For all I rail against ROI and the measurements we provide as internal L&Ders, I’m not immune to it. I still have to report back to the board what the outputs are from internal initiatives and solutions I provide. I still have to report back about bums on seats, number of learning sessions, number of hours invested, costs, and whatever else.
I am part of the machine, as much I am trying to adapt the machine.
I’m in the midst of developing our senior management development programme. It’s going to be awesome. I’m swallowing my own medicine. Like the hype I’m building around it? In truth, I thoroughly enjoyed the delivery of our management development programme to our front line managers, as I wrote about last week.
So what’s different here?
Firstly, there’s a smaller group. That helps a lot as it means less large scale co-ordination and more room for personalised agendas. I’m totally flowing with that as a thing and we’re arranging that the programme will be flexible enough to fit around people’s diaries where possible, instead of mandated course dates.
The bit I’m particularly interested to watch unfold is the take up of content. We will have some core modules, which most people will be asked to attend. We are also providing a range of 7 optional modules, and suggesting that people select a minimum of two, with the option of attending all if that fits with their development needs.
Now, one of the pieces which I’m still grappling with is the inclusion of a project as a method of collaboration and delivery of organisational objectives.
In a discussion with one of the directors, we were talking about how we would know if a programme like this were successful at all. What would we actually notice/observe/feel?
We discussed the usual suspects. Better decision making. Improved engagement of teams. Yada yada yada. We got onto the bit about the projects, and the impact of the projects, and this was where things got interesting.
It was suggested that it probably makes more sense that the project happens after the development is done, as this would be a directly correlatable (totally a word I just made up) to the programme. This made me stop and think quite carefully about what that means. I’m sure we’re not the first to have thought an approach like this might work, and I know I’ve tried to do the project thing in mid-programme previously. So, the question is, is that correlation possible?
As with most things in life, the answer is, possibly.
What I don’t have the luxury of is a control group to make that assertion with confidence. I am not of the mind that I don’t want to put a group through development, give them the same projects, and then evaluate the solutions to see who produced better results. Although quasi-scientific, it’s not fair, and certainly morally very shaky.
I am intrigued by the face value of it though. By developing the skills, knowledge and attitude of our senior managers, we are equipping them to be their best self at work. Once the programme is complete, they then are given a project to work on collaboratively, with clear parameters and brief, and expected to deliver a solution as part of the project. What that solution looks like, and the delivery of it, would be a reflection on the development programme.
So there’s a level of pressure I wasn’t expecting to be attached to the programme!
What do you think?