Maximise your Training ROI

We humans can be lazy at times. We let projects slip and make unfulfilled promises. We get easily distracted, come up against obstacles and always manage to find more interesting things to do, rather than what we should be and have committed to doing, even though these things will take us toward our goals.

So, in order to reach one of your goals, you have recognised a need for training. You have found the right course, but how will you ensure that the learning from the course will be sustained? Many delegates will return back to the workplace, be thrown back into the routine and pressures of office life with the usual practices that they know and are comfortable with.

Train and retain: ensure you implement your knowledge

What motivates employees?

We are not as easy to manipulate, nor as predictable, as you’d think. An MIT survey calls into question the reward/punishment models that most organizations have been built on...

What the study showed was that, for simple, algorithmic, mechanical tasks, financial rewards work. But once the task moves above a rudimentary cognitive skill level, then financial rewards actually… backfire.




How can that be?

A study was done at MIT, where students were given various tasks ranging from memorizing digits, solving word puzzles to throwing a ball through a hoop. To incentivise the students, they gave them three levels of rewards similar to a typical motivation scheme within an organization. Thus if they reached level 1, they would get x, if they reached level 2 they get y, etc. What the study showed was that, for simple, algorithmic, mechanical tasks, financial rewards work. But once the task moves above a rudimentary cognitive skill level, then financial rewards actually… backfire.

Once you get above rudimentary cognitive skill, it's the other way around. For simple straight forward tasks, like 'if you do this then you get that', financial rewards deliver outstanding results. But when a task gets more complicated, when it requires conceptual, creative thinking, then those incentives don't work. If you don't pay people enough they won't be motivated. What this proves is that money is a motivator, yes. But the trick is to pay people enough so that money no longer matters, and people think about work, not cash.

What then emerged was a new purpose-driven motive based on three key factors: autonomy (get out of their way), mastery (people want to get better at tasks), and purpose (people want to make a contribution). Autonomy means to be self-directed. An Australian software company, Atlassian, told their developers that they can work on anything with whomever they want for 24 hours every quarter.  All they have to do is show the results to the company at the end of the 24 hours. Afterwards everyone got together with refreshments and discussed what they worked on. That one day of pure undiluted autonomy has lead to software fixes, various ideas for new projects and a culture based on innovation.

Mastery is the urge to get better at stuff. This is why people play musical instruments at the weekend. Why would people spend time on something that is not going to lead to any financial rewards or finding a partner?  Because it's fun and you can get better at it which is satisfying. Take for example companies like Linux, Apache and Wikipedia. Various people around the world who have satisfying, challenging jobs which pay them a good salary, spend their spare time contributing to Linux or Wikipedia. But why are they doing this? Because it's challenging, it involves mastery and they get to make a contribution to the world.

More and more organisations across the world are realising that they need to have a purpose. Partly because it makes acquiring new talent easier and it makes coming to work easier. When the profit motive becomes unmoored from the purpose motive, bad things happen. Companies who are flourishing are animated by this purpose. Take Skype as an example: 'Our goal is to be disruptive, but in the cause of making this world a better place'. We need to have purpose in order to get up in the morning and go to work. The science indicates that we care about mastery, and we want to be self-directed. Based on these findings we can build better organisations, which in turn will also lead to making our world just a little bit better. 

Traditional management styles are great when what you are after is compliance. But in this new, purpose-driven world, you need to enable staff to do what they do well – and here, self-direction works best.

Mistakes to Avoid When Giving Employee Feedback

Feedback from managers is essential in engaging employees in their role and it is a part of a manager’s responsibility in developing (and retaining) employees. However, all too often, managers will fail to give feedback fearing that they will upset employees or change the status quo of the team.

Good managers consider feedback as an ongoing process and will communicate with employees about their performance at regular intervals, commenting on both the positive and negative aspects and producing an action plan to correct issues as and when they appear.

This article examines some of the most common mistakes that managers make when providing employees with feedback:

Waiting until the annual appraisal before giving feedback

Feedback should be seen as an ongoing process. Providing feedback (positive and negative) at regular intervals throughout the year allows employees a chance to correct any performance issues ahead of an annual appraisal. Waiting until the annual appraisal to give feedback is counter-productive as employees may come to fear the occasion and additionally, there is a chance that small problems are not dealt with initially resulting in them growing into much bigger issues.

Adopting the “Feedback Sandwich” style

A “feedback sandwich” is initiated by issuing praise, softening any issues that follow in the feedback giving stage. The conversation is concluded with more praise or a positive outlook. This approach is not to make the receiver feel good about the conversation but rather to help the manager to deliver difficult feedback and to reduce the chances of a defensive or confrontational reaction.

Using this technique often will result in employees getting to know that immediately following praise comes criticism and whilst they are still focused on the negative the praise is not effectively communicated.

Not communicating expectations

If employees do not know what they are expected to achieve from the start they are more likely to be confused when they do receive feedback. Ensure that employees receive realistic and achievable performance targets and that the feedback correlates with the performance areas that the employee is being graded on.

Fear of addressing the actual cause of poor performance

Many managers simply do not like providing employees with honest feedback for fear of upsetting them, instead opting to “sugar-coat” negative feedback which ends up confusing employees. To be an effective leader providing constructive and accurate feedback is essential, adopting a discussion-based collaborative style will ensure that employees are given time to talk about their own experiences in relation to the managers expectations allowing the employee to engage in open and honest communication, making the entire experience more positive.

Lack of preparation

Many managers do not spend enough time preparing for the feedback conversation. Both parties should come prepared and start off by reviewing the expectations set at the previous meeting, additionally, managers should document employee’s accomplishments and areas of poor performance throughout the year so they have an accurate record to refer to.

These are just some of the common mistakes that you need to avoid when giving employees feedback, if you have any other mistakes the managers make, please share them with us on Twitter or by adding a comment below.