Back to the Basics

Training is a future-focused profession. Not only do training professionals need to prepare our learners for future skills and future experiences, but we also need to prepare businesses for an ever-changing technological and business environment. Evaluating the lifecycle of training material and ensuring scalability of projects are at the heart of this, not to mention the central responsibility of strategic alignment.

But what happens when key stakeholders don’t quite catch the same vision for the future?  What happens when a proposal is rejected because “what we have works just fine,” or they would rather just do things “the way they used to?” The battle cry of this mindset of reverting back to old ways can be found in the phrase, “back to basics.” While it is true that basics must be taught, it can be difficult for some stakeholders to separate content from method, even when methods have become outdated.

To help you navigate conversations with reluctant and resistant stakeholders who seem stuck in the past, consider these three fundamentals that couple reflection on the past and planning for the future:

Fundamental 1: Be Curious, Not Critical

Just as many people are resistant to change of any kind, training professionals can be resistant to reverting back to old methods. With this resistance comes criticism. However, when you are able to suspend your criticism with genuine curiosity, you open the possibility of gaining a better understanding. However, being curious is just the first step. Engage with that curiosity by asking the questions that will lead you to the understanding you need, not just the evidence you want.

If there are stakeholders expressing an interest in reimplementing a retired training practice, ask about that practice. Find out what worked so well with it when it was in use before. Then, find out what led to its being discontinued. Finally, find out what value it is expected to add through reimplementation.

If, on the other hand, there is a practice that is still in place, but has grown stale, seek to understand the reason for sustaining the practice. Explore data that could measure its level of effectiveness. Find the connection between the practice and the company culture to get to the root of the need.

When approaching the “back to basics” thinkers in this manner, the true basics (or fundamentals) will come to light, and through the process, you will be able to learn more about the experience those stakeholders truly have to offer in a true partnership.

Fundamental 2: Align Where You Can Align

In discussions about former practices or current but outdated practices, the place we get stuck is in the “how” of training. Instead of pushing ahead in these discussions, set the “how” aside, and figure out what you can agree on. Crucial Learning refers to this skill as seeking mutual purpose, which involves moving to higher ground, so to speak.

At the highest level, you can bring the conversation to company values, and the need for a solid return on investment (ROI) for the training initiative. Beyond that, likely places to identify common ground are in the gap that the training initiative needs to fill, the skills employees need to develop or the knowledge they need to acquire. By climbing to the higher level to align, you can revisit the “how” discussion from a different vantage point, one in which all involved parties are now asking the right “how” questions: How do we reach that objective? Aligning at this level makes it easier to make sacrifices to original proposals for the sake of the common objective.

There is a subtle, but important difference between this type of alignment and compromise. In compromise, both sides feel obligated to give something up just to move forward with a different idea. In seeking a mutual purpose, the sacrifices are made willingly due to the more collaborative nature of seeking the best idea.

Fundamental 3: Prioritize the People

When communicating with key stakeholders, it can be unsettlingly easy to get lost in the world of prices, figures and ROI where everything starts to feel like numbers. However, when preparing a proposal for a training initiative, the quantitative data only represents part of the benefit. A strong ROE (return on expectations), illustrated through qualitative data, is just as important.

While not directly related to the “stuck in the past” problem, Dr. Keith Keating suggests that a gap in qualitative data is not an uncommon issue. In his book “Hidden Value: How to Reveal the Impact of Organizational Learning,” Dr. Keating presents a study that indicated that chief financial officers across a variety of industries expressed an interest in stronger evidence in support of this human component or the transformative potential of training initiatives. These are stakeholders steeped in the numbers game, yet they identified this more human-centered component as a gap in the information they need.

More directly connected to the “stuck in the past” problem, personal experience has shown the appeal of expired or dated methods is a human appeal, not a financial appeal.  It’s about the confidence in a new skill, the connectedness with other employees or the career advancement of those who benefited from past programs. These stakeholders have been able to see the ROI of proposed training initiatives; what has held them back is the missing ROE. Supply that, and you have a much stronger path forward.

Conclusion

Change is a collaborative effort. We learn from our past just as everyone else learns from theirs. When we work together using the experience of our collective past, we can find a much brighter future. You may just find that in helping stakeholders use their past to create a better future, they will do the same for you.

See how you can gain stakeholder buy-in through the Internal Consulting program. View the course brochure below.