Learning

, ,

Why Perfectionism Isn’t Perfect

Peas 400x265Why Being Mr. (or Mrs.) Perfect may not be so perfect after all.

Perfectionism is one of those wonderful character traits that we all aspire too, but can often lead to drastically negative behaviour.  It continually points to our failures, no matter how small and undermines our achievements.

Culturally, we prize perfectionism; Steve Jobs is frequently held as an ideal for insisting on perfection.

As we’ve discussed elsewhere, adaptability is a key ingredient in resilient people.  And resilient people are the ones who will come back time and again to face a challenge.  The irony of perfectionism is that eventually, the perfectionist will give up.  And whatever challenge they faced will be left un-conquered.  Was Steve Jobs a perfectionist?  Or was he able to adapt his ideas to the modern marketplace?  That debate still rages on in our office today.

But research now shows us that perfectionism is an acquired trait, we’re certainly not born with it.  How perfect were your idle doodles as a 4 year old?  Could they have been better?

One interesting shift in modern society is the pressure we place on our children to succeed.  Without the requisite social skills in place, children often perceive this pressure as criticism.  And it’s this perceived criticism that works its way into the psyche and develops as a trait.

One side effect to perfectionism is a focus on control; it encourages rigid thinking and behaviour.  That’s precisely the opposite of what is required from individuals across organisations in the modern context, where we want to see innovation and flexibility.

According to Psychology Today:

“Perfectionism reduces playfulness and the assimilation of knowledge; if you’re always focused on your own performance and on defending yourself, you can’t focus on learning a task. Here’s the cosmic thigh-slapper: Because it lowers the ability to take risks, perfectionism reduces creativity and innovation—exactly what’s not adaptive in the global marketplace.”

“Yet, it does more. It is a steady source of negative emotions; rather than reaching toward something positive, those in its grip are focused on the very thing they most want to avoid—negative evaluation. Perfectionism, then, is an endless report card; it keeps people completely self-absorbed, engaged in perpetual self-evaluation—reaping relentless frustration and doomed to anxiety and depression.”

Totem Gummi Bears

Below we list some of the personality traits exhibited by perfectionists.

Concern over mistakes: Perfectionists tend to interpret mistakes as equivalent to failure and to believe they will lose the respect of others following failure.

High personal standards: Perfectionists don’t just set very high standards but place excessive importance on those standards for self-evaluation.

Parental expectations: Perfectionists tend to believe their parents set very high goals for them.

Parental criticism: Perfectionists perceive that their parents are (or were) overly critical.

Doubting actions: Perfectionists doubt their ability to accomplish tasks.

Organisation: Perfectionists tend to emphasise order.

In a team environment we’ve experienced first-hand that the rigidity of perfectionism is difficult to work with.  The drive for the perfect answer doesn’t make space for the weird and wonderful world of collaboration.

What can you do to overcome the drawbacks to perfectionism?  As a starting point, we can take a leaf from Taibi Kahler’s book on drivers.  He identified ‘Be Perfect’ as an inherent driver type and offered these suggestions:

  • Encourage playfulness in your thinking process
  • Cultivate mindfulness when dealing with others
  • Practise accepting imperfection from others as well as yourself
  • Acknowledge the effort that’s put into meeting challenges
  • Invite feedback and embrace it

Perfectionism can be problematic because it can lead to obsessiveness, which in turn leads to a whole host of issues around attendance, performance, and morale.  For example; you’ll often see a perfectionist procrastinate because they’re afraid of failing before they start.

Or even worse, they may position themselves as a martyr. Certainly in a business context, the employees we regard as heroes, the ones who come in early, stay late, and solve every problem can actually mask inherent business issues.  The simple fact that heroic measures are required means at least some things are not working right.  So whether we call a person hero or martyr – we need to ask the question, what is really going on and what can we learn from that?

Read More
,

Manager-Led Learning

How do we encourage managers to take a more active role in learning?  And why is that important?

We recently had the privilege of working with a role model learning leader.  That’s a term we’ve possibly made up, learning leader.  What we mean is, a manager who leads their team in learning and developing constantly, attending workshops with them and/or holding each individual to account for applying the learning they have taken from any intervention.

In contrast, another organisation we worked with recently sent out line manager briefing webinars. The message was, “you asked for this development for your team, but now that means losing this person from your team and the day job for a whole day.  You can’t afford for that to be wasted time, so how can you ensure you get a return on that investment?”

Sadly the L&D team received reports from a few managers that their peers were bragging about not having watched the webinar, as though they had somehow got out of doing something boring and annoying.  Whilst one or two of the managers followed the advice and guided their people through a positive learning experience, most showed a lack of interest in the idea and many delegates complained that they had not been supported to use what they learned.

Time and time again, we see that the line manager’s role in learning is more important than any other factor.  CEB first reported on this decades ago and every paper on the subject since has revealed the same findings: well-designed, brilliantly facilitated learning in line with business objectives is useless without the support of the line manager.

Theories as to why the line manager is so important vary from the sense of support, “how can I help you apply what you learnt yesterday?” to challenge and accountability, “show me how you have benefited the business with new skills and actions since you went on that training.”  Even more simply, we know that what gets measured gets done and what gets talked about gets done.

So if a line manager is not measuring, noticing or talking about changes in behaviour following development, then why would anyone bother about it?

In the classic wisdom of less is more, our experience tells us that the L&D team investing in 1:1 conversations with delegates’ managers makes the biggest difference.  Rather than focusing on getting more people through more development programmes, these L&D teams invest in supporting fewer people to a higher level of quality.  And of course if this happens first at the top, then the cascade effect can work its magic.

With leaders at the top role modelling support and challenge for the application of learning, then ultimately the business can end up with the holy grail of a learning culture.

So if you’re struggling with engaging line managers on a mass scale, why not start small?  Find a couple of managers who are doing this pretty well and work with them to make it even better.  Find another few managers who might be open to trying something new, and guide them on how to coach their people to share their learning and put new skills into practice.  You’re likely to see greater success with that than anything designed to engage the masses.

Read More
, ,

What is Neuroscience?

Neuroscience1 TotemWhat is neuroscience and what impact could it possibly have on our industry?

It might seem like one of those fad terms as it’s everywhere at the moment, but neuroscience has a lot to offer the discerning L&D professional, people manager and leader.

Neuroscience is the study of the brain – or more technically the nervous system including the brain and spinal cord – so it’s like learning how people really work.  Let’s take a closer look at some of the ways this relatively new science is quite literally changing the way think about work.

Click on the image and magic will happen!

neuroscience-cover

 

 

 

 

Read More
, ,

Threat vs Reward

Is it a carrot?  Is it a stick?

At the forefront of every good organisation’s thinking is how to maximise the value of its (usually) most costly asset: its people.

One of the most effective ways of maximising our people’s potential is to create an environment which is conducive to optimal performance. Thankfully for us neuroscience sheds a significant amount of light on this issue. Which is what we’ll explore now.

But first, a little neuroscience 101.  The primary role of our brain is to help us navigate our environment; this distinguishes us from plants, for whom the only way is up.

On a very basic level our brain does this by avoiding threats and seeking rewards. While this instinctive orientation is brilliant for finding food and avoiding becoming it, it does generate problems for us in 21st century life.

Firstly, we have an incredibly strong natural response to threat that is instant and long-lasting.

When we were being chased by tigers this was brilliant, in flight or fight mode our brain’s responses cause a rise in heart rate and blood pressure, our pupils dilate to take in as much light as possible, which helps to trigger brain cortisol production (stress hormone) and decrease dopamine (pleasure hormone).  Rest assured you will not be distracted by tempting pleasures whilst running for your life!

Cortisol makes us see things in black or white, yes or no and leads us to over-assess the level of threat in front of us.  From an evolutionary viewpoint, those ancestors that thought “better safe than sorry” presumably lasted a little bit longer.

However, all of this is rather unhelpful as a response to a strongly-worded email from your boss.  Herein lies the issue: our brains respond to social threat in much the same way as they respond to physical threats.

As a result of this perceived threat (even though it’s just an email), the blood vessels to our muscles dilate in preparation for action and blood flows away from our Prefrontal Cortex – the part of our brain which manages planning, complex cognitive behaviour, decision-making and our emotions.  Otherwise known as the rational part of our brain.

If we threaten someone or put them in a threatening work environment (even by just writing an email they respond negatively to), we are literally reducing their capacity to think rationally.  So when you’re upset with someone for being behind on a deadline or being unhelpful in some way, the very email you might send to get them to focus and do better, will probably only make things worse.

Blood moves to this area of the brain when under threat...

Neurologically speaking this should be great news, because surely there is something we can do about it?  We know that our brains are mouldable like plastic, so whenever we find out something about our brains that is not ideal, we can consider ways to respond and encourage our brains to react differently.

Is reward the solution? The effects of reward, although less strong, do put us in a better state of mind for operating in the modern working world.  Reward stimulates parts of the brain that are responsible for optimism, concentration, collaboration and innovation.

However, it is surprising to some that the conventional business understanding of reward i.e. money, is perhaps not as significant for creating a reward state of mind as was once thought.

Research has shown when we are given a choice between money and social connection we are more motivated by social rewards than by monetary ones.  The research suggests this is because our brains experience physical pleasure during socially rewarding experiences.

For instance, having people collaborate with us, perceiving ourselves to have a good reputation, receiving recognition or giving help to someone all trigger a pleasurable reward response.

So by extension, creating an environment which offers rewards and minimises threat does not necessarily mean financial incentivising.  What the research suggests is that we need to create an environment where we each build genuine relationships with one another.

What could you do with this information?  How might you contribute in your office and your team to a working environment where strong relationship-building is the expectation?

Read More
,

The Games People Play

games-people-play-totemUnderstanding the dynamics of relationships in a way that is truly practical

The Games People Play explains and analyses with pertinent real-life examples, the continual struggle between our inner child, parent and adult to dominate a social situation, colloquially termed as ‘games’.

The book interprets that the outcomes of these games are a fundamental human requirement and by understanding the way these games are played we learn to understand the motivations of ourselves and our peers.

Each chapter addresses various situations and the author lists the multitude of games people partake in where the outcome is win, lose or draw.  The games have names such as: “See What You Made Me Do”; “Ain’t It Awful”; and “I’m Only Trying To Help You”.

Berne introduced some of these concepts in Transactional Analysis and gives lots of examples of the different games played by people.  The book provides a view to pinpoint and categorise people’s behaviour or combinations of behaviours and to think about the origins & continued causes of this behaviour.

The book examines the roles people assume in their interpersonal relationships which foster the subsequent and often repetitive transactions. The description of some of the games such as Alcoholic and Courtroom are incredibly interesting.

On the whole the book is a very interesting study of human behaviour and a good set of “worked examples” for anyone trying to understand Transactional Analysis.

Read More
, ,

70 20 10 Further Research

702010 TotemWhat could 70:20:10 mean in practice if we pushed the boundaries?

As more organisations look to review their learning strategies according to the principles behind the model, there has been a corresponding push from some parts of the L&D community for further evidence to support the principles of 70:20:10 in practice.

In response, Towards Maturity have produced new data which claims to look at the actions behind the numbers and the resulting impact on performance.  We’ll review their work in a little more detail below.

702010

Read More
, ,

70 20 10 In Practice

70-20-10-TotemWhat does it really mean and what does that mean to me in L&D?

This model or set of principles seems to have been a little misunderstood.

The CCL shared the 70:20:10 model as a description of what happens in the workplace.  It was not in itself a guide for what we should be doing in L&D or a target for how we should spend our time and money.

The  research suggested that in reality, we learn 70% of everything we know on-the-job and 20% from asking others.  It makes sense – how do we do things around here?  Where’s the coffee machine?  How do we file our expenses?  What’s Joe like in IT?  How do we tend to manage customers who ask for too much?  What is our usual approach in this business of managing teams?

We learn by doing, asking around, observing how others do it and seeing what feedback we get on our performance and behaviour.

Totem Lollipops

A lot of the time we don’t even realise we are learning – it’s just all going in, giving us points of reference for when we’re in a similar situation.

Our manager and our peers are our L&D team – they are delivering learning for us all day every day.  So what does this mean for learning professionals?  Should we give up?  Of course not!

What is required is a different way of thinking about learning.  The age-old “I know more than you do on this topic, so you sit there and I’ll impart my knowledge” does not and will not cut it.

Sukh Pabial’s consistently insightful blogs have given some suggestions on this.  See this one for a list of interventions that could be helpful alternatives to the traditional classroom learning:

It seems to us there are two big questions to deal with with:

1) If the manager is delivering learning all day, every day – are they teaching people good stuff – or bad stuff?

2) What does that mean we need to do in L&D?

We can answer the first question using employee engagement data and looking at the performance of teams.  If speaking to a member of team fills us with enthusiasm and confidence then I’m sure the manager is teaching good stuff every day.  If the team sound disengaged and frustrated – and we hear complaints about that team across the business, I can’t imagine the right attitude and behaviours are being role modelled.

Totem Gummi Bears

If we’re happy that managers are developing the good stuff, why mess with it?  The role of L&D is then to offer further support to what is already happening on the job, through skills and knowledge development.

The challenge is usually that the majority of managers are not developing the good stuff.*  The role of L&D then has traditionally been to give people an alternative view: “Here’s some good stuff you could do.”

But this will most often be drowned out by the manager,* who is still offering on the job learning (whether intended or not) that lacks support for or directly contradicts the messages L&D are giving.

So perhaps the most straightforward role for L&D is to support managers – so that they can role model great performance and great character.  That might start right at the top, so that the role modelling of the good stuff filters through, or it might start at one level and move in both directions.

Either way, let’s find out what the managers think and how they consider things could be better.  Then let’s support them to develop the skills and habits required to deliver just that.

* We don’t want to shoot the manager – click here to find out more.

Read More
,

Learning Technologies Event Pt.2

LT-Totem 400x265Part 2 of our little jaunt to the Learning Technologies event

In case you missed the first part, you can find it here.

Blame Taylor

We can all be guilty of thinking that problems can be addressed with a one-size-fits-all solution.  With an elearning course or even a blended learning journey – it’s “we design, you consume.”  Saffron Interactive spoke at the event of Taylorism – the principles of management devised by Frederick Taylor (not to be confused with the fandom of Taylor Swift!).

Taylorism worked really well in the early 1900s manufacturing world, where working out the most efficient and effective way of doing something, then teaching everyone else to do just that, in that way, gave great results.  As decades, technology, lifestyles, attitudes and ways of working have moved on, Taylorism has all but disappeared, except, this speaker argued, in L&D.

That sounds rather harsh – are we really saying that L&D teams sit in a dark room working out what people need to know and how they should learn it, then force out that model for consumption?  There have certainly been examples of this, but we see plenty of examples of the opposite too: L&D professionals working with people to identify the root cause of an issue and generate solutions together that suit each person.  There is also the challenge of making individually-tailored learning and problem-solving solutions scalable.  We can’t deliver something bespoke to every person in a global corporation, can we?

Totem Lollipops

Playlists

One suggestion of how this individually tailored approach might work was from Saffron Interactive.  They seem to have taken what works well in the consumer world – YouTube channels and iPod history – and presented the idea of playlists for learning.  This works particularly well if your online learning system is a curated set of user-generated insights, on top of the L&D-generated material.  The idea is that an individual’s line manager would look at the content and suggest a playlist for someone in their team.

You would hope that playlist would be based on the individual’s recent reviews, goals, strengths and development needs – as well as interest areas.  Then the manager has been directly involved in the development journey and encourages the individual to use the content recommended.  When the individual looks through that playlist, views content, rates it as useful, adds their comments, recommends it to others in their team – there we start to see the level of engagement with learning we might dream of.

Work problems not learning needs

But does all this miss the point, that we don’t think we need learning?  Another study conducted by Scott Bradbury highlighted that managers are highly confident in their abilities as people managers.  They consider that they have plenty of experience – and it’s this experience that is most beneficial when someone faces an issue, not external best practice insight or learning.  Now that’s a challenge: If someone doesn’t think they need any development, why would they choose to login to a learning system at all?

Perhaps this brings all of these considerations back to the overall trend in learning and development: We need to be helping people with their work challenges, not offering them learning.  Rather than a “leadership programme” we need to be offering “what to do when you’re pushed to deliver more with less.”  So does that mean you should stop all elearning?

That seems a bit drastic considering the content could be useful.  But certainly there is a need to reposition what’s on the system as helping with challenges rather than giving learning.  And if your system is mostly used for compliance training, there is a far wider question to be explored about the culture of the organisation and the behaviour that is encouraged – is it in line with, or counter to the content of the compliance training?

Read More
,

Learning Technologies Event Pt.1

Totem-LT-Logo1 400x265“Stop your elearning!”  Wait, what?

There was plenty of myth busting going on at the Learning Technologies event, some well-founded and others perhaps a bit too harsh.

“Forget 70:20:10, there’s no empirical evidence for it” was on the harsh side, given that the idea of 70:20:10 was never published as a proven theory for how we learn, more a sensible approach for supporting learning in the workplace.

“Stop putting compliance training online, it doesn’t work” may be one we need to pay attention to.  We saw the bankers of 2008 (who it has been pointed out will have all completed their compliance training) following a set of behaviours that were certainly not in line with that training.

And the 2012 HBR article stating that “diversity training doesn’t work” made some very good points about emphasising difference rather than developing good communication skills and understanding.

But should we stop providing elearning altogether?  Here we’ll explore the different evidence and theories on why elearning doesn’t achieve what we want it to, and consider some recommendations for L&D teams as a result.

Just Google it – obviously!

A few firms have carried out research to understand where and how people learn when they need to.  A key point here was to ask people what they do when they face a challenge they don’t know how to work through – as that’s a more relevant question than “how do you learn?”  Ask the latter question and people think back to education, not everyday life skills.

Good Practice shared their finding that the most frequent things managers do when they face a new challenge are to have a conversation with their colleagues and do an internet search.  Looking at in-house online learning or resources was 5th on the list.  Considering an internal or external face-to-face course came 10th and 11th on the list.

Why is that?  Why don’t people use the resources L&D have provided for them?  The suggestion, from both further data and anecdote, was that we all want to use things that are quick, easy and relevant.  In fact ease of use was the greatest determining factor in deciding what or who to go to for help (not how useful the insight might be!).  Isn’t it easier to ask someone, or Google it, than it is to log in to the company LMS, search for a course and find the specific aspect relevant to the particular challenge faced?

Good Practice recommended a test for your elearning, intranet or LMS: Ask someone to think of a challenge they might face at work, then time them finding something that will help them with that on your system.  Now time them finding a pair of shoes they would like and getting to the point of purchase.

That’s the difference perhaps summed up most beautifully: Our experiences as consumers teach us to expect everything to be easy to find, relevant to our needs and quick to buy.  Our experiences with company learning systems and intranets is that they’re hard to navigate through, it’s difficult to find what we want and it’s slow.

There’s a further update from this remarkable event and it can be found here!

Read More