information. But information has to be successfully applied in order to become knowledge.

Action learning, today's newest term for training, rests on the old Chinese proverb: "I hear and I forget; I see and I remember; I do and I understand." Training requires doing. Yet there is "watch out" associated with learning from practical experience or just doing.

If practicing a craft with 30 years of professional experience essentially involves doing the same thing over and over, it probably means that the person has never gone beyond the behavioral dimension of learning.

Said Drucker, "There is a difference between 30 years experience and one year's experience 30 times."

Learning theorists have a fancy term for the component of learning that spurs learning to a higher level. It's called "cognitive learning." Cognitive learning supplies the role of vision in the development process.

In effect, it incorporates insights into behavioral practice, thereby distinguishing the master professional from the pedestrian performer.

The key point: Many so-called training programs are really "education" programs.

2. Training requires instructor expertise.

Skill in applying the principles of pocket billiards requires the services of a "live instructor."

For example, knowing where to strike the cue ball doesn't mean students actually strike the cue ball at the designated point.

The "mechanics" of aiming—striking the cue ball at its exact center and dozens of other critical-to-success factors—must be mastered to successfully apply theoretical knowledge.

Many believe (beginners) they're striking the cue ball at its exact center. Chances are they aren't. They're usually too much to the left or too much to the right. They need the watchful eye of an instructor to make needed corrections over and over again.

Our point? Getting an "A" in a web-based training program because of demonstrated oral and written master is next to meaningless if the program doesn't include the required skill building, that is, to be able to put into practice what is learned.

Slippage in learned skills almost always occurs when first learning a new subject.

If the subject is important—whether it be in safety management, quality management, project management or collecting and analyzing web data—the learning program must constantly diagnose "fast forgetting" and reinforce what was previously taught.

Real skill acquisition, after all is said and done, requires showing, doing, correcting, practicing and customizing. This is best done by real on-site experts.

3. Continuous learning and knowledge sharing are an integral part of the training process.

The need for continuous learning and knowledge sharing, designed for specialists and/or individuals trained to do a given job, is rapidly becoming understood by training and function-specific groups within organizations charged with training their employees (e.g. contact centers training customer service representatives).

Continuous learning doesn't replace formal training. Indeed, continuous learning is different than formal learning. It aims and satisfies different needs.

Any course—whether is it a 3-day seminar in a special skill or an "advanced" 8-week management development program—has to fit the specific skill enhancement needs of the career professional or individual manager.

Said Drucker, "Continuous learning satisifies the need of the employee to contribute what he/she has learned improving their own performance to the improvement of his/her fellow workers' performance..."

Translated, this is the essence of what is meant by a learning organization. Today, knowledge management gurus call Drucker's crisp observation "creating a community of practice, internal knowledge transfer, sharing work experiences and internal best practices."

Said Drucker, "The very fact that the knowledge worker, to be effective, has to be specialized creates a need for continuous exposure to the experiences, problems and needs of others and in turn for a continuous contribution of knowledge and information. Whether the knowledge work be accounting or market research, planning or chemical engineering, the work group has to be seen and has to see itself as a learning group..."

The billiard parlor utilized the teaching services of many top-notch instructors and individual instructors didn't share their teaching methods with other instructors. But students, eager to win tournaments, asked other instructors and their students specific questions related to improving their own performance.

Students of the game happily shared "best kept secrets" with others about solving specific playing problems.

Just as Drucker said, "Continuous exposure to the experiences, problems and solutions of others" produced remarkable gains in the performance capacity of most players/students affiliated with the billiard parlor.

In all likelihood, the management of this billiard establishment did little to create a "learning group." But, at least, they didn't discourage its emergence.

Internal training organizations would be well advised to create formal and informal online learning groups in subjects such as project planning, scheduling and control, maintenance management, safety management, integrated supply chain management, quality management and other formal methodologies requiring continuing improvement in employee skills and knowledge.

Summary and Conclusions

Without doubt, "live" instructor-led training is growing by leaps and bounds despite the increased availability of on-demand learning programs.

Live instruction thrives in a digital world. The appeal of attending live instructor-led programs has multiple benefits including the exclusivity of learning from one's peers.

Continuous learning–whether formal or informal–must be an organized activity. It doesn't happen automatically. Sharing internal best practices (especially in global organizations) inevitably leads to both individual and organizational productivity improvement. 

Editor's Note

L&D organizations are now under increasing pressure to ensure that the learning function supports the overall goals of the business and investments in training/learning deliver maximum value to the company.

This article focuses on how to best meet one of the key challenges facing the L&D organization–how to demonstrate to CEOs and CFOs via definitive measurements realistic estimates of the ROI of training investments. 

Simply put, given today's more demanding business environment, new emphasis must be placed on training metrics that are business-driven.

There is overwhelming evidence that results of many training programs in subjects such as leading change, innovation, strategic marketing planning and many others can be reliably measured to estimate its short & longer-term ROI.

Training chieftains must now seriously re-evaluate their management/leadership development curriculums (i.e., content).

"Nice to know" subject matters must be replaced with content that provides skills for managing for today's new realities & simultaneously managing for a new tomorrow.

A Special Note Before We Begin...

At our virtual Corporate Learning Week 2021 conference (March 9, 16, 23 & 30), Dave Vance, founder & former CLO of Caterpillar will detail why every L&D organization must new rethink what to measure & how to measure it. 

Click here for more information about Dave's new book (with Peggy Parskey), Measurement Demystified: Creating Your L&D Measurement, Analytics & Reporting Strategy. 

Dave will explain at CLW 2021–in clear, simple language–a step-by-step methodology or process for selecting, computing & reporting appropriate measures designed to satisfy the most demanding CFOs & CEOs.

Introduction

To paraphrase Peter F. Drucker:

The New Learning Analytics: The Best Are Business-Driven

Bottom line: If a training expenditure is deemed incapable of producing either business-driven and/or needed core competency results from the very beginning, it must be viewed as a "match to money" initiative.

That said, in many instances "convenient rationalization" or lack of understanding of the subject matter being taught has caused many L&D organizations to spend too much on training by spending too little.

The Harvard Business Review reported in their March-April 2019 issue, "CLOs are having trouble justifying their annual training budgets because traditional executive education/leadership programs no longer adequately prepare executives for the challenges they face today & those they will face tomorrow..."

However, the article also discussed what kinds of executive education programs are working and why they are working.

Many relative newcomers, former second-raters & even prestigious, well-established universities (who have re-engineered their executive/leadership development programs) are gaining momentum because their offerings are producing impressive ROIs for attendee organizations.

But make no mistake: these ROIs also satisfy today's new business-driven measurement standards.

Two Ways You Can Spend Too Much By Spending Too Little

1. You can spend more than you should spend to achieve the objective(s) you've set and are achieving; and, less obviously,
2. You can spend too little, thereby making it impossible to achieve the objectives you've set out to achieve and wasting at least part of the funds you're spending to do the impossible with them.

Paradoxically, you can spend too much by spending too much or too little.

Outcome Versus Output/Efficiency Measurements

Internal service organizations of all kinds can be likened to government agencies. L&D is an internal service organization.

Back in1993, David Osborne and Ted Gaebler published their national best-seller "Reinventing Government." It contains an excellent discussion on the difference between measuring process/efficiency and measuring results.

Even though we're using a government example, most training executives will see the relevance to their internal training organization.

Said Osborne and Gaebler, "When the vast majority of government agencies set out to measure performance, their managers usually draw up lists that measure how well they carry out some administrative process: how many people they serve; how fast they serve them; what percentage of requests are filled within a set period of time...

… In essence, they measure their volume of output. But outputs don't guarantee outcomes…

……A vocational school might pump out more and more graduates of a welding program, for instance. But if those graduates can't find jobs as welders, what good is the program?…

… It may be generating impressive efficiency measurements (i.e., outputs) without generating any positive measurable outcomes…" 

It should be noted, in the Vance/Parskey book mentioned above, an entire chapter is devoted to the difference between L&D efficiency and outcome measurements.

Dave's virtual conference presentation will cover this much-needed subject in clear, simple language, Best of all, L&D executives will be provided with a roadmap for what to do & how to do it.

Click here to learn more about Dave and his presentation.

A Six Sigma/Statistical Process Control Manufacturing Example

Why Many Organizations Wasted Huge Sums of Money on SPC Training

In truth, Deming's SPC approach failed/stumbled in many organizations.

It's wonderful employees claim "the training program was great." However, the program could be of little value if it's not converted into measurable improvements in performance & quantifiable results.

Many well-taught SPC programs produced zero results in terms of measurable improvements in given processes.

Oversimplifying a bit, the most successful SPC programs were specifically related to given processes that were studied by professional SPC experts & the right way to sample and carry-out the necessary SPC tasks were organized into a step-by-step learning program.

A Useful Digression

In essence, this is really the essence of Frederick Winslow Taylor (1856-1915).

Taylor invented what we now call "training." Prior to Taylor's invention of Scientific Management, workers learned viz years of apprenticeship.

Taylor was the first to study, and reengineer (i.e. redesign) work so the worker could become more productive–enabling workers to work smarter, not harder.

Taylor studied, analyzed and divided work into a series of systematic, well-organized steps, each of which had to be done in one specific way and with a specific set of tools.

This led directly to the invention of training. Why? Because Taylor's approach converted the work to be done into a methodology that could be taught, learned and immediately practiced.

An Example

Take for instance Taylor's first project: analyzing a laborer shoveling sand.

Taylor figured out which steps to eliminate and how to do the job with the least physical strain on the operator. (Taylor was the inventor of what's not known as "time & motion studies").

Further, Taylor found the traditional shovel was the wrong size, shape and it had the wrong handle. He then redesigned the shovel for maximum output with minimum effort.

As a consequence, the laborer's productivity (output/hours worked) nearly tripled. The job became easier and enabled the laborer to be paid a much higher wage.

Lessons Learned From Taylor's Pioneering Work

Back to Our SPC Example

Off-the-shelf SPC training programs didn't work in the great majority of situations. Why? Because it couldn't be applied to the specific processes of the organization.

Only when SPC training was related to the organization's specific processes, and those responsible for a given process were taught exactly what to do and how to do it, did the training produce desired improvement metrics.

Our point? You can spend too much by spending too little.

Lessons learned? Teaching textbook or generic SPC programs without studying the specific work to be done, analyzing the processes and then being able to train the people to correctly use SPC to manage their own processes, many organizations ended up with embarrassing non-results.

The Rhetoric of Six Sigma Process Improvement Training Budgets

Without doubt, the buying behavior of many Six Sigma/process improvement training groups was/is heavily influenced by budget restraints. Deep down, many training executives know the limitations of what they’re purchasing.

However, they rationalized their behavior with a statement such as: “We’re only doing what top management asked us to do... We’ll do the best we can under the circumstances."

The Deming SPC methodology was stalled or has been abandoned in many organizations because the training was ineffective in terms of promised results.

Does the Following Conversation Based on Actual Experience Ring a Bell?

A typical episode between an internal training organization and a first-rate vendor of quality training/process improvement training programs was often characterized by the following dialogue:

Whether or not this is a matter of budget restraints, lack of subject matter knowledge or incompetency is not for us to judge.

But we do believe the vendor was correct in his assertions. And, ultimately, the quality/process improvement training programs proved ineffective.

Using Before-and-After Measurements for Innovation Training Programs

Innovation is not a Eureka moment. It's now an acquired management skill. Translated, this means it can be taught, learned and practiced.

There are literally hundreds of innovation metrics that reveal whether or not innovations are succeeding.

The specific innovation metrics used depend upon the kind of innovation being sought (e.g., process innovation, business model innovation and product innovation).

Let's now take product innovation as an example. Some of the metrics (suggested by McKinsey & Company) that can be used to prove beyond a shadow of doubt innovation training is yielding unquestionable results are:

What are we trying to say? Training chieftains must work with the appropriate departments including IT and Finance to obtain before-and-after innovation measurements.

That said, innovation metrics are obtainable by every organization. But training executives will have to have more knowledge about the subject matter to discover the questions and enough organizational clout to get the required information to compute required after-training metrics.

Leading Change Measurements

Even for a subject like leading change, important metrics can be obtained. For example, leading change really consists of four major components.

For those that like acronyms, we've created a new one for leading change. We call it ACE-I.

These four Peter F. Drucker-inspired leading change components are, namely: (1) Abandonment of the unproductive and obsolete; (2) Continuous productivity improvement; (3) Exploiting successes, and; (4) Innovation.

Obviously, there are entire methodologies and a corresponding scorecard of metrics for each one of these components, but it should be noted—indeed emphasized—that an all-important training program on leading change can be evaluated/appraised for specific quantifiable/bottom-line results over time.

Editor’s Note:

Knowledge is the business fully as much as the customer is the business. Professional, managerial & technical workers (i.e., knowledge workers) are fast becoming the largest single group of the total workforce in most organizations.

Without doubt, knowledge workers have become the major creator of corporate wealth. Increasingly the success, indeed the survival, of every business will depend on the performance of these knowledge workers.

Few will argue with the assertion that business is a human organization, made or broken by the quality of its people.

Keeping valuable employees in today’s fast-changing workplace is now a priority in a world where over 50% of world GDP is still in lockdown & the collapse of commercial activity in many sectors of the economy is far more severe than previous recessions.

A complicating factor: The current structure of many organizations inhibits the changes required to address the challenges of disruption & the promise of technology – including effective use of AI, IA, the new analytics, machine learning, and all the rest.

In this article, Jim Champy begins a much needed dialogue on what must be done to retain valuable employees, maximize their contributions, enable them to “self-actualize,” and ultimately be rewarded accordingly.

At our virtual Corporate Learning Week 2021 conference (March 9, 16, 23, 30), Jim will greatly expand upon why every organization must now rethink its organizational structure given today’s new realities/challenges.

The right organizational structure does not guarantee results; but the wrong structure smothers even the best-directed efforts, that is, the ability of the company produce meaningful results and to grow.

Further, Jim’s conference presentation will outline a series of organizational design principles & models that enable senior-level executives to begin the restructuring process. 

Introduction

It was in the pre-COVID days that a barista handed me a free cappuccino. I was standing in the plush kitchen of a Silicon Valley tech company and my host, the company’s CEO, was describing the importance of food to the happiness and productivity of the company’s people.

I had a similar experience in Boston, when I noticed the free beer and wine in another tech company’s reception area. Expansive thinking about workplace accoutrements was not just a West Coast phenomena. But for many in this virtual world, those accoutrements have now disappeared.

Remembering What I Learned From a Ten Cent Coke

That cappuccino did remind me of what I learned in my first company–this will date me. We didn’t have a barista or much of a kitchen. We did have a Coke vending machine and a self-serve coffee brewer. Both Coke and coffee were free. That is until our CFO–a very cost conscious and analytical engineer–determined we could no longer afford the free Coke.

There was an uproar in the company, but no one left. Everyone just put ten cents into the vending machine. People loved their work and had a sense of purpose. That’s why they stayed with the Company.

Times Are Changing

That love of work and purpose is becoming increasingly important as work has become more “virtual” and as people lose physical contact with each other and with their office, laboratory or factory floor.

It’s now predicted that somewhere between one to two thirds of a company’s associates will continue to work at home, even after the COVID pandemic subsides. But will people continue to love their work and achieve a sense of self-fulfillment when their contact with customers and other associates is through a Google or Zoom screen?

Did Maslow Have the Answer?

That question was partially answered by Abraham Maslow in 1943 in his paper, “A Theory of Human Motivation.” It’s still where most discussions on motivation begin. Maslow’s theories provide a good starting point for thinking about what keeps people committed to the work of an enterprise.

The Basic Idea

Maslow argued that we all share a hierarchy of needs, often represented as a pyramid. At the bottom of the pyramid are basic needs–food, water, warmth, rest, safety and security. These were important needs in the industrial age, and that’s where Maslow saw motivation beginning.

Next were psychological needs–belonging, love, relationships, esteem, prestige and a sense of accomplishment. At the top of the pyramid was self-fulfillment.

Inverting the Pyramid

I’m not a philistine. I enjoy good food and nice surroundings, but for many associates those virtual surroundings may now be a kitchen table, a study, the basement or a garage–and the food isn’t catered. I've been concerned–even before this pandemic–as to where companies were placing emphasis to keep their people engaged.

Today, I might invert Maslow’s pyramid and start with the importance of self-fulfillment. People stay committed to an enterprise when, first, they subscribe to the enterprise’s sense of purpose and then believe their work is contributing to that purpose in a meaningful way.

A Sense of Purpose

Some enterprises, like those engaged in healthcare, are fortunate: they have a built-in sense of purpose that keeps people engaged.

During this pandemic, we've seen there’s nothing like saving the lives of people to inspire. Most companies have an implicit sense of good purpose, but it needs to be clearly articulated, together with what the company values.

About 20 years ago, companies began putting what they believed in on the walls of their reception areas. You sensed the enterprise’s purpose as you experienced a real place and other associates. In the virtual world, there will be no such physical experience.

If there is any recent good news on the need to establish a company’s sense of purpose, it’s that the Conference Board has now endorsed the importance of an enterprise articulating its purpose. These are hard-nosed executives now saying that, for public companies, Boards of Directors must see that a purpose is articulated and followed.

On Psychological Needs

But words alone will not keep people engaged. Companies will have to pay more attention to how an associate’s work embodies that purpose. And there are other real actions that must be taken to satisfy psychological needs.

First, in a virtual world, paying attention to how personal relationships will be developed and maintained is critical. Workplaces depend on trusting relationships between people. Real conversations between people, real collaborations are critical–even over Zoom.

Second, I learned a long time ago that promotions and compensation are important components to a sense of accomplishment. I’ve seen many people believe they were not being fairly recognized–even in companies with flat structures. This condition continues today, especially with respect to women.

But just throwing stock and money at people won’t suffice. What’s critical to a genuine sense of accomplishment is a fair system of recognition and reward. Having such a fair system requires a lot of care and attention.

Experiencing fairness in a virtual environment is all the more important. It’s much easier for people–who feel unfairly treated–to walk out the door when there is no door.

And What About the Cappuccino?

Well, many people will have to learn how to make their own.

Interestingly, feeding people in the workplace didn't begin in the Valley. It actually began in Chicago during the depression, where the basic need for food was not being met in homes. The banks in Chicago built large cafeterias and started to feed their people three meals a day.

It’s All About Focus and Authenticity

My point here is really not about the food; It’s about where to put focus and resources. Hopefully, food can be bought. Self-fulfillment cannot.

To keep people around, companies must design work to support a sense of purpose, act authentically on that sense of purpose and create fair reward and recognition systems.

This focus is especially critical as competition for good people continues. Digitization will reduce the number of people a company needs; But for those people still around–at the workplace or at home–their psychological needs will remain critical to the success of an enterprise.

Attend Corporate Learning Week 2021 and learn directly from Jim how to build an organization capable of good strategy execution given today’s new realities & retain knowledgeable, valuable employees by giving them what they need, want, value, expect, and enable them to fully maximize their contributions.