Article Time

New Psychology based Modular Training system that gets Measurable Results in Less Time, makes Dollars and Sense

One of the difficulties training and HR managers face, is planning their training and development with limited time availability of employees and getting cost effective, yet EFFECTIVE results. It is easy to get inexpensive training in the saturated Malaysian market, but to what avail? If the training does not conceive measurable results, is it even worth the time OR money? But on the other hand, the high end internationally recognized training providers are NOT CHEAP.
But one international organisation has…
…FOUND THE EFFECTIVE TRAINING REMEDY with its DC Psychology based modular training system.
Traditionally training for leadership, customer service, communication, project management… is all separately conducted and all using independent methodologies. The result is that people cannot fully understand each other’s roles and how those roles can connect to achieve Cooperative and competent execution of a common goal.
Directive Communication International (Asia) has a new philosophy when applying its Directive Communication Psychology based training: “One Language, One Vision” They have set an HRDF accepted system to solve cross-organisational implementation and result measurement.
How it works
When an organisation is trained in the Fundamental DC Methodology with a 2 day course, they are primed to take on “Application Modules” that only last 1 day (instead of the traditional 2days). This not only saves time and money, but puts everyone in the company on the same page. These application modules are executed by internationally renowned experts in each field who are accredited DC Psychology practitioners.
“This program has been implemented in Fortune 500 companies around the world with exceptional results” says Lily Lau, Directive Communication Practitioner specializing in Cultural Diversity.
Martin Le Roux, Manager Planning, Projects & Development for Emirates Hotels & Resorts said “This program has far exceeded our expectations, it has managed to achieve more in 2 weeks what we have he been trying to implement for the past 6 months. It has added a new dynamic in the whole approach to establishing a service culture.”

The Founder Comments
“The process develops leaders at all levels, disciplines and departments through a common Psychological perception that allows personal and organizational alignment. Employees and managers not only gain the ability to learn complementary skills to apply expertise synergistically, but gain confidence and attitude to take charge of the End Result, and not just in their specific job function” says Arthur F. Carmazzi, the principal founder of Directive Communications Methodology.

For more information on the Directive Communication Methodology, training or culture change programs and how they create measurable results in different types of organisations, please contact: Marcie@directivecommunication.com

As a network marketer, what`s one tool of tremendous value? One answer would be having a level of measurability in your business. In other words, at the end of the day being able to point to a number and say, “I was able to accomplish X today.” The next step with this is to hold it relative to something or in other words a benchmark or goal. What`s the difference between benchmarks and goals? A benchmark is a minimum level of acceptable activity that you set for yourself. It must be quantifiable or measurable. A goal is usually set at 10-20% higher than the benchmark. Most marketers aren`t using either of these and just “guessing” or “trying out the business.” The problem with this is that you really can`t gauge what`s working or what`s not working and the end result is usually someone quitting in frustration.

When you`re setting your goals, here`s a formula you can work with, S.M.A.R.T (Shared, Measurable, Attainable, Realistic, Time-Phased). Setting “S.M.A.R.T. Goals” requires that you actually think through the goal and the actions that are necessary to attain it. It requires you to share it with another person (a person who will support you) so that you are truly testing the validity of your goals. More importantly, the shared part allows you to be accountable to someone other than yourself. Excuses that are valid in your mind won`t register with the shared party and your chances of attaining the goal will increase substantially.

So what would be an example of measurement? Well, in network marketing, we could use the number of prospects that look at information as a measurable goal. On the recruiting side, we could set a goal of 3 people per a day that are looking at information or requesting information from you. To most marketers that can be a scary number because of the part that says “people requesting information from you.” Ask yourself real honestly, “How many people are requesting information from me vs. me just forcing information on people?”

The truth is that with proper tools, desire, and marketing philosophies filtering through to people who contact you for more information can become a reality in your business. Making the decision to learn more about this will make a significant difference in your business. Start by setting your S.M.A.R.T. Goals the “smart” way and leveraging your time. A great resource for lead filtering is Power Filter Page. Power Filter Page allows you to quantify your efforts because of built in lead tracking features that update you on a virtually instant basis. With this crucial part of your business under control, you can be free to set S.M.A.R.T. Goals in other areas of your business as well!

Dan Hatfield is the co-founder of Power Filter Page. Power Filter Page is a prospect filtering tool for network marketers allowing them to increase profits, leverage time, and see success in their businesses. To claim your Free Report, “Secrets of Effective Network Marketing,” go here now http://www.mlmLeadProfits.com.

Want to make an immediate and dramatic increase in the overall performance of your company? Try creating a set of Specific Measurable Results (SMR) for each department or functional unit.

Specific Measurable Results? Of course, your sales force has them. It`s safe to say there are few companies in the world that do not use sales quotas. Not only do sales people use quotas to track their output, they often have targets which measure their activity. “How many, by when” is a familiar phrase. Top sales people monitor how many calls they make to prospects each week. The also track calls made to existing customers, how many letters they send, how many “closes”, and so on. If a sales person isn`t bringing in the promised business, management can examine his or her activity to see what area might need work.

What about the other players on your sales team – the technical representatives, the sales associates? Do they have specific, measurable results they`ve agreed to produce? What about your other departments? What about development? Customer Service? Finance? Marketing? Administration? What are they accountable for? Do they have SMR`s to produce within a set time frame?

Critical Success Tip: Every department can be measured to improve its performance. Determine what you want to have a functional area do more of – what are the key activities – and find a way to measure them. Then tie each measurement, each “how many” to a set time frame, a “by when”.

Say for instance, you want to improve customer service. One point to measure would be their response time to customer problems. How? Set time targets for complaint resolution, and agree on a “by when” those targets will be reached. Or, track the percentage of re-orders, and target that. Sales Associates? Measure how fast proposals are produced.

Tech Reps? Target the number of demonstrations to clients each week. Marketing? Measure how many leads are generated per month, or product awareness, or press mentions. Product development? Measure variance from your development timeline. You can even track Accounting. Target the number of days after close of business when the trial balance and month-end results are available.

Critical Success Tip: To make sure each Specific Measure has its desired effect, the SMR should be the product of a negotiation, with all sides agreeing to what is being measured, how many, and by when. Then, put it in writing.

Use moving averages to see trends. Moving averages smooth out the highs and lows, eliminating any week`s jitters. Instead of comparing this week to last week, compare this week`s moving average to last week`s. Is the moving average going up or down? Also, compare this week`s statistics to the moving average.

Critical Success Tip: Graph everything. Every statistic which is important enough to measure should be seen on a graph. Many companies relate more powerfully to a picture than to a set of numbers. Create graphs with one line to indicate past performance – say last year, one line to indicate your intended (target) performance and one line to indicate your actual performance. You can also graph the moving averages.

How do SMR`s work their magic?

People like clear objectives. They want to know what is expected of them. SMR`s provide easy to understand, unambiguous indicators of what constitutes “a good job”. SMR`s tell people what to focus on, and they provide a framework to think about the question “how can I succeed?”

People go wherever their attention is. Did you ever look at someone in the car next to you while you were driving, and find yourself swerving into their lane? That`s because our brains are wired to always follow our attention. SMR`s concentrate your team`s attention wherever it needs to be.

SMRs tell you which areas need work. If there is a “gap” between intended and actual results, highlighting this gap with numbers and graphs gives your team a window on figuring out what needs to be corrected to stay on course.

Critical Success Tip: Be sure you are measuring the right things. Remember, your team will go wherever their attention is! And, if you fail to institute a measure for a key area, poor performance in that area may be overlooked. Always check that your SMR`s are taking you where you want to go.

Extraordinary Performance from Statistics? SMRs provide a way to turn performance up. It`s much easier to create more of something, once you know what you already have. It`s almost impossible if you don`t.

Jim Dudleston
President, Advisory Group

The question, “What is the measurable impact of training on a person’s actual job performance?” has long been a discussion among expense-conscious organizational leaders.
During the TQM movement (total quality management) of the 1980’s and 1990’s, organizations became more interested than they had previously in quantifying and tracking just about every business-related variable that can be measured. Commensurate with this approach corporate training departments began to search for ways to measure the benefit of their training programs.
Rightly so. When an organization makes an investment in training its leaders and employees they have the responsibility as stewards of the organization’s resources to determine if there is a reasonable return on that investment. That it gives the same consideration to investing training dollars they would to acquiring other assets. Many leaders have the conviction that an employee is an appreciating asset that can become more valuable over a period of time as they are developed.

[Recommended Reading: www.godisworking.com]

As the President of a firm that conducts training some of the perennial questions that corporate leaders ask me are “How do we know the money spent on management and employee training makes a real difference in their job performance?”, “Are we getting a good return on the investment of the training budget?”, and “Is the training employees receive the best way to prepare them to assume greater responsibilities?”

These are fair and appropriate questions for businesspeople to ask and they should be answered in the affirmative by those professionals who decide in behalf of an organization where the dollars spent in training go. Measuring the effectiveness of training is a financially responsible step for every organization.

One “statistic” that has been repeated for 20 years is based on an estimate that had no foundation in a well-designed research project and the author of the estimate likely never intended it to be viewed as such. Georgenson (1982) was posing an estimate when he asked, “How many times have you heard training directors say…I would estimate that only 10% of content which is presented in the classroom is reflected in behavioral change on the job” (p.75). From that casual statement a “scientific finding” was born.

Saks (2002) posed the legitimate scientific question, “What then should a good transfer of training estimate look like?” And he offered a series of considerations. “To begin with, it should incorporate the two main conditions of transfer of training: the generalization and maintenance of newly acquired knowledge and skills on the job (Baldwin & Ford, 1988). Thus, when one provides an estimate of the transfer of training, it should be specific as to the length of time following training. Second, given the increasing concern over the added value of training programs and return on training investments (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001), a transfer estimate should also consider the percentage of training investments that result in transfer. And third, because training outcomes pertain to trainees (behavior) and organizations (results), estimates of the transfer of training should consider behavior and results criteria.”

Saks (2002) conducted research using 150 members of a training and development society with significant experience in the training industry to make estimates of the transfer of training with consideration to the issues stated in the previous paragraph.

They asked respondents questions about the transfer of training in their organizations. To measure transfer generalization and maintenance, they asked the subjects to indicate (on a scale from 0% to 100%) what percentage of employees in their organization effectively apply and make use of what they learn in training programs on the job immediately after, 6 months after, and 1 year after attending a training program. The mean responses were that 62%, 44%, and 34% of employees apply what they learn in training on the job immediately after, 6 months after, and 1 year after attending training, respectively.

To obtain an estimate of the percentage of training investments that result in a change in employees and the organization, they asked what percentage of the organization’s investments in training result in a positive change or improvement in employees (behavior and performance) and the organization (performance and effectiveness). Respondents indicated that an average of 51% of training investments result in a positive change in employees and an average of 47% result in a positive change in the organization.

While this survey is not a sophisticated research design, the responses are based on current estimates from trainers who are in touch with training methods and adult learning principles as they are applied in an organizational environment. Therefore, these estimates are more likely a closer estimate to the benefit of training than the often quoted 10% estimate.
Dudleston (2004) conducted a study for a training company to measure the effectiveness of a leadership development course it offered. The course instructed modules on eight skill-based topics that are instructed over a period of six weeks: Time Management & Organizing, Team Building, Problem Solving, Interpersonal Communication, Conflict Resolution, Leadership, Coaching, and Ethics & Values.

The research involved 76 participants. At the beginning of the course participants were asked to respond to a Pre-Course Assessment that appraises their skill development at that time. They are also asked to have their direct manager to rate them on the same skills. The ratings provided by their direct manager give a “reality check” on the participant’s level of skill development at the time they began the course. At completion of the course the participant and their manager each completed a Post-Course Assessment. The course participants reported an overall self-improvement of 34% on the eight areas. More significant from an objective viewpoint, their direct managers reported an overall average increase on the eight areas of 36%. These findings revealed an amazing degree of agreement between the course participants and their direct managers.

The results of studies by Saks (2002) and Dudleston (2004) enable us to make the following general statements about the measurable impact of corporate training:

1. As much as 62% of employees effectively apply what they learn in corporate training courses right after completing the course; and this declines to 34% a year later.
2. Fifty-one percent of the financial investment in training results in a positive change in employees and 47% of the investment results in a positive change in the organization.
3. Leadership training increases the application of practical skills by an average of 34%-36% according to employees and their direct managers.
One relevant question a cost-effective leader may ask is, “What does a 30% improvement in employee effectiveness mean to the overall productivity of our organization and what would I be willing to invest in corporate training to see this return?”

Recommended Reading: www.godisworking.com

Corporate Training: www.roili.com

References
Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.
Dudleston, J. (2004). Measurement of leadership effectiveness training. Unpublished manuscript.
Fitzpatrick, R. (2001). The strange case of the transfer of training estimate. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(2), 18–19.
Georgenson, D. L. (1982). The problem of transfer calls for partnership. Training and Development Journal, 36(10), 75–78.
Saks, A. M. (2002). So what is a good transfer of training estimate? A reply to Fitzpatrick. The Industrial-Organizational Psychologist, 39(3).
Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (2001). The science of training: A decade of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499.