Executive Training, anyone?

[blobru]

Just curious: what do business people here think of executive training -- seminars and retreats and the like?

I'm not really a business person myself, but I have come in contact with a group called Landmark Forum seminar training (ne "est"), which seems to be either a spin off or source for a lot of the techniques and jargon in so-called leadership programmes; as well the man with the Mardi Gras float head, or his minions at least, Tony Robbins. A lot of what they offer seems to come right out of psychology (Maslow), philosophy (Heidegger), religion (Zen?), and self-helf (Dale Carnegie); all interesting in their own right but I'm not sure the whole equals the parts. The rest seems to me nothing but kindergarten common sense dressed up in $50 words -- authentic empowerment to commit to a personal stance both proactive and visionary in its entrepreneurial paradigm... "hey! you in the rayon tie and half-rolled up sleeves: go ***** yourself, ok?"

Anyway, as might be evident from that last crass comment, I did not enjoy my contact with either of the aforementioned groups and their hardsell recruitment tactics; but are they just a cultish caricature of an otherwise valuable resource for business people. Or is the whole exec training model -- 'catch me' trust games, tree climbing, playing football in the dark, "teamwork, people, c'mon, believe in yourself!" -- just another hook for bilk artists and business woo?

I probably won't have a lot to contribute to any discussion; await your feedback nonetheless. :)

[Wolfman]

My previous company did a lot of corporate training (you can check us out at www.newleaders.com.cn); I started it with a Taiwanese partner a number of years ago, and although I recently sold my share of the company to her, I still maintain a certain degree of involvement with the company.

As such, I feel that I can comment on corporate training with a fair degree of authority. And, as such, I'd say that the vast majority of the programs out there are a waste of time and money. The "useless" programs generally fall into two categories:

1) "Feel Good" seminars/experiences -- these are the programs that get people really pumped up and excited. While you're there, it feels like you're on top of the world, and you can do everything. Within a few weeks of getting back to "real life", however, things have returned to the way they were before.

2) "Generic" training -- these are programs that arguably have good principles, but are generic and too general in content. They focus on conveying information that may be valuable, but not on actual practice and implementation of that information.

For the most part, I'm skeptical of any training program that claims to produce results with a one or two day training program. While a few people may actually experience revelations and change themselves as a result, for the majority of people one or two days simply is not enough time to implement effective change.

In New Leaders, we always tried to emphasize coaching as a key component of our training programs. We did the one or two day seminar thing; but followed it up with regular coaching sessions with key people, where we would help them set goals, evaluate progress, identify problems, and identify the best way to get over those problems. We didn't just do training; we made an effort to have ongoing coaching that enabled active implementation of the principles we taught.

Is it useful? Well, inevitably, part of it depends on the company themselves, and how willing (or capable) they are to implement proposed changes and strategies.

My own area of specialization was cross cultural consulting; helping foreign companies working in China to understand the cultural differences in dealing with Chinese employees, business connections, and customers. Did it make a difference? 70% of the companies that I consulted for had a minimum 25% increase in profits within 6 months of implementing our program; some had over 50%. So yeah, I'd say it made a big difference.

When I started doing this kind of consulting ten years ago, I was one of the 'ground-breakers' in China...few companies were interested in it, they felt that "business is business", and culture made little difference. In addition, it was too "soft", there was nothing quantifiable that they could look at to determine its validity.

Today, cross cultural consulting is one of the hot industries in China, commanding big bucks, with the majority of multinationals seeking such training not only for China, but for all their overseas operations. And now, as Chinese companies are expanding overseas, they are also starting to ask for similar training and consulting.

In regards to making it more "quantifiable", I developed a Cultural Assessment (called the Cultural Pattern Identifier, or "CuPId") that is similar to a personality assessment. You answer a questionnaire with 128 questions (it takes around 15-20 minutes), and we can generate a chart that shows your cultural orientations in 30 different categories. This can then be compared with any other individual or group.

So, for example, if you're planning on coming to China, I can tell you before you come in exactly what areas you are most likely to experience cultural conflict or misunderstanding, the ways in which that conflict will manifest itself, and suggest strategies to prepare yourself for it. And the best thing is, its not based on stereotypes (ie. "You're American, so that means you're like this"); it is based 100% on your own results.

Companies here absolutely love this, and it has proven to be an invaluable tool in not only identifying cultural conflicts within companies, but in tracking the progress of dealing with those conflicts.

Back to the main topic -- there are definitely good quality programs out there. But you need to do your due diligence, check them out. I would personally tend to skeptical of programs that claim they can change your company with a two day program, or a three day retreat. Far too often the results from this are short-term at best. The exception to this is programs that teach specific new skills; not general concepts, but specific skills that can be learned during the training, and applied immediately afterward.

I would overwhelmingly argue in favor of programs that offer ongoing coaching and support; those are the ones that will have the greatest effect, and in which the company you have hired has the greatest personal investment.

Consider. If you do a 2 day seminar, then afterwards decide it was useless, you're out of luck...you've paid your money, the training company has no further responsibility to you. But if you hire a company that includes ongoing coaching, then they have to provide quantitative results; if they fail to do so, they'll be fired, and will not receive full payment for their services.

It costs more for such programs, and is one reason why some companies don't spring for it; but as with everything else in life, you get what you pay for.

[Miss Anthrope]

I've had to do some of the lamer Franklin Covey type time management things. For me it did no good. I was never interested in using my Franklin to it's highest potential. I did better scribbling on a calendar and planning my days and weeks accordingly.

Done the retreat thing. Pointless waste of time, usually, but a bonus if the hotel and/or location was nice. Personally morale and productivity would have been better served if they just gave us the cash they spent on us as a bonus.

If ANY employer tried to send me to Landmark Forum, they'd have a fight of epic proportions on their hands. Their techniques are classic, and involve sleep deprivation, emotional breakdown followed by group and "technology" build up, plus the usual "work for us for free, spend mega bucks on more, make your friends sign up" nonsense. I'd call in lawyers pretty quickly on that one.

ETA: Oh, there was this one bible study retreat that Prime Time Shuttle wanted me to attend. That ended my employment, and I assure you, lawyers were involved on that one.

[Wolfman]

The problem with stuff like the Franklin Covey stuff is that the actual content is okay, but they simply license the program out to any trainer who passes a minimal standard of understanding the content. Thus, the quality of trainer will vary widely.

In the hands of a top quality trainer, the Franklin Covey stuff can be very powerful; in the hands of an average trainer, it will provide potentially useful information, but not much else; in the hands of a poor trainer, it is a complete waste of time and money. The problem is, you often don't know which type you're getting until too late.

And, of course, programs must be adjusted to the needs and experience of the audience; the exact same information in a particular seminar could be of great use to a group of inexperienced managers, but would be nothing new at all to a group of senior execs.

One of the biggest problem is the sales departments of the companies that offer these programs; their job is simply to sell, they are not the ones who do the actual training. And they get paid according to how many programs they sell.

This was a problem for us in New Leaders; our sales staff had a tendency to simply sell any product they could, regardless of whether or not it was of actual value to the client. We had to radically restructure the way we did sales, and the way we rewarded our staff for making sales, in order to break that pattern.

[The Atheist]

Just curious: what do business people here think of executive training -- seminars and retreats and the like?

In brief: a waste of time and money.

Wolfman has summed it up perfectly - and remember, I'm a guest speaker at some of these seminars, so I'm happy to publicly claim there's benefit in them, but I don't usually admit publicly that the benefits are short-lived, irrelevant and not at all cost-effective.

It's a bit deja vu, we touched on this subject in one of the other business threads, where I showed that the average time these things work for is until after lunch next Tuesday.

I'm not really a business person myself, but I have come in contact with a group called Landmark Forum seminar training (ne "est"), which seems to be either a spin off or source for a lot of the techniques and jargon in so-called leadership programmes; as well the man with the Mardi Gras float head, or his minions at least, Tony Robbins. A lot of what they offer seems to come right out of psychology (Maslow), philosophy (Heidegger), religion (Zen?), and self-helf (Dale Carnegie); all interesting in their own right but I'm not sure the whole equals the parts. The rest seems to me nothing but kindergarten common sense dressed up in $50 words -- authentic empowerment to commit to a personal stance both proactive and visionary in its entrepreneurial paradigm... "hey! you in the rayon tie and half-rolled up sleeves: go ***** yourself, ok?"

:dl:

Brilliantly put!

Anyway, as might be evident from that last crass comment, I did not enjoy my contact with either of the aforementioned groups and their hardsell recruitment tactics; but are they just a cultish caricature of an otherwise valuable resource for business people. Or is the whole exec training model -- 'catch me' trust games, tree climbing, playing football in the dark, "teamwork, people, c'mon, believe in yourself!" -- just another hook for bilk artists and business woo?

Speaking as one who takes the money, you're quite right - it's a load of psychobabble dressed to impress.

There is actually a deeper issue here, which I'd been intending getting into - the whole "Human Capital" idea. These "team-building exercises" that you describe above are a means of tying people to their employer rather than their families - it's a Japanese tactic, but thankfully, cultural differences haven't allowed that to happen yet.

I often suspect that if "teams" didn't have the "coach" watching, quite a few managers would end up face-down in the dirt rather than gently landing on their dear colleagues' outstretched arms.

Back in the dark ages when I was an employee, I managed to get myself in hot water by walking out of a "team-building exercise" because it was rampant BS.

Some companies are a little smarter and use the same amount of money as the course/seminar costs to let their workers have a right rave-up party, complete with spouses and families. This is the approach I recommend, but only a few see the benefits in paying the same amount for a blatant party as they do for emphasising the altered paradigm in the dialectics of growth impetus in human capital investment in today's global economy. Give 'em a booze-up and they'll still be reminiscing in six months' time, send 'em on a "team-building seminar" and they'll be telling their mates next Wednesday what a load of old cobblers it was - barring the few out-and-out drones with no mind or personality who buy into it 100% and use it as a life matra from then on.

The problem is, equally with religion or astrology, it actually can have benefits. Just as a few loners with no life see a saviour in Jesus and are happier for it, quite a few reasonably successful drones snatch onto weird philosophies of Tony Robbins, John Kehoe, Paul Dunn, etc., ad nauseum, and manage to parlay it into a half-decent career. Our former All Blacks coach is a shining example.

John Mitchell managed to grab the most important job in the country by blinding 47 old farts with his newrugbyspeak. This is a very NSFW (profanity, no pics) link to a pretty honest and hilarious appraisal of how Mitchell's ambitions and capabilities were mis-read when he got the job, against all predictions. Enjoy! (http://www.haka.co.nz/haka-column.php?archid=222&column_name=Test%20Rugby%20Editorial)

[Wolfman]

One of the most popular executive team building programs for awhile was called "I Will Not Complain"; it consisted of weekend outdoor retreats where everyone went through a variety of vigorous physical tasks (running an obstacle course, building a bridge, etc,), in which teamwork was necessary. The entire focus of the program was to take the focus off of complaining about difficulties, and instead to focus on finding the best solutions.

Now, the principle was great; and groups that went on these weekends came away with glowing testimonials as to what a great experience it was, and how well they had learned to work as a team.

The problem is that those results were short-lived at best. Why?

All those people, within a certain environment (the office) have established patterns and behaviors. How they relate to others, how they handle stress, how they arrange their work schedule, how much effort they exert, etc. These patterns and behavior are very difficult to break when people remain within the same environment.

The reason that IWNC appeared to work so well was because they took everyone out of their familiar environment, and put them in an unfamiliar environment, and they replaced familiar tasks (office work) with unfamiliar tasks (negotiating a difficult obstacle course). It was relatively easy to break down established behaviors and patterns because the participants didn't have any established behaviors and patterns within this particular context. So "breakthroughs" came easily, and could appear quite revolutionary.

But once back in the office, the old patterns and behaviors would immediately start to re-assert themselves. The manager who was a pompous, over-bearing jerk before the retreat didn't suddenly have his personality or management style changed because of a two-day retreat; the employee who was afraid of personal responsibility didn't suddenly become a go-to man for difficult tasks.

And when this happened -- the time when such training was most needed, and would yield the best results, where were the trainers? They were long gone, the money for the weekend training already pocketed. And hey, if it turned out that it didn't really transform the company, it wasn't their fault; it was the fault of the company for "failing to effectively implement what we taught them."

Once again, particularly when one is talking about training that involves implementing significant change, and/or breaking established patterns, a long-term commitment to ongoing coaching and re-evaluation is the only program that has a reasonably high expectation of success.

[blobru]

Said I wouldn't say much; but I find these firsthand details fascinating!

1) "Feel Good" seminars/experiences -- these are the programs that get people really pumped up and excited. While you're there, it feels like you're on top of the world, and you can do everything. Within a few weeks of getting back to "real life", however, things have returned to the way they were before.

The climate of charismatic self-belief involved in these mass cheerleading sessions reminds me of the Nuremberg Rallies without the funny moustache.

In New Leaders, we always tried to emphasize coaching as a key component of our training programs. We did the one or two day seminar thing; but followed it up with regular coaching sessions with key people, where we would help them set goals, evaluate progress, identify problems, and identify the best way to get over those problems. We didn't just do training; we made an effort to have ongoing coaching that enabled active implementation of the principles we taught.

Now that sounds useful. Show people how to organize and communicate... in the workplace! Who knew? Of course it can't touch holding hands in the forest; still, B+ for ingenuity. :)

In regards to making it more "quantifiable", I developed a Cultural Assessment (called the Cultural Pattern Identifier, or "CuPId") that is similar to a personality assessment. You answer a questionnaire with 128 questions (it takes around 15-20 minutes), and we can generate a chart that shows your cultural orientations in 30 different categories. This can then be compared with any other individual or group.

That's a great idea. It would be interesting to see how Japanese corporate culture compares to German say, etc.

One of the most popular executive team building programs for awhile was called "I Will Not Complain"; it consisted of weekend outdoor retreats where everyone went through a variety of vigorous physical tasks (running an obstacle course, building a bridge, etc,), in which teamwork was necessary. The entire focus of the program was to take the focus off of complaining about difficulties, and instead to focus on finding the best solutions.

That title: "I Will Not Complain" creeps me out a bit. It would depend on how strictly the rule was enforced I guess; but I see some potential for abuse there.

If ANY employer tried to send me to Landmark Forum, they'd have a fight of epic proportions on their hands. Their techniques are classic, and involve sleep deprivation, emotional breakdown followed by group and "technology" build up, plus the usual "work for us for free, spend mega bucks on more, make your friends sign up" nonsense. I'd call in lawyers pretty quickly on that one.

There is no group of people on the planet with whom I'd enjoy spending time less than the screwdrivers who pimp for this cult.

ETA: Oh, there was this one bible study retreat that Prime Time Shuttle wanted me to attend. That ended my employment, and I assure you, lawyers were involved on that one.

Whoa, that took guts! I can imagine you were really going against the flow by complaining like that. And against God! :eek: Good to know some people know who they are.

In brief: a waste of time and money.

Wolfman has summed it up perfectly - and remember, I'm a guest speaker at some of these seminars, so I'm happy to publicly claim there's benefit in them, but I don't usually admit publicly that the benefits are short-lived, irrelevant and not at all cost-effective.

It's a bit deja vu, we touched on this subject in one of the other business threads, where I showed that the average time these things work for is until after lunch next Tuesday.

Haahh -- sacrilege! And you... a speaker! Let's see if I can come up with something for your sig: "The Atheist is an unscrupulous backstabber of the hand that feeds him!"
Ok, I'll work on it. ;)

There is actually a deeper issue here, which I'd been intending getting into - the whole "Human Capital" idea. These "team-building exercises" that you describe above are a means of tying people to their employer rather than their families - it's a Japanese tactic, but thankfully, cultural differences haven't allowed that to happen yet.

I often suspect that if "teams" didn't have the "coach" watching, quite a few managers would end up face-down in the dirt rather than gently landing on their dear colleagues' outstretched arms.

"Human Capital". Pretty scary alright. Nobody would mind being the face on a dollar bill, but nobody wants to be a dollar bill with a face.

Some companies are a little smarter and use the same amount of money as the course/seminar costs to let their workers have a right rave-up party, complete with spouses and families. This is the approach I recommend, but only a few see the benefits in paying the same amount for a blatant party as they do for emphasising the altered paradigm in the dialectics of growth impetus in human capital investment in today's global economy. Give 'em a booze-up and they'll still be reminiscing in six months' time, send 'em on a "team-building seminar" and they'll be telling their mates next Wednesday what a load of old cobblers it was - barring the few out-and-out drones with no mind or personality who buy into it 100% and use it as a life matra from then on.

Don't forget the mini-golf and go-carts! Even drones like mini-golf and go-carts.

The problem is, equally with religion or astrology, it actually can have benefits. Just as a few loners with no life see a saviour in Jesus and are happier for it, quite a few reasonably successful drones snatch onto weird philosophies of Tony Robbins, John Kehoe, Paul Dunn, etc., ad nauseum, and manage to parlay it into a half-decent career. Our former All Blacks coach is a shining example.

Yeah, I used to make the mistake of trying to argue this stuff black and white. It's not "all-black" (with the exception of your rugby team). But it is, definitely, not for some, a fact zombi bosses and recruiters ignore.

John Mitchell managed to grab the most important job in the country by blinding 47 old farts with his newrugbyspeak. This is a very NSFW (profanity, no pics) link to a pretty honest and hilarious appraisal of how Mitchell's ambitions and capabilities were mis-read when he got the job, against all predictions. Enjoy! (http://www.haka.co.nz/haka-column.php?archid=222&column_name=Test%20Rugby%20Editorial)

I don't follow the sport much; just know that like Canada in hockey and Brazil in soccer, New Zealand is supposed to win at rugby.
There have been and are a lot of sports coaches who try the Tony Robbins approach -- walk on coals, break some boards, and kill the bastards!!! As a fan, I prefer coaches who preach strategy first, not motivational headgames.

[Wolfman]

Just thought I'd take this opportunity to brag a little (since I am typically such a soft-spoken and humble guy), and show a little of how CuPId works. Please understand that this is only a very small part of a much larger system that actually involves long-term ongoing coaching and evaluation, but I think it helps understand what I do (or rather, what I used to do).

As I said above, the first step would be for participants to answer a questionnaire; from this, we will generate a graph that shows the results. In the following graph, we were examining a department in a foreign company where an American manager was having significant conflict with his Chinese staff. He was a nice guy, and his staff were all good people, but they had frequent miscommunications and problems. For this graph, I took the results from all seven Chinese in his department, and took the mean average of their results; and then compared that with the American guy's results (on the graph, the blue bars represent the Chinese results, the purple bars represent the American's results). I have removed his name, and the name of his company, in order to preserve anonymity.

Here is the graph (actually, there are a total of four graphs, in four different categories; but I will show just this one for illustration purposes):
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/1439346c84d0584d1d.jpg
Now, reading this is relatively easy. For a comparison like this, it doesn't really matter how big the bar is, or which side of the graph it is on (left or right); the only thing that matters is the difference between the blue and purple bars in each category.

So, look at the first category (listed on the left side), which is "Harmony vs. Diversity". (My apology for the poor quality of the graphic, I had to shrink it to be an acceptable size to be hosted). The blue bar, representing the mean average of the Chinese results, is far over to the left, indicating a strong "Harmony" orientation (which I'll explain in a minute); the American's result is smack dab in the middle. The number right beside the "Harmony vs. Diversity" label indicates how big the difference is -- in this case, it is 4.10. Anything over two points difference is considered potential for cultural conflict or misunderstanding; anything over 5 points difference is considered a significant conflict, very likely to cause problems. So in this case, there is conflict, but it is moderate.

Now, what do these categories mean..."Harmony" and "Diversity"? A Harmony culture is one where consensus is valued, and conflict or disagreement are seen as negative and undesirable. A Diversity culture is one where disagreement and conflict are seen as potentially desirable, and not threatening; where one can feel free to disagree with others in public, and not worry about group consensus.

Of course, there's a whole range of possible orientations between these two extremes, and this graph reflects that. The farther towards the left of the graph you are, the more extreme Harmony orientation you have; and the more towards the right of the graph you are, the more extreme Diversity orientation you have. The American, who comes out right in the middle, has no particular orientation either way, and will tend to be more flexible in dealing with people from either orientation.

What does the difference between these two results mean? The Chinese are very strong Harmony orientation, which means that they will be uncomfortable to contradict their boss, or disagree publicly with their colleagues. In addition, they will generally be unwilling to express public opinions until they are sure of what the overall consensus viewpoint is.

The American's results are very interesting, because most Americans tend to come out with very strong Diversity orientations; but this particular manager had spent 5 years working in Japan before coming to China, so his orientation had become much more moderate (and this is one of the great values of CuPId as a tool...it doesn't "assume" that because you're from a particular culture, you will have certain orientations...it is personalized entirely to your own responses).

From these results, without knowing anything about these people, I can predict several problems with a fair degree of certainty. This manager is going to be frustrated when he holds meetings with his staff, particularly brainstorming-style meetings, where he expects to get input and feedback. His staff will tend either to say nothing (if they don't know what he thinks), or to simply agree with or parrot whatever he has already said. He will have a tendency to view his staff as lazy or stupid, entirely lacking in creativity, unable to think for themselves, just mindless automatons who are good at following orders, but not much else.

The Chinese staff, on the other hand, are going to view their boss as entirely lacking in respect for their ideas and opinions. They will have their own ideas and suggestions, but will be uncomfortable to express them in a public forum such as a meeting. They will instead tend to seek private time with their boss to run the idea by him (or perhaps suggest the idea through an intermediate); but their boss always tells them to wait until the meeting to discuss such things. As far as they are concerned, he isn't really interested in listening to them, and just wants mindless automatons who are good at following orders, but not much else.

See the problem?

This is, in fact, one of the most common conflicts between Chinese and westerners doing business in China; and the truth is, it is relatively easy to deal with and solve if the parties involved understand what the root causes are! The problem is that most people, when they meet this problem, misidentify the causes. The American manager calls his staff lazy or uncreative, because they never express new ideas, when in fact they have lots of ideas, they just are not comfortable expressing them in public. the Chinese staff feel that the foreigner doesn't want to listen to them, and doesn't respect them, when in fact he's quite eager to hear their ideas and have them think independently.

I won't go through the whole graph here...this serves to illustrate how this works. And you can see how, even from an apparently simple bar graph, a great deal of information can be drawn and used. For example, I can tell at a glance that there are two categories ("Direct vs. Indirect" and "Individualist vs. Collectivist") that have the greatest potential for conflict, while the "Expressive vs. Instrumental" category has almost no conflict at all. I can therefore customize the training to focus specifically on these problem areas.

Of course, we don't just use these graphs. We will do two or three day programs where both sides must do role plays (acting as if they had the opposite cultural orientation, and seeing what the result is), case studies (examining common conflicts caused by cultural differences, and making them identify the causes, and suggest solutions), and strategy setting (both sides discussing what they can do to minimize this conflict, and how they should/will react if such a conflict arises).

And after the training is done, we will try to work with key managers on an ongoing basis, to evaluate their progress, and provide assistance when they meet problems.

[Hokulele]

I have two thoughts on executive training, as I have been on both sides of the podium. As Wolfman mentioned earlier, the one or two day lecture style classes are just about useless. There may be some decent information passed on, but it just won't stick as it generally turns into a session of "death by PowerPoint". The best training is a series of lectures in the morning, with the afternoon devoted to lab sessions or role-playing to put the information presented into practice.

The "team-building" exercises can be very helpful when you are dealing with non-centralized employees. It is just about useless if you are dealing with people who see each other face to face every day. One of the companies I work with has a few main offices, but a large percentage of the employees are either sub-contractors, full-time employees working from a home office, or are located in the smaller offices (5-10 people). These people generally communicate by e-mail, and rarely have personal contact with anyone other than their accounts. For them, a team-building exercise really does improve their relationship with the "mother company", and it does help them work better with their colleagues, especially once they can put a face (and personality) to a name.

[blobru]

...
The "team-building" exercises can be very helpful when you are dealing with non-centralized employees. It is just about useless if you are dealing with people who see each other face to face every day. One of the companies I work with has a few main offices, but a large percentage of the employees are either sub-contractors, full-time employees working from a home office, or are located in the smaller offices (5-10 people). These people generally communicate by e-mail, and rarely have personal contact with anyone other than their accounts. For them, a team-building exercise really does improve their relationship with the "mother company", and it does help them work better with their colleagues, especially once they can put a face (and personality) to a name.


Hi Hokulele. Knowing what a big fan you are of The Secret, :) do you ever find yourself competing for jobs vs exec trainers who use it or similar woo as part of their sales pitch; or against extremists like The Forum, Personal Power, Bible study-camps such as Miss Anthrope mentioned, etc? Most bosses should be savvy enough to separate real from unreal (I would hope); yet more than a few must get sucked in by extremists and woosters or they wouldn't stay in business. It could be fairly maddening I'm guessing having to market your researched techniques with realistic goals in the face of their patent "anything is possible" nonsense.

[The Atheist]

For them, a team-building exercise really does improve their relationship with the "mother company", and it does help them work better with their colleagues, especially once they can put a face (and personality) to a name.

That's what the booze-up is for!

[The Atheist]

Haahh -- sacrilege! And you... a speaker! Let's see if I can come up with something for your sig: "The Atheist is an unscrupulous backstabber of the hand that feeds him!"
Ok, I'll work on it. ;)

That's not too bad - I might squeeze that in when I go back to it.

I have no trouble with owning up to the hypocrisy of it all, but I figure these people are gonna throw their money away, they can at least it throw it my way!

:bgrin:

[blobru]

Haahh -- sacrilege! And you... a speaker! Let's see if I can come up with something for your sig: "The Atheist is an unscrupulous backstabber of the hand that feeds him!"
Ok, I'll work on it.
That's not too bad - I might squeeze that in when I go back to it.

Ok, ok, how about this? "The Atheist is biting the hand that feeds him and sucking it dry the bloodthirsty bastard, like a greasy parasitic vampire gigolo who jumps into bed with and then wantonly deflowers the committed paradigm of innocent corporate maidenhood because he's such a filthy necro-perv not to mention closet religious apologist to boot!" Still a tad effete, perhaps?

[Hokulele]

Hi Hokulele. Knowing what a big fan you are of The Secret, :) do you ever find yourself competing for jobs vs exec trainers who use it or similar woo as part of their sales pitch; or against extremists like The Forum, Personal Power, Bible study-camps such as Miss Anthrope mentioned, etc? Most bosses should be savvy enough to separate real from unreal (I would hope); yet more than a few must get sucked in by extremists and woosters or they wouldn't stay in business. It could be fairly maddening I'm guessing having to market your researched techniques with realistic goals in the face of their patent "anything is possible" nonsense.


I am on the technical end of things myself (how to use the software to acheive goals, etc), so I don't have to go head to head with the wooishness very often. Someone else tells them how to determine and set the goals, I go in and show them the steps involved in applying the tools they have to reach those goals. Somehow, the Law of Attraction doesn't work well with CAD or project management software. ;)

That's what the booze-up is for!


Heh, like the time half the attendees ended up in the swimming pool wearing nothing but their underwear. (True story.)

[fuelair]

One of the most popular executive team building programs for awhile was called "I Will Not Complain"; it consisted of weekend outdoor retreats where everyone went through a variety of vigorous physical tasks (running an obstacle course, building a bridge, etc,), in which teamwork was necessary. The entire focus of the program was to take the focus off of complaining about difficulties, and instead to focus on finding the best solutions.

Now, the principle was great; and groups that went on these weekends came away with glowing testimonials as to what a great experience it was, and how well they had learned to work as a team.

The problem is that those results were short-lived at best. Why?

All those people, within a certain environment (the office) have established patterns and behaviors. How they relate to others, how they handle stress, how they arrange their work schedule, how much effort they exert, etc. These patterns and behavior are very difficult to break when people remain within the same environment.

The reason that IWNC appeared to work so well was because they took everyone out of their familiar environment, and put them in an unfamiliar environment, and they replaced familiar tasks (office work) with unfamiliar tasks (negotiating a difficult obstacle course). It was relatively easy to break down established behaviors and patterns because the participants didn't have any established behaviors and patterns within this particular context. So "breakthroughs" came easily, and could appear quite revolutionary.

But once back in the office, the old patterns and behaviors would immediately start to re-assert themselves. The manager who was a pompous, over-bearing jerk before the retreat didn't suddenly have his personality or management style changed because of a two-day retreat; the employee who was afraid of personal responsibility didn't suddenly become a go-to man for difficult tasks.

And when this happened -- the time when such training was most needed, and would yield the best results, where were the trainers? They were long gone, the money for the weekend training already pocketed. And hey, if it turned out that it didn't really transform the company, it wasn't their fault; it was the fault of the company for "failing to effectively implement what we taught them."

Once again, particularly when one is talking about training that involves implementing significant change, and/or breaking established patterns, a long-term commitment to ongoing coaching and re-evaluation is the only program that has a reasonably high expectation of success.
Thank you kindly for the honesty on this (that it exactly bears out long belief and observation only makes it better)!!!!!!

My favorite version of this is an educational speech given by Harry Wong (Wong is in a system and of a popularity that he essentialy does no teaching and has all sorts of functionaries to do stuff). Anyway, my school system at the time hired Harry to do a speaking/pumping up thing for us in a county meeting for all teachers (my first year there). In the first ten minutes of his speech he suggested nine things we should be doing (he listed 13 or 14 altogether) which were in violation of county policies - I assume that the county had no idea what he would say - just got him because he was famous. Amazingly (my fault, I actually read the training/procedure manuals they tell us to) many fellow teachers and administrators did not realize that until later (for some, at the time they tried to do what he had suggested!)

[The Atheist]

Still a tad effete, perhaps?

That's actually pretty good, but I won't copy it in case someone sees it and takes as real! In these enlightened days of schoolkids reading open sections, it might be just a shade over the line.

:bgrin:

[Antiquehunter]

I did an 'est' type of series early in my career. (The Excellence Series)

It did me no harm (although I REALLY hated the wooish elements - the meditation and the fricking 'visualizations' just about made me puke) and I got some value from some of the exercises, particularly the bits where they videotaped you giving presentations and then feedback - made me a much more confident and technically proficient speaker in front of groups.

Is there better out there? Sure. A lifetime of experience and a solid MBA program far superior? You bet.

The scary part of the program is that it attracted 5% of people (like me) who took some good from the program and went off and DID something. 50% remained stuck in quasi-mediocrity, and 45% became embroiled in a semi-cult/Amway like atmosphere.

Would I recommend a similar program to someone today? VERY cautiously. Someone who I knew to be switched on and capable, but stuck in a rut, or dealing with a personal issue (failed relationship, lost job, death of a loved one) I MIGHT CAUTIOUSLY suggest a similar program in lieu of a more formal therapy. But I would be extremely cautious in researching the program, and making sure the person had a very solid baloney detector in place.

[malbui]

The best training is a series of lectures in the morning, with the afternoon devoted to lab sessions or role-playing to put the information presented into practice.


Not for everyone. As someone who works for a multinational and has been subjected to a fair amount of executive training, I'm fighting running battles with our training people as I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE role-playing. If I'd wanted to be an actor I'd have joined a theatre group, not a finance house.

Ahem.

Bit of a sensitive subject, that. :blush:

What works for me is a bit of theory, a chance to discuss in peer groups, and then an opportunity to draw up action plans with clearly measurable metrics. My experience is that most of the courses I've been on could have been delivered in about half the time if we'd cut the blah-blah and got down to specifics.

[Wolfman]

Hmmmm...personally, I think there's a "good way" and a "bad way" of doing role-playing. Asking people to actually publicly act out scenarios is, in my opinion, the "bad way"; it works for some people, but only results in making others feel embarrassed, self-conscious, etc.

When I do role-playing in my training programs, people don't actually act out the situations (actually, they're given the option to do so if they want to, but most prefer not to).

Let me illustrate: let's say I have some people who have strong "Harmony" cultural orientations, and some who have strong "Diversity" cultural orientations (definition of these, from above, is as follows):
A Harmony culture is one where consensus is valued, and conflict or disagreement are seen as negative and undesirable. A Diversity culture is one where disagreement and conflict are seen as potentially desirable, and not threatening; where one can feel free to disagree with others in public, and not worry about group consensus.
Now, what I will do is give them a situation, such as a brainstorming meeting; and I will tell the ones who have a strong Harmony orientation to discuss among themselves how their behavior would change if they had a strong Diversity orientation -- how would they act, how would they communicate, what would they expect from others, etc.? And I'll do the same for those with a strong Diversity orientation.

After they've done this, they'll give a short report about their conclusions; this can be done simply as a report, or can be done by acting the scenario out.

This method has proven hugely successful, and is quite popular with most of the execs that I work with.

[r1ch]

I'm not really a business person myself, but I have come in contact with a group called Landmark Forum seminar training (ne "est"),

i know i haven't been here long enough to be accepted at my word but i'm busy

stay away - stay far, far away

properly designed and founded seminars, courses and so on <i>can</i> be ok (although transfer back to the real world is the tricky bit) but this lot? no

[Hokulele]

Not for everyone. As someone who works for a multinational and has been subjected to a fair amount of executive training, I'm fighting running battles with our training people as I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE role-playing. If I'd wanted to be an actor I'd have joined a theatre group, not a finance house.

Ahem.

Bit of a sensitive subject, that. :blush:

What works for me is a bit of theory, a chance to discuss in peer groups, and then an opportunity to draw up action plans with clearly measurable metrics. My experience is that most of the courses I've been on could have been delivered in about half the time if we'd cut the blah-blah and got down to specifics.


Understood, and I should have used a better word than role-playing, even though that is how it is listed on the agenda. I totally agree about the "not being an actor" part of your rant. The way it has been done in the training sessions is to state a scenario (e.g. interruption of delivery schedule for construction materials), and ask the trainees to come up with a solution based on the techniques learned in the morning session. It can be done in presentation or written form, depending on the group, and they may or may not work collaboratively on the scenario, again depending on the group. The point is more to have people actually use the tools, rather than just watch someone else talk about them.


I also have a funny story I remembered when I saw Antiquehunter's comment on "visualization". The local branch of the National Society of Professional Engineers had a series of workshops about 10 years ago, and one was on visualization techniques for stress relief. A charming young lady had a group of civil engineers, mostly of Japanese descent, and she was leading them through their exercises. In one case, she told the engineers to "close your eyes and picture sparkling blue water, crystal white sand, and palm trees swaying in the wind." The engineers then opened their eyes and to the woman's dismay, none of them looked very relaxed. After the session, one of the engineers went up to her and told her, "I'm sorry, I know you meant well, but we are all golfers, and those are all hazards."

[malbui]

Now, what I will do is give them a situation, such as a brainstorming meeting; and I will tell the ones who have a strong Harmony orientation to discuss among themselves how their behavior would change if they had a strong Diversity orientation -- how would they act, how would they communicate, what would they expect from others, etc.? And I'll do the same for those with a strong Diversity orientation.

After they've done this, they'll give a short report about their conclusions; this can be done simply as a report, or can be done by acting the scenario out.


And this is the kind of thing I have no problem with. It's the "Malbui, you be a project manager and Jean-Pierre will be a stroppy team member" stuff that pisses me off.

I think a problem in discussing executive training is that there's such a wide range of it. I went on an excellent course a few months ago about how people respond to different management styles and it was a real eye-opener for me as it wasn't a subject I'd ever really considered before: my leadership style has always been to explain the background of tasks to my staff and give structured guidance, while it turned out that the guys in my team are all enthusiastic problem solvers who just want to given two minutes on the parameters of the problem and then be released to deal with it. I came away from that with a lot to think about and some clear, simple action points. On the other hand, last year I was obliged to do a client relationship course which consisted largely of an actress coming in and haranguing me while a psychologist watched and took notes. Not the most productive day I've ever spent.

[blobru]

I did an 'est' type of series early in my career. (The Excellence Series)

It did me no harm (although I REALLY hated the wooish elements - the meditation and the fricking 'visualizations' just about made me puke) and I got some value from some of the exercises, particularly the bits where they videotaped you giving presentations and then feedback - made me a much more confident and technically proficient speaker in front of groups.

Is there better out there? Sure. A lifetime of experience and a solid MBA program far superior? You bet.

The scary part of the program is that it attracted 5% of people (like me) who took some good from the program and went off and DID something. 50% remained stuck in quasi-mediocrity, and 45% became embroiled in a semi-cult/Amway like atmosphere.

Would I recommend a similar program to someone today? VERY cautiously. Someone who I knew to be switched on and capable, but stuck in a rut, or dealing with a personal issue (failed relationship, lost job, death of a loved one) I MIGHT CAUTIOUSLY suggest a similar program in lieu of a more formal therapy. But I would be extremely cautious in researching the program, and making sure the person had a very solid baloney detector in place.

That would be Context Associates, right? I was never sure their exact connection to est; but their slogans -- "know what it means to be! get more of what you want! break thru the wall to having it all!" -- sound very est-y; also personal experience of their smug and repetitive sales style -- 'friends' of mine who were deep into this stuff would arrange for reps to show up at get-togethers and preach "empowerment" to the unconverted ("Look at me. I've never been happier. Why wouldn't you want this too?" one very determined lady kept asking me over and over and over. After an hour of wishing her well and politely declining enrollment, I finally had to tell her flat out: "Why? Why not! Because I don't like you. You are one of the dullest people I've ever met. You've been brainwashed to believe in yourself, and now you can't shut up about it. Listening to you is like having a spike driven through my head. Why would anyone want to pay $550 to learn how to be just like you?" Not very nice I know, and from the shade of fuchsia she turned underneath her four coats of face paint not well-received, but extreme rudeness sadly is the only thing that registers with zealots).
Anyway, another rant off my chest. Apologies. I'm glad you got something out of the course, and would use utmost caution before recommending it to someone else. Some people, those with a strong sense of self going in I suspect, seem to benefit from these programs (though I'm not sure, from what you describe, that a public-speaking / media-management course wouldn't have done the same). I'm always extremely wary myself of any 'therapy' that proposes "brainwashing" or something like it as a means to yank people out of a rut.

i know i haven't been here long enough to be accepted at my word but i'm busy

stay away - stay far, far away

properly designed and founded seminars, courses and so on <i>can</i> be ok (although transfer back to the real world is the tricky bit) but this lot? no

I for one will have absolutely no problem following this advice. :)

...
I also have a funny story I remembered when I saw Antiquehunter's comment on "visualization". The local branch of the National Society of Professional Engineers had a series of workshops about 10 years ago, and one was on visualization techniques for stress relief. A charming young lady had a group of civil engineers, mostly of Japanese descent, and she was leading them through their exercises. In one case, she told the engineers to "close your eyes and picture sparkling blue water, crystal white sand, and palm trees swaying in the wind." The engineers then opened their eyes and to the woman's dismay, none of them looked very relaxed. After the session, one of the engineers went up to her and told her, "I'm sorry, I know you meant well, but we are all golfers, and those are all hazards."

That's hilarious :D I guess instead of oceanic paradise she should have been telling them to "picture brush-cut bermuda grass, then a gleaming white dimpled sphere descending from heaven and dribbling into a 4 1/4 inch-wide cup, with the soul-soothing clunk and clatter of urethane and wound rubber on metal." "Ahhh..." sigh the stressed-out engineers, as their sinews turn to porridge...

[a.real.girl]

I've attended quite a few training sessions for my job. Some just a few days, some a whole week. I can honestly say that when I was a new Project Manager, the training session where we did Myers-Brigg testing helped me see that people can be very different, even if you don't see it yourself at first.

However, the worst team-building I ever did was also the most inadvertantly hilarious: I was sent to "the windiest beach in the continental US" (what a thing to cling to!) to learn to build a fire. There were 8 of us on a team, and no chance at all to get a fire started. None. It was, as advertised, very windy. But also very wet.

One by one, the team stormed off in a barrage of bad language, throwing things as they went. One woman said what is still one of my favorite lessons: "I'm a faith-based manager... I need to believe in what I'm doing. And I believe this is ********."

As we would find out later, the idea was to teach us to stick together against impossible odds. This did not pan out.

On the up side, we didn't have to finish the rest of the training session, and built a lot of good relationships spending the afternoon at the hotel bar.

-A