Click to send email 

Bacal & Associates 
252 Cathcart St. 
Winnipeg, Manitoba 
Canada, R3R 0S2 
(204) 888-9290 

We know that a good deal of learning (eg. from training) is wasted because the goals are ill-defined, and the workplace supports to apply the learning are missing or absent. Stories abound about people who attend computer training, only to return to work and not have the hardware or software arrive until months after training. By that time, almost any benefits are lost. Stories also abound about being "sent" to training...people who have been asked by their managers to attend something, but not told why, or what they are expected to gain and contribute from the experience.  

Learning contracts are designed to help develop shared expectations about the purpose, process and results that are to come from any learning experiences. They are also used to plan learning for the upcoming year for each staff member.  

We define the learning contract as a strategic planning document. It is done (at minimum) once a year, preferably after each employee's responsibilities and job tasks are set for the upcoming year. Once those tasks/objectives are set, the question that follows is: What kind of learning/skills etc, would help the staff member complete those responsibilities more effectively?  
  
That yields the learning objectives or goals for the year. Once those are defined WITH the staff member, the next task is to determine what methods would be most appropriate for creating the required learning. It might be a training session, but it could be mentoring or coaching, secondment, job exchange, etc.  

The contract should also contain some reference to how the learning is to be applied in the workplace, (this is actually the "why"), and any supports required by the staff member to apply the learning.  
 

  

To summarize here are the key questions:  
  
1. What does the staff member need to learn this year that will help him/her achieve the goals negotiated for that particular year (or multiple years)?  
  
2. What is the best way for the staff member to acquire the skills/learning needed?  
  
3. How do we expect this learning to be applied in the workplace (how would we know it want's a waste of time?)  
  
4. What supports are needed in the workplace to ensure that the learning CAN be used in the workplace?  
  
It's a simple but powerful process and one that can be expanded in time and scope to link up to larger personnel and career development issues, or succession and promotion planning. The resulting document could be as small as one or two pages. One thing to keep in mind: the key element here is not the document per se but the communication and clarification process that comes from the dialogue between staff person and manager.  

 
The Learning Experience Contract  

While the strategic learning contract is more long range, sometimes learning or training opportunities "come up". For example, a major seminar may be offered that might be of some use. A staff member would like to go. How do you maximize the benefits from the investment?  
  
The learning experience contract is more specific than the strategic learning contract, and applies to a particular experience (eg. training seminar).  
  
The document itself can look very much like the one described above. The questions are similar.  
  
1) What is to be learned by being involved in the specific learning experience?  
  
2) How are these "learnings" linked to the staff member's job function, organization success, career development, etc.?  
  
3) How is the staff member expected to apply what has been learned? (may include things like sharing information with other staff, direct job applications, producing summary of the training points, etc).  
  
4) How can the manager or organization support the application of the learning in the workplace?  
 
Final Remarks: 

Some estimates suggest that the majority of formal and structured learning experiences (such as training) bring virtually no practical benefit to the organization, or even those directly involved. There are many reasons for this ranging from very poorly implemented training and learning, to lack of workplace support for the application of the learning. In addition, a good amount of training and learning is not thought-through" so experiences become "a vacation" or a "change". Given restricted budgets, there is a need to ensure that investments in learning are not wasted, and that we link them to both personal and  
organization effectiveness. The strategic learning contract, and the more specific learning experience contract provide a simple, but formal structure for linking learning and training with real outcomes.  
  
For those interested in more global human resource planning processes on a work unit basis, we suggest ordering our white paper on the subject: "Human Resource Development Planning For Public Sector Managers". An order form and brief description can be found elsewhere in this newsletter.  

Return To Top of Page 
Have a comment on this article?  Click to send email  
 

Over the last while our clients have requested that we do more conference speaking and keynotes. One reason is that we provide a different perspective on a number of subjects which has best been describes at pointing out that the "emperor is stark naked". Too many fads, too many abuses of management and training  techniques,  and we are particularly good at highlighting myths in the common wisdom.  
  
If you are looking for something different for your conference or get together, let us know. We promise a dynamic, energizing and thought provoking presentation that will get people's attention, and get people talking.  

We custom design our presentations but here are just a few sample topics:  
 

Why Performance Management Fails (and what to do about it)   
Training Scams That Trainers Play  
Why Most Training is A Bad Investment   
Cooperative Communication = The Core Team Skill   
Defusing Hostile Customers 

Teams & Personal Responsibility   
Dealing With Difficult Parents (for educators)   
How To Make Strategic Planning Work 

Return To Top of Page 

Need A Speaker? Have a comment on this article?  Click to send email  
 

As the editor of the Public Sector Manager (for six years) I would like to welcome you to the online version of our publication. We are migrating our newsletter to the 'net, and phasing out our paper publication. While the current title of the newsletter reflects it's roots and origins, you will find that almost all of the content relates to all sectors: public, private, and not-for-profit. In the Spring of '98, we will be renaming the newsletter to reflect these editorial changes.  

The PSM newsletter will be available in two ways. It will be posted on the internet at our web site, or you can subscribe for free and receive it in your mailbox. Subscription is simple. Just send us an email requesting that you be placed on our PSM mailing list. However, to take advantage of this option you will need:  

An Internet browser (like Netscape or MS Explorer)...what you are using to read this now.  

You will also need a program that can unzip "zipped" archives. 

All you will need to do is save the "zip" file we send you via email, unzip it and view the newsletter file with your browser. We will send instructions along with the newsletter.  

This is our first pure internet version. We invite your comments about the readability or formatting, so we can continue to improve it over the next few months. Please e-mail your comments to rbacal@escape.ca.  

 Return To Top of Page 

Humour With A Point  

Legacy Issues In Organizations 

(Editor's note: Regular readers know that we try to include a snippet of humour in our newsletters. This month, we have decided to use a “humour” piece as a jumping off point to an issue that is common in government.-the effects of past practice on present practice.)  

 The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 ft. 8 and 1/2in. (1.44m). That's an exceedingly odd number. Why is that gauge used?  

Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.  

Why did the English build 'em like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.  

Why did *they* use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools as they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.  

OK! Why did the wagons use that wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the ruts.  

So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of breaking their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made by or for Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing (ruts again).  

Thus we have the answer to the original question. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 ft. 8 1/2 in. derives from the original military specification (MilSpec) for an Imperial Roman army war chariot.  

MilSpecs (and bureaucracies) live forever!  

The Issue: 

The explanation above regarding the source of the railway gauge standard points to a very interesting issue in both organizations, and more specifically government organizations. I'd be willing to bet that you and most railway people are not aware of the origins of the rail standard. It just is. It's been around so long that most of us don't know or don't care where it comes from, provided we can get on a train and get to where we want to go.  

We call processes and procedures that arise from past needs or practices legacy elements. That is their existence and form is determined by reasons anchored in the past. Often those reasons are forgotten. All of us do things based on past often forgotten reasoning. This isn't necessary a bad thing. So long as the legacy element (process or procedure) doesn't create problems in achieving our mandates, it allows us to carry out work without questioning every step taken. However, there IS a problem and one that seems to be more prevalent in government. That is that the negative effects of the legacy element may be hidden from view. We may be acting in non-productive ways because we can't see that the legacy element no longer fits the environment we work in.  

There is a story of an outpost somewhere in the cliffs of Dover in England-a military outpost that was intended to provide early warning of a military attack. Established decades ago, it was staffed regularly and properly with well-meaning “watchers”. Unfortunately, the potential invaders had long since disappeared; the methods used at the outpost were useless and inefficient given modern technology. Still, it was staffed. The result, of course was that the English government spent money to fund a legacy process that was all but useless. And nobody knew. Why?  

Because the cost of the enterprise was buried, and nobody actually examined this legacy element to determine whether it served a purpose. It's “cost” was hidden, it's real purpose forgotten. Staffing this outpost had become an end in itself.  

Legacy Elements In Your Organization  

Every organization has them. They are the things you don't think about; the things you usually take for granted. Your legacy elements may relate to the use of specific forms, the use of performance management techniques that have never worked and never will, the way your phones are answered, reporting relationships, etc. They exist because they exist, and seem always to have existed. Think for a moment to see how many you are involved in. You're going to be surprised.  

Analyzing Your Legacy Elements  

If we keep in mind that legacy elements may be useful, we need to identify those that are positive, neutral or negative. One of the best ways to do that is to look at the COST of the process versus the PURPOSE of the process. While it makes sense to calculate actual dollar costs, this isn't necessary to the analysis.  

We can outline the following simple steps.  

1. Identify the specific process of interest (eg. performance management, forms, etc. It can be helpful to specify the components (sub-parts) of the process.  

2. Describe or identify the PURPOSES of the particular element or process. (If you can't identify a purpose, then that suggests you have a legacy element that needs very close scrutiny).  

3. Assess whether the particular process or element actually is the best available to achieve the purpose(s) you have identified. That means you need to use a creative process to imagine other possible ways of achieving the purposes identified.  

5. Assess the COST of the process or element. You can do this in terms of actual dollars or staff time, or you can do it in other less calculated ways, such as considering levels of inconvenience to staff, customers, etc.  

6. Judge whether the process or element ADDS VALUE to the organization. If it doesn't, you need to take action to alter it, eliminate it or otherwise ensure that the process ends up ADDING VALUE. Just to clarify, adding value means that the process furthers the achievement of your organization's mandate beyond the cost of the process itself.  

To show you the process in a more concrete way, we have put together a sample analysis (see the next page). The example relates to the use of a specific form of performance management (a common non-productive legacy element). The particular process analyzed uses a performance management form that makes use of standard rating scales for a number of performance descriptors.  

Tips On Using The Process  

The steps we have described above are deceptively simple-emphasis on the deceptive bit. We have put together a number of tips and reminders.  

1. Human psychology pushes us to ignore the familiar. This means that the most destructive (resource consuming) legacy elements are going to be the hardest to find. We take for granted that there is a good reason for what we do (even if we don't remember it). For this reason question everything.  

2. The purposes that you set should also be open to scrutiny. For example, one organization decided that it needed to create a process to manage its office supplies. It locked them in a cabinet, and allowed only one person to have free access. To get a pencil required the involvement of the “key holder”.  How did they determine the purpose of this procedure? They looked at their costs for those supplies and noticed an increase over time, and defined the purpose as cutting costs. In fact, the process had a neutral effect on costs, but had a negative result in terms of productivity. The purpose was wrong...the process of having a key holder didn't cut costs...on the whole it increased them.  

3. If you are a manager or a supervisor it is a fair bet that you are not “in touch” with some of the fall-out of your processes (the waste they produce). For this reason it is very important that you involve those that are “immersed” in the process in question, enlisting their help in determining both positive and negative results from the process.  

4. There are many ways to approach the identification of value-wasting process, be they new ones or legacy ones. One of our favourites, and one we have helped organizations use is “dehassling the workplace”. This process, which can be fun and productive, engages all staff in the process of identifying the barriers or hassles to their own productivity, AND generating and carrying out implementation plans to remove the hassles.  

5. Destructive legacy elements impact on your organization's ability to provide effective and efficient service. Destructive processes contribute to a sense of futility and frustration on the part of staff. For this reason, staff tend to “jump to it” when given the opportunity to address the “dumb things we do without knowing why” process. It's an easy sell to most people.  

Conclusion:  

Every organization has legacy elements-ways of doing things that are no longer productive, or never were productive. You needn't wait until your larger organization decides it wants to address these issues. You can start tomorrow in a number of different ways. The key is a critical eye, critical thinking, and a willingness to question what you do and why you do it...even if it seems obvious.  

Return To Top of Page 

Have a comment on this article?  Click to send email  

The Use of Personality/Style Preference Instruments (MBTI) In Organizations 

Some have called them the 90's equivalent of astrological signs. Others claim that personality/style preference assessment instruments are the most valuable tools available for developing people and organizations. In this special report we are going to examine some of the realities, concerns and issues relevant to the use of style preference instruments such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI). We are going to focus on the MBTI since it appears to be the most researched and most widely used instrument of this type, although our comments will apply to most instruments out there that purport to measure individual styles related to learning, behaviour, communication, etc.  

Background:  

Typically style/preference instruments contain a number of questions that are answered by the individual taking the test. The “test” is scored according to a pre-defined system that yields a “psychological type” In the case of the MBTI, the types are designed by a set of four letter (eg. INSJ), each letter representing a “psychological dimension”. One's final type is determined by the combination of the four maor dimensions. The dimensions, themselves are usually based on the work of psychologist Carl Jung, who was a contemporary of Sigmund Freud.  

Claims:  

A number of claims have been made in terms of the usefulness and applicability of  these kinds of instruments. The following uses have been suggested by users, and facilitators and vendors.  
 

• builds self-awareness 
• improves communication in groups 
• increases people's understanding of differences between people and supports diversity., 
• useful for determining how people should be taught so the will learn best. 
• improves communication between boss and employee 
• an excellent tool for team development 
• can be used to select staff (hiring) 

Counter-Claims  

On the other side of the ledger, there are counter-claims. Some of the suggested drawbacks associated with the use of  type indicators such as the MBTI include:  
  

• can just as easily cause communication problems since people tend to stereotype people according to type rather than understand and appreciate differences.
• only appears to increase self-awareness, in the same sense that astrology gives that appearance.
• is often misused and misunderstood by those taking it even if the administrator of the instrument is highly trained.
• gives excuses to “give up” on people one has difficulty interacting with (as in “Oh, they're just an ABCD, I never get along with those”.
• some people become almost religious believers in the results of these tests and as a result take the results far too seriously..
• cannot be used for hiring purposes for legal liability reasons
• type category has little to do with how people behave since behaviour is largely determined by the situation.

So we have claims and refutations. Let's look at some of these issues more closely.  

What Does The Research Say?  

It is impossible to even begin to summarize the research available-it is huge, and mixed. One problem is that most research is descriptive, investigating whether let's say accountants tend to be of certain psychological types. There are fewer good third party studies on whether the claims made about the instrument application are valid. While there are many claims re: team building, do we really know if they are true (or not)? No. Another concern relates to who does the research. Much of it is done by people already committed to the idea that type instruments are good tools. While they probably don't intentionally “cheat” in the research, they may phrase their research questions in ways that assume the instrument is valid or reliable (and this is clearly open to question).  

In short, it's all over the block. There are studies that support the instruments, and studies that contradict the claims.  
  

Why Are These Instruments So Popular?  

This is probably the key question. Knowing why these instruments are so popular can help us decide to us them or not, and how to make use of them. The answer to the question explains why the instruments might be of use, and how they will be misused.  

The short answer is that human beings are built to simplify the world. That is, there is a tendency for us to create simple categories to explain what we do and how we do it. This human characteristic is both helpful and harmful...it allows us not to be swamped with information, but also forms the basis for things such as racism, sexism and “typism”.  

So anything that helps us do that, and is, on the surface, intuitively appealing will be latched on to.  

Second, and as importantly, we are fascinated with ourselves. We like to learn about ourselves, and find ways of explaining our own behaviour. Simple methods to do so are widely embraced, much as some people embrace psychics, astrology, hand writing analysis, and phrenology (head bump analysis).  

The MBTI and similar instruments appeal to both of these powerful sources. They promise insight that is simple, intuitive and on the surface easy to understand. And they focus on the most important person in everyone's life-oneself.  

What Should I Know Before I Use Such Tools?  

1) That in any group of people taking such a test, you are going to find some people that are going to misinterpret the results, and take them as a full, accurate reflection of people and how they work. That will occur regardless of the level of expertise of the person administering the test. Quite simply some people will use the test to form opinions of others, justify intolerance, explain their own inabilities, etc., and go way beyond the intent of the results.  

So, while there may be claims of improving team function, it is also possible that the opposite will happen-that some people in the team will become less effective in teams as a result of taking part in the assessment process.  

2. Related to the above, people often use the results in ways that are inappropriate. Some people search for mates by MBTI type. Some attempt to select staff based on type. Here are several other misuses identified by Larry Tagrin, a contributor to the training and development internet forum:  

1.  The consultant who brought MBTI into the company (a very well known name in the field) strongly encouraged people to wear lapel pins  
with their 4-letter MBTI scores.  Isn't this labelling?  

2.  Some departments actually posted the names of all personnel and their MBTI scores on a bulletin board (physical, not computer).  

3.  At least one department had the departmental clerk doing all of the scoring and recording of MBTI results for the department.  

Another quote from Larry that is instructive:  

When people start identifying themselves by their MBTI score, they tend to lock themselves into a mindset that reinforces the results of the MBTI - sort of like people identifying themselves with their astrological sign.  Because they are  expected to act a certain way, they do so.  I have also heard people use their 'type' as an excuse for not addressing certain types of issues in the workplace. That is a cop-out.  

Consider the following from Gwen McCauley, a Canadian consultant:  

I can't believe some of the stuff about Myers-Briggs that I've seen here.Most of the applications people have noted are, in fact, unethical applications of Myers-Briggs!  I would strongly suggest that anyone considering using it ensure that the individual you'll be working with be an accredited MBTI facilitator.  My experience has been that many companies send an individual for accreditation, get an ID for ordering supplies, and then send out consultants who haven't personally been accredited.  

Hence, you end up with all kinds of distorted uses such:  

MBTI for hiring or selecting people for team assignments:  INADEQUATE- MTBI is an INDICATOR of PREFERENCES.  It doesn't measure the level of skills developed.  

Sharing MBTI types throughout organizations without individual consent  

Providing the organization with a list of everyone's MBTI type designation  

Asking people to "type" themselves by wearing a badge (IRRELEVANT because even though people have preferences, it doesn't mean they don't have skills at the other end of the scale -- and more importantly, it doesn't indicate in what circumstances  they display their preferences/skills.  

I believe that MBTI has some very valid uses.  In my practice I've had a great deal of success in the following ways:  

1)  to open people up to what their personal drivers are and areas where they might be experiencing difficulty  

2)  as a tool (among others) to help people select a new career path for themselves -- one that either provides opportunities to growth skills in their non-preference areas or one which leverages off skills they've developed in their preference areas.  

3)  for team members to start to understand that not everyone on the teams thinks/works the way they do and this doesn't make them stupid/lazy/inadequate/bad.  

Overall, MBTI is useful for helping people become conscious of how dynamic human behaviour is and to make decisions about their interactions with others at a conscious level, rather than being driven by automatic responses.  

How Can I Ensure Proper Use?  

In addition to the suggestions made by Gwen above, consider:  

1. Proper use requires proper long-term followup to remind people of the limitations of the tool, and to make sure it is used only where it “fits”. The test administrator should be able to answer the question: “How should you/we followup on the test-taking”?  

2. Only use test administrators that have been trained and certified with the the instrument. That is no guarantee of good results, though.  

3. Always be prepared for the folks that will mis-apply the results or use them to “excuse their own inabilities or bad behaviour”, or stereotype others using the results.  

4. Beware of people that oversell the applicability of the results. Keep in mind that those selling you instruments and administering them have a significant financial stake in your “buy-in”. While some will prepare you for the up and downside, others may not.  

Gwen McCauley's comments have been reprinted with permission.  

 1.Druckman, D., & Bjork, R. A. (Eds.). (1991). In the mind's eye: Enhancing human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.  

Return To Top of Page 

Have a comment on this article?  Click to send email