Three performance myths, part 2: training equals performance

Tony Bingham, CEO of ASTD (the American Society for Training and Development), addressed a group of us yesterday at an informal luncheon. It was a 'town-hall' style meeting to discuss the role of training professionals in the current economy. One of the central themes was very enlightening: many executives and even training professionals are still looking at 'training' as an event-based activity that will magically produce better performance. When this inevitably doesn't happen, the credibility of the training program naturally comes into question.

There are three major problems with this approach, and it is up to us workplace learning and performance professional to engage senior leaders to fix it before these executives are forced to make budget cuts.

Problem #1: Measurement.  The goal of training programs is typically some level of increased performance. Unfortunately, training is still widely measured by number of participants, learner satisfaction, and cost. Training should be evaluated by it's ability to help increase performance, improved business results, and return on investment.

Problem #2: Commitment. Many managers are guilty of sending their employees off to training to 'be fixed'. They should be playing an active role in their employees' development, both before and after the training takes place.

Problem #3: Support. A training class can be equated to planting a seed in a garden. Without water, sun, and nutrients, that seed will never produce vegetables. Training is the same way. Learners need support, coaching, and opportunities to practice once they've attended a class to make learning stick.

Three performance myths, part 1: the myth of experience

I am currently in Alexandria, Virginia working on a project for a training industry association, the American Society for Training and Development. There are training and development experts from around the country here, so naturally our dinner conversations turn to learning and performance. An interesting topic tonight was the myth of experience.

Experience feels like a safe bet when predicting someone's future performance. We rely on it when hiring employees, justifying promotions, and even choosing vendors. But experience can be seriously misleading. To quote one of my colleagues, "You can have twenty years of leadership experience, but you might have been doing it badly for those twenty years."

A much better predictor of future performance is what someone knows and what someone can do. This is harder to assess, but infinitely more valuable.

Cool customer service tool you shouldn't have to need

I recently heard about a cool new web-based service called Fonolo that helps you bypass the endless phone trees many companies require you to navigate when calling customer service. It will do much of the menu navigation for you and then call you when you get to the right spot. The short video below explains it better than I can and the Fonolo website does an even better job.

As great as this concept is, it is sad that anyone would need it. Companies who truly care about their customers would have their phones ring directly to a live person or a simple menu that says "Press 1 for a live person or 2 for automated self-service." Anything else may be more efficient for the company but is ultimately aggravating for the customer.

Of course, there's always Get Human for those companies (like Amazon) that are so extreme they make it hard for you to even find their number!

BusinessWeek's 2009 Customer Service Champs

BusinessWeek has just released their list of 2009 Customer Service Champs. Their methodology may be flawed, but one theme is clear: companies are working hard to keep the valuable customers they already have along with the talented employees that serve them.

You may want to start by reading BusinessWeek's Top 25 list here.

So, why is this list flawed?
To be clear, it is still a good message (more on that in a moment), but I disagree with their methodology.(You can read more about that here.) The biggest gripe I have with their rankings is the influence of the BusinessWeek Market Advisory Board. This is essentially a reader panel that was asked to provide a subjective assessment of their favorite and least favorite customer service organizations. Their opinions are balanced against other more objective factors, so an organization like Nordstrom can earn the #13 spot despite relative poor scores for quality of staff and efficiency of service from J.D. Power and Associates. (For the record, I am firmly convinced that Nordstrom jumped the shark long ago as a customer service icon.)

What's good about the list?
The list and supporting material keep the customer service conversation going, which is always a good thing. Their article "Customer Service in a Shrinking Economy" is especially on-target and is definitely worth a read.