Unlocking Creative Potential – A Neuroscience Approach, Part II

Sandy Cormack, a personal and organizational consultant, continues with his installments of Unlocking Creative Potential. He uses a neuroscience-based approach to team building, leadership development, creativity and innovation, change management, and business strategy development.

You could say the human brain is really the last frontier. We use only a small part of it, but increasing our understanding of how it works to learn, to adapt, to flourish is important to everyone. As trainers we can’t do our jobs without understanding how people think and learn, and if we can unlock that creative potential, we make the most of the resource we have. Here’s Sandy Cormack with Part II.

Unlocking Creative Potential, Part II

by Sandy Cormack

In this installment we explore the neuroscience of individual creativity and learn a few ways to develop our “creative brains.” First, let’s review the model for whole brain creativity using the left brain-right brain metaphor:

The ideal creative person would have a creatively balanced brain like the one depicted above. In theory, this person could fully explore every problem they encountered, generate a wide range of ideas and have a good chance at selecting the best solutions.

In reality, not many people possess a brain like this. Most of us have a preference for only two or three of the four thinking styles.

To achieve this creative balance we must 1) continue to develop our strengths while 2) developing additional skills which overcome our weaknesses.

Let’s take a look at someone who is truly left brained: she has preferences in both analytical and structural thinking. This excerpt from a profile report belongs to someone who’s taken the left brain right brain test I use:

In this metaphor, preferences are defined as any attribute measuring 23 percent or greater. Jane’s thinking preferences are analytical (40%) and structural (38%). She also has a relatively substantial social (20%) attribute, but not too much conceptual (2%).

Relative to creativity and problem solving, Jane’s strengths are in problem definition, systemic solutions and implementation. Her weaknesses are in imagination, visioning and novel ideation. Using her left-brain strengths, she may rapidly assess the situation, draw upon past experience to select a solution, and immediately go about implementing it. But by not using a conceptual approach, she may fail to consider better, more out-of-the-box alternatives. And if she relies on analytical and structural too much, she may fail to use her social to discuss the problem with others to gain a broader perspective, or learn the current best practices from others.

In a brain training workshop, a person like Jane would learn to develop skills to overcome weaknesses like these. She’d learn a series of “creative thinking techniques” – systematic methods of generating ideas that appeal to all four brain quadrants.

Jane would probably have little difficulty coming up with ideas to improve (structural) or refine (analytical), although she could easily learn additional techniques for those. She’d probably benefit most, though, from learning as many right-brain related techniques as she could.

Here’s a simple right-brain technique which appeals to left-brain thinkers due to its linear nature. It’s called Challenging Assumptions.

Write down your best definition of the problem at hand.
Write down every assumption you can think of about the current situation.
Next to each assumption, write the opposite (either the negative or the reverse).
Consider if any of the opposites spur ideas for novel solutions.

Consider the example of Jane’s church, which is trying to raise its membership. She might write down these assumptions:

Services are conducted on Sunday mornings
People come to services at the church
Services feature traditional music
Parishioners receive a newsletter in the mail once a month
The pastor primarily focuses on internal church matters and the congregation
The congregation has several fundraising events at the church every year

Now she reverses each of them one by one:

Services aren’t conducted on Sunday mornings – Is there another day that might serve the community better? Another time of day?
The church comes to the people – Is there a place in the community closer to homes, like a community center or park, that would be more appealing?
Services don’t feature traditional music – What kinds are music should we consider? Folk? Rock? Something purely modern?
Parishioners don’t receive a newsletter – What about email? A Facebook page? Twitter? Some that connects them not only with the church but with one another on a weekly or daily basis?
The pastor focuses on external matters – What does the community need? What services can the church offer to help the community with its most pressing problems?
The fundraising events aren’t at the church – How about field trips? Where can we go? What kind of activities would generate interest? What would be fun?

See what we did here? We forced Jane’s left brain to slow down and consider a more divergent approach to the problem. We made her look at the problem from a wide range of perspectives and redefine it. Now Jane might consider that her church’s membership problems are problems of convenience, involvement, interaction, community focus, and social opportunities. And she came up with solutions which might transform the very culture of her church.

A great resource for learning a multitude of creative thinking techniques is the book “Thinkertoys” by Michael Michalko. It’s chock full of both left-brain and right-brain techniques.

To summarize: to develop your whole brain creativity you must:

Determine your thinking preferences via a left brain right brain test
Learn creative thinking techniques to overcome your weaknesses

My final installment will show how teams and organizations can leverage their collective creativity to solve virtually any problem they encounter.

Sandy Cormack’s report (available for download at http://leftbrainrightbraintest.com/) addresses the essential elements of a left brain-right brain test and provides a general introduction to left brain-right brain theory and applications. He can be reached at interzon@comcast.net.

This is the second of three articles by Sandy for this Training and Development blog. Any aspect of how we learn and think affects how we train individuals and groups, and how we work with others. This may not be an obvious in the approach to training and development, but it definitely has its place. You have Sandy’s information.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Now mine: I can be reached through my website, by commenting here on this blog or any of my others. You’ll find more of my writings on a variety of topics from the perspective I like to call the Cave Man perspective, which basically means we learn from wherever we are most likely to learn the best information to do the job. I don’t believe in one way of doing things; I hope you don’t either. I welcome those who have differing opinions or new ideas. I certainly don’t know everything. Please check out my new e-book available through all major distributors, A Cave Man Guide to Training and Development, my attempt at making clear what I do know to be true from my perspective. I believe it offers a refreshing look at training and development, while keeping the “cave” open to new ideas. Happy Training.

December 19, 2011March 22, 2023

Unlocking Creative Potential – A Neuroscience Approach, Part I

concentrated-business-people-discussing-on-creative-ideas-for-a-project

In my last article I talked about performance from the viewpoints of Performance Psychologists. This time we’ll take a look at what neuroscience has to tell us by understanding more about left brain-right brain science.

I have asked Sandy Cormack, a personal and organizational consultant to guest blog on the subject. He uses a neuroscience-based approach to team building, leadership development, creativity and innovation, change management, and business strategy development.

Unlocking Creative Potential

by Sandy Cormack

In his recent article Battling for Creative Solutions, Jack Shaw introduces the concept of left-right brain creativity. Creativity might be the least understood cognitive function. The terminology isn’t that exact – even the Wikipedia definition Jack quoted is sorely inadequate for the true range of creativity our minds are capable of. But understanding the neuroscience behind how our brains function provides a much-needed key for unlocking our creative potential. There’s enough material to make a major series of articles, but I hope to cover the subject adequately for out purposes here in three.

The first part is a general introduction to the issue. The second installment focuses on individual and group creativity the third installment addresses the group aspect.

Before we get too deep into creativity, first consider this visual metaphor for the brain:

Our left brain thinks logically, systematically and in language. Our right brain thinks intuitively, strategically and in pictures. The two hemisphere function as two individual brains, but they’re connected by a fibrous network called the corpus collosum, allowing them to communicate and exchange information.

But there is an abstract and concrete component to each hemisphere that lets us move from hemisphere model to a quartile model – analytical, structural, social and conceptual. And although we use all these attributes in our thinking, we tend to prefer two or three of them. In fact, the majority of people aren’t purely ‘left brained’ or ‘right brained’ at all – they prefer aspects of both (a detailed description of the four thinking attributes can be downloaded for free at my Left Brain Right Brain Test website).

Using this model, we can talk about creativity this way:

Our Analytical brain likes to take something and refine it. It assesses the problem by gathering enough facts and data to achieve a clear picture of the current situation. It selects solutions based on rigorous analysis of cost and benefits, and it seeks ways of measuring results.
Our Structural brain likes to take something and improve it. It tends to focus on process and procedure as likely problem areas, and relies on past experience for solutions (i.e., there’s no need to reinvent the wheel). It seeks closure so it doesn’t like to dwell on the problem for too long.
Our Social brain keeps an eye on the external world to generate raw material for ideas. It defines the problem in consultation with the people most affected by it. It looks for the best available practices to implement as solutions, but only after considering how they will affect people. It’s also associated with ‘trusting the gut.’
Our Conceptual brain is the seat of our imagination and seeks novelty. It gathers as much information as it can and lets its intuition hatch innovative ideas (the ‘a-ha’ moment). It is energized by problem definition and ideation – it loses steam when it comes time for action.

Now consider the four general phases of the creative problem solving process:

Problem definition – examination of the problem from many perspectives which seeks to find the root causes to address
Ideation – proliferation of ideas which improve, refine, copy, and innovate
Solution selection – enhancing the best ideas into practical solutions
Implementation – determining what it will take to make the solutions happen and then doing it.

Clearly there’s an important role for each of the four thinking attributes in this process. So everyone is creative – just not in the same way. You can think of this as creative ‘style.’ When you discover your thinking preferences, you gain clear insight into your creativity.

But this creates a huge spinoff problem at the organizational level. We’re different people with different brains. Most organizations can’t get past the ‘mental dissonance’ caused by these differences – they never learn how to harness the creativity of the individuals into a powerful collective creativity.

My follow-on articles will show how to address this problem once and for all, and help you develop a highly creative, highly collaborative organization in the process.

Sandy Cormack’s report (available for download at http://leftbrainrightbraintest.com/) addresses the essential elements of a left brain-right brain test and provides a general introduction to left brain-right brain theory and applications. He can be reached at interzon@comcast.net.

This is the first of three articles by Sandy for this Training and Development blog. Any aspect of how we learn and think affects how we train individuals and groups, and how we work with others. This may not be an obvious in the approach to training and development, but it definitely has its place. You have Sandy’s information.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

December 15, 2011May 5, 2022

Performance: The Psychologist’s View

Person-having-a-session-with-a-psychologist

Performance psychology looks at three basic areas: sports, business, and performing arts and entertainment.

I am a working actor and a working trainer. For both professions, you could say I am a performance critic. In my other life as a psychologist, I see a wide range of similarities.

Instead of comparing business and theatre definitions of performance, I thought a good way to present this issue is to highlight aspects of Performance Psychology, which is related to all three.

To get us started, we don’t need a deep, reflective definition. A simple definition from Wikipedia will suffice:

“Performance psychology is a branch of psychology that focuses upon the factors that allows individuals, teams, and groups to flourish and to achieve their aim of being the best. It engages the performer on how to be successful by developing the power of the mind and to practice mental skills training in their daily lives.”

It shouldn’t surprise anyone that many of these factors are the same, similar or overlap. Performance psychology looks at three basic areas: sports, business, and performing arts and entertainment. The evolution is different, but as we look at training techniques and basic mental skills involved we see striking similarities. The same goes for goal setting, which is explored as a part of each separate area of interest.

Sport psychology is rather new in the field, going back only to the late 1800s and early 20th century, when Norman Triplett conducted experiments involving cyclists. He and others in the area realized that focusing on the mental as well as the physical is important to performance. And, I’m sure we would agree that is true in our business or professional lives as well as personal that our mental take on things affects our physical prowess, our energy, our motivation, and, of course, our results.

The difference between a great performance and a good performance or between winning and losing is often related to mental rather than physical abilities.

“When you learn to respond positively to challenges that you are presented with, yourperformance in training and in competitions will be affected by your emotional reactions to those challenges. Therefore if you can master your emotions, you will have the power to use those emotions as a tool to facilitate individual and team performance. Physical skills, physical fitness and mental skills are the building blocks of the complete athlete that produces outstanding sports performance. The difference between a great performance and a good performance or between winning and losing is often related to mental rather than physical abilities.”

We all know the importance of goal setting in all three areas, not just with sports. Setting long term vision and short-term goals motivate us. By setting sharp, clearly defined goals, you can measure and take pride in the achievement of those goals, and you’ll see forward progress in what might previously have seemed a long pointless grind. Communication, commitment, collaboration (buy-in and negotiation) is required for effective goal setting.

What’s the best way to look at goal setting. In 1990, Lock and Latham published their book called “A Theory of Goal-Setting and Task Performance” outlining five principles of goal-setting.

It’s called Be-SMART. You’ve probably heard of it.

S – Specific (or Significant).
M – Measurable (or Meaningful).
A – Attainable (or Action-Oriented).
R – Relevant (or Rewarding).
T – Time-bound (or Trackable).

To have the principles of goal-setting is important, but to motivate these goals must have:

Clarity
Challenge
Commitment
Feedback
Task Complexity

Now, we are beginning to see the Business/Professional Psychology side as corporations and business professionals need to empower people, including themselves in they are a one-man shop, to seek high levels of mental capacity to deal with the stressors of a changing environment. It’s more on the radars of corporations but smaller companies need to recognize it, too. A corporate executive in order to deal with the stressors must constantly seek to revitalize his or her motivation, strive toward self-mastery, and reinvent him or herself to adapt the company to change. In essence, the corporate or business professional athlete should be constantly renewing and reinventing.

As long as there have been artists there have been people and institutions trying to find ways to enhance artistic performance...

As trainers we need to develop training programs designed to allow individuals to respond creatively and with a renewed sense of enthusiasm to the pressures and demands of work and life. Self-awareness, we know is the foundation of change; renewal will help us regenerate and refocus our energy on new stressors, and quite simply strategy and tactics will give us the tools to deal with those new stressors.

Ironically, Performing Arts Psychology has been around longer than the two above. As long as there have been artists there have been people and institutions trying to find ways to enhance artistic performance, but the ideas and goals are the same. This specialty deals with the psychological factors associated with participation and performance in areas such as dance, music, acting, radio, and public-speaking and stresses direct, real-world application of psychological research findings to strengthen, compliment, and improve the artist/performer.

While not using the same words, we are still talking about enhancing performance, be it on stage, in the factory or on the playing field. Theatre, in particular, has always delved into the mental aspects of performance. I’m sure the other performing arts have done the same, but I am closer to “acting” so I will focus on what I know best. There is something to be said about how most of the acting approaches focus on the mental aspects of the craft, but Stanislavsky with his method and the Meisner with his more improvisational method come immediately to mind. Both are deeply internal in approach. Each seek a mind over the body or physical approach to the art. What the mind sees, the body will do. So, mastery of the conscious mind is very important, and all methods strive to keep renewing and reinvent (sometimes in an obvious way) the individual performers.

“Fundamental peak performance proficiencies” cut across the three primary areas. Attitude, motivation, concentration, preparation, coach-ability, being a team player, leadership, or the ability to relax under pressure, are all attributes the peak performer possesses under any conditions. Peak performers have the ability to be self awareness, to self program, to visualize, to think critically and creatively, and to control effort.

Mental training is key to making all this work. The five main aspects of mental training are:

Relaxation
Mental Rehearsal
Focusing
Positive affirmation
Visualization

With all of these commonalities we can do little wrong. There must be something right for these diverse areas to come up with the same elements to do the job.

Performance psychology involves assessment and intervention strategies that enhance an individual’s performance and personal growth. It is said that Performance Psychologists are the chameleons of the practitioner world and I agree. Coming from all three worlds, I see the intersections and application clearly. I guess that makes me a chameleon of sorts myself, but I must say in the area of performance, it certainly doesn’t hurt.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

That’s it for me. Check out my website for more writings on various topics, including theatre performance and basic communication. My new book, deemed by some to be an item for every trainer’s toolkit is available at most e-book retailers for a very low price. My gift to you for the holidays, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development takes a look at the way we have complicated the learning process, and how much of we need to know in many cases is to remember how we got those complicated ideas in the first place. Happy training.

December 6, 2011March 22, 2023

On Evaluating Standardized Tests

Education in this country works great for some, but not for others…

I just read an article from the Washington Post that disturbed me: When An Adult Took A Standardized Test Forced on Kids. It was written by Marion Brady and she talks about an educated adult friend of hers who took the 10th grade standardized tests.

I wouldn’t be writing this post if her friend validated the test by doing exceeding well. After all the man has a couple of masters degrees and some hours toward a PhD, and holds a job with a lot of responsibility. Here’s the problem: he did so poorly on the test that he would have been told he had no real chance of succeeding in college. By all other measures, he is a success!

The most important institution in our nation preparing us for living and thriving in the real world does not seem fit to handle it. You could say it has been too long since he was in school, and if he were a sophomore he would have been better at it–the article mentions that, too, but I still think it flashes a huge problem. A disconnect with reality. Education in this country works great for some, but not for others–for some it appears it misses with what’s really important: a connection with real life experience. It failed in this circumstance, but it also fails in areas where the environment is different from what the standard test crafters know it to be; I suspect their own reality may be skewed by a lack of real experience in those areas.

Perhaps other educated, work and life-savvy adults ought to take the exams as well.

Why do we have these tests anyway? To measure that our students are ready to move forward, that the school is teaching them something worthwhile, that the students are ready for the world of work or prepared for college. When a college graduate and otherwise sane individual takes that test and does not do well, it tells me a high school sophomore’s world concept is vastly different from the one he is about to enter.

The question for trainers and developers: are we to train new employees based on the disconnect? Are we to figure out the differences and provide answers? It would seem we’d be doing the teacher’s job. Now, I understand it was the government that required these tests and the schools often feel they have to teach to the tests instead of what they feel is really important to the students’ future.

Who’s fighting for the students now–armed with this small piece of information. Perhaps other educated, work and life-savvy adults ought to take the exams as well. We might learn something. It surely enough to make us mad enough to fight. Now to get principals and other school administrators to take the tests and see if they don’t have similar results. I suspect they’ll do better because they live in that world. After all their world is a different reality. But whose world are we preparing our students for? Sure, some will be teachers, but many will not.

…there are teachers who teach the answers to the standardized tests, the very ones which may be in need of an overhaul.

Is it time for the standard makers to take the tests as well as see how they do? Revisionist thinking, anyone?

When I administer a test, it is to see if my students can use what they have been taught as well as test their knowledge on a given subject. I may be naive, but I think that is correct priority. Some teachers and administrators have never done anything else other than teach; their environment is limited to school houses and what others tell them should be done. Some teachers and administrators may live in the past where we recited data over and over again until we memorized it; today application is everything and the data we recited over and over again is available at a moment’s notice if we know where to look on the Internet. We can do research in a tenth of the time it used to take–even less, I’m sure.

Critical thinking and problem solving should be a part of every class and related to NOW. I’m not sure it is. I’m sure there are teachers who teach the answers to the standardized tests, the very ones which may be in need of an overhaul. Of course that’s just my educated opinion, but admittedly I’m not an educator, although I do teach college classes. And, I have a couple of Master’s degrees and some work toward a PhD. No, I didn’t take the test.

In fairness to Big Education, the Big Government took away many financial resources and demanded more from our educators. We make it less desirable to teach, one of our most honorable professions, than to work for a private company. Not that there is anything wrong with private, public or non-profit organizations, but maybe it is time to start them to have a relationship with educators earlier. If we can’t get educators to the reality, let’s bring the reality to them. Even college programs that interface with private industry or government, providing learning opportunities for students and problem solving for business and government, have trouble getting off the ground. Other countries are better at it than we are. Maybe if we start earlier…who knows.

Primary and Secondary education’s goal should not be just to prepare for higher education, but for life…

Are we getting too big and becoming compartmentalized as a country. I hope not. Our students’ education is too important. No one would deny that, but we must make sure it is the right education, and if we are educating them the right way, we must measure it in way that is useful. Primary and Secondary education’s goal should not be just to prepare for higher education, but for life that may or should include that higher education as well. If I knew then what I know now? But no one taught me those things. I mostly taught myself how to live in this complicated, often crazy and chaotic world. It would have been nice if I hadn’t had to. I suspect, too, my life might have been different. Yours?

Enough of a rant for now. Everyone should be concerned about education–but especially parents and students. Perhaps, trainers and human resource providers are in a better position to see what comes in the door. Do us a favor? Ask to take the standardized tests to see for yourself. You’re forgiven if you don’t understand the new math; it seems to change every year. But then, is it the new math or concepts of math, or logic and problem solving we should be testing? Attend school board meetings and announce your sentiments. Meet with teachers and do the same. Feedback, not acquiescence is what they need in order to send the message up Capitol Hill.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Enough of me. Please comment. I may be missing something very important that needs to be said. I welcome comments from educators as well; I know I put you on the spot. I am a communicator and a Cave Man trainer; I am always looking for the disconnects because it is important to make connections as the Cave Man did in his world, trying to survive. Check out my world, my web site, and my eBook, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. I don’t always talk like everyone else, but I’m standardized for my world and I hope you are for yours. Happy training

December 5, 2011March 27, 2023

Battling for Creative Solutions

business-partners-sharing-ideas-on-how-to-embark-on-a-new-business-deal.

About a year ago I ran across a NEWSWEEK article that still moves me on the subject of creativity and why we are losing our grip on it. “Oh, it’s part of the usual cutting of arts and music programs in schools” and “creativity is regarded as the purview of the arts” and no one else are what many say and are thinking. But I disagree. We can’t let the lack of that support affect us anymore than it already has.

It is the purview of business, of government, of life itself. That means there is application for training and developers–especially in the area of promoting tests of creativity in the workplace and encouraging the idea that creativity is not only the key to higher productivity, but also innovative products and services.

The article: The Creativity Crisis by Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman July 10, 2010

“For the first time, research shows that American creativity is declining. What went wrong—and how we can fix it.”

Designed by Professor E. Paul Torrance, he had a group of psychologists administer a creativity test to 400 students back in 1958. The article mentions one child in particular, eight-year-old Ted Schwartzrock, who is given the task to examine a toy firetruck and asked, “How could you improve this toy to make it better and more fun to play with?” He immediately rattled off 25 improvements.

Creativity is defined in Wikipedia as “the phenomenon whereby a person creates something new (a product, a solution, a work of art, a novel, a joke, etc.) that has some kind of value. What counts as “new” may be in reference to the individual creator, or to the society or domain within which the novelty occurs. What counts as valuable is similarly defined in a variety of ways.” Even though this is only the Wikipedia definition, I think it hits home rather well. There’s more.

“Torrance developed the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking in 1966. They involved simple tests of divergent thinking and other problem-solving skills, which were scored on:

Fluency – The total number of interpret-able, meaningful and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus.
Originality – The statistical rarity of the responses among the test subjects.
Elaboration – The amount of detail in the responses.”

What’s important here is that Schwartzrock, one of the subjects of this test, was not known to be a “creative.” In fact, he was destined to be come a doctor. But that isn’t all. From the article:

“Today, Schwarzrock is independently wealthy—he founded and sold three medical-products companies and was a partner in three more. His innovations in health care have been wide ranging, from a portable respiratory oxygen device to skin-absorbing anti-inflammatories to insights into how bacteria become antibiotic-resistant. His latest project could bring down the cost of spine-surgery implants 50 percent. ‘As a child, I never had an identity as a creative person, ” Schwarzrock recalls. ‘But now that I know, it helps explain a lot of what I felt and went through.’”

So it goes for Steve Martin’s critically acclaimed play, “Picasso at the Lapin Agile,” where Picasso and Einstein meet.

The value of creative tests as compared to IQ tests is still debated, but what can not be debated is that our creativity quotient, if there is one, is going down. We are simply not producing the same level of creatively producing individuals. It also means creativity is not just for the arts, but is found in many professions. For example, engineers, architects, and musicians score similarly in the creative areas so that explains the innovative nature of their work. The fact that scientists are every bit as creative as artists is hardly in question. In fact this is the subject of Steve Martin’s critically acclaimed play, Picasso at the Lapin Agile, where Picasso and Einstein meet. The essential element they share is creativity–the ability to demonstrate “fluency, originality and elaboration” as described by Torrance.

Because of the economy, we have shut out many of the arts programs in our schools, opting for the knowledged-based traditional subjects, and for some students their only access to exercises and learning to enhance creative thinking is through the arts. It makes a lot of sense on the surface, but let’s do something to make those other classes promote creativity as well.

But the arts aren’t the only key to innovation, courses that use problem solving, that reward innovation also help us train our brains to bring in the “right” brain to solve problems sooner. It seems we use our “left” brain first, looking at logic, taking a part the problem and seeking a direct approach; while it is the “right” brain that comes up with innovation.

Now, if you’re thinking “our kids all do video games and surely, this must have an effect.” It does, but not what you think. Television and video games have done just the opposite. In many ways, both media represent the results of creative thinking by others, it doesn’t force innovative thinking on the part of viewers or participants. Video games asks participants to make choices not come up with creative solutions. In fact, tests have shown the opposite: video games in particular may enhance thinking reaction time, but that’s not the same thing. The electronic media is making our kids less dependent on figuring out unique solutions and does not enhance their creativity.

It seems we use our “left” brain first, looking at logic, taking a part the problem and seeking a direct approach; while it is the “right” brain that comes up with innovation.

Here in the U.S. we seem to be a little slow in recognizing the value of instilling creativity in the classroom with problem solving and other exercises that require our students to think creatively; however, for the few schools who have tried it, their National test scores on the standardized tests overall have improved greatly.

There’s not enough information out there to make a broad determination scientifically, but it makes sense to try. Europe and China already are engaged in these activities. Are they recognizing the importance faster than we are? If so, that means more productivity and innovation coming from that direction in competition here. Maybe we should be worried.

Can we train creativity? Certainly, but not to the point we are making creative geniuses. We can train to make the ordinary man and women who is more “left” brain than “right” brain by giving them unusual problem solving exercises that make the “right” brain activate sooner. We also can apply testing that identifies those who already exhibit higher levels of creativity and nurture it. If we want a dynamic company full of innovative ideas and products, we need to do this.

Schwarzrock, say our authors, “was hardly on track to becoming the prototype of Torrance’s longitudinal study. He wasn’t artistic when young, and his family didn’t recognize his creativity or nurture it. The son of a dentist and a speech pathologist, he had been pushed into medical school, where he felt stifled and commonly had run-ins with professors and bosses. But eventually, he found a way to combine his creativity and medical expertise: inventing new medical technologies.”

Feeling unappreciated? Maybe it’s because your creativity is being stifled like Schartzrock. If you don’t know if you have creative tendencies, there are tests out there you can take independently to see. I’m not suggesting you change your job, but maybe it’s time to change tactics in how you approach common problems at work. Hopefully, companies will recognize this human potential use it to its advantage.

Again from Po Bronson and Ashley Merryman: “Creativity has always been prized in American society, but it’s never really been understood. While our creativity scores decline unchecked, the current national strategy for creativity consists of little more than praying for a Greek muse to drop by our houses. The problems we face now, and in the future, simply demand that we do more than just hope for inspiration to strike. Fortunately, the science can help: we know the steps to lead that elusive muse right to our doors.”

As for trainers and training developers, it’s up to us to be ready when the call comes for us to deliver the innovative thinkers and creative solutions. I think it’s long overdue.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Creative trainers can make a difference. That’s my opinion. My intention is to stimulate ideas, even opposition, so please respond at will. More of what I have to say can be found on my website, which of course is a full-blown creative solution to your training needs, he says with a smile. Check out my new book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development, an innovative way to look at training by looking at from a different perspective. Happy training.

November 30, 2011March 22, 2023

Finding Employee’s Other Qualifying Factors, Part II

An-employer-taking-notes-while-communicating-with-this-employees

There was only one problem: my experience had been with the military.

As you can tell from the title, this is Part II of my previous blog on the subject.

In our search for qualified people, we need to look beyond the direct hiring application and see if there are other qualities or experiences that a new person might bring to the company even if they need to be trained to do the specific job. Once trained they will more than complement the company workforce; they will enhance it. This can be accomplished by Human Resources screening, or simply by seeking certain qualities–success indicators and provide company training to provide specific job training.

It seems we do the opposite in looking for the perfect job fit, then we add in company fit factor and expect immediate success. In fact, in Training and Development we often try to bring out or discover the same success qualities in those already on staff–those hired long ago under different circumstances. Why not look at some employees (we already do for key employees like CEOs or Presidents) as having “more” –as in that more than what the job calls for–special talents we may be able to use in the future? Workers actually appreciate someone noticing they have other talents than what specifically they were hired for. Just ask them.

I’m sure many a qualified worker has gone through what I did nearly 25 years ago. I was a well-trained and educated public affairs officer with an excellent record, a master’s degree with post-graduate journalism courses, award-winning writing samples, and increasingly responsible service. There was only one problem: My experience was in the military. The fact it was considered the “least military” of the services and the most professional in the field of public affairs made no difference.

I had left the service early so I wasn’t even of retiring age (which can be late 30s in the military) so I was hardly an old man. I felt I was infinitely more qualified than many coming fresh out of school, but other factors made it difficult. There were other issues as well, and they made sense–even to me, but it still didn’t help the fact I needed a job and I was well-qualified.

The global misconception that anyone involved in the military cannot relate to the civilian world of business.
For those who might hire the military, they looked for women with less experience to fill the expected managerial void for women. Of course it came with a glass ceiling, but a woman could make it to the top of the public affairs or public relations game.
Or, hiring a retired public affairs officer willing to take less money because he or she was, in fact, retired already with benefits.

The exceptions I believe can be compelling–especially if you fit into one of these categories.

Companies and other organizations benefit, in some cases–by hiring military “brats,” who have been around world and understand diversity and cultural differences, who know how talk with people and show respect. Those I have met and worked with have a global sense of reality and they do understand people and cultural diversity better than most.
There are, of course, some technical areas you could argue don’t make a direct correlation, i.e., the Beltway Bandits–those in high tech or high security positions who can make that immediate transition to government contractors.

I would maintain we need to look beyond direct application and see if there are other qualities or experiences that may complement the company. Don’t we promote that as trainers: that outside experience can be beneficial?

Here I was impressively qualified having been an officer in public affairs, personally briefed a president and vice-president and a host of other VIPs, taught at the prestigious Air Force Academy and ran the tour program inside Cheyenne Mountain. So, after the service, off I went to write the Great American Novel at home and work at Sun Glass Hut just to get out of the house.

As attractive as that situation seemed at the time, financially I’d much rather had a real job. I did get an offer teaching at my alma mater for a third of what I had made as an Air Force captain–and that position was temporary. My welcome to the real world, I guess.

However, life’s priorities being what they were at that time, at the time I felt I could give up my military career. As far as I was concerned I had held some interesting jobs and what was left to do career-wise could easily be rather routine in comparison. Of course my goal had been to keep the marriage together, but it wasn’t meant to be either.

Now, financially ill and without a job, I found circumstances favored retired public affairs officers since they didn’t demand as much money to live on, and younger female public affairs or public relations professionals were preferred. I cost too much as middle management and didn’t have any extra advantageous like checking an HR special box.

We need to look beyond direct application and see if there are other qualities or experiences that might complement the company.

It was, of course, one solution for employers to address topic of the day–the glass ceiling was by hiring a woman for the jump–even one less qualified; the field is about 50/50 or it used to be. I don’t know what the figures are today, but even so it was perceived in many ways like training today–a function that isn’t critical to company operations. I think we understand better these days.

I found two avenues of employment, besides retail and other sales options, that welcomed diversity and where a military background was not scorned so much: government and education. No real complaint there, just reality. I found my way into government actually by using my Reserve commission to land a job as an Air Reserve Technician–basically a full-time Reservist. A caretaker of sorts, but a decent job, combining civil service and military, complete with uniform. Less pay, but nothing to quibble about in those days.

This led to working for the Federal government without the uniform, a job I found interesting at times but lacking in creativity opportunity; I retired from it anyway, but I felt my potential was wasted. It could have been I just didn’t have the right job either, but nobody ever tried to determine how my other talents could be put to use unless I initiated it and made it happen. Not everyone does that or should do that if a company is wise and thoughtful about its hiring and training process.

It’s about survival for company and individual alike, but here is the cautionary tale: look at all the possibilities. Another cliché: don’t leap before you look. While employers can choose from the obvious best, don’t forget that hidden among them may be someone not so obvious who can bring the company something new and different. Different in today’s world can be mean success.

I’m sure my tale of woe is not without a story behind the story that the companies tell; I can only tell it from my perspective. I don’t know any expert in HR who will tell you to dress like an individual and tout the reasons you are unlike the company you are applying for. All the advice points to make sure you fill out the application to say exactly what the company wants you to say or you’ll be eliminated. The only way to get something else in there that someone may or may not notice is risky for the applicant. Just as the company is playing it safe so is the applicant who has more to lose personally.

It just seems to make sense looking early for diversity and individual differences/talents that may prove useful. HR can do it, too, if they have the people. Trainers can always train the company way. While they can refine talent, and they can help identify it. And they can train a company how to manage and get the best resources from that talent.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Enough grousing on my end. The Cave Man strikes a second time on this topic. Check out my website and my eBook, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. In these places I look at training and development from a little different perspective. You’ll find more of What I Say under that category. I even review plays. Imagine that! Times change and perspective needs to follow.

Hope you found something useful in my grousing commentary. Happy training.

November 29, 2011March 22, 2023

Finding Employee’s Other Qualifying Factors, Part I

A-bussiness-woman-discussing-with-a-man-in-an-office

Training for a company job is easier than searching for hidden talent.

It seems no one wants to hire an exemplary person, but someone just to do the job. By “exemplary” I mean someone who has more than the obvious talent, education or experience for the job. It’s definitely easier to train an new employee to do the company job, than to discover hidden talents of an already established employee; if they had them, why didn’t they exhibit them up to this point. What’s harder is getting an employer to see how a potential employee solves problems, works well with others, leads a team to accomplish a creative task, or come up with fresh new ideas unless we look at his or her record or at least the resume.

I understand that companies are afraid to invest more than they have to in this economy, but it comes down to a series of clichés and euphemisms. “You get what you pay for.” “Why have a fancy shake when you can have plain milk?” “Hamburger, when you can have steak?”

Enough clichés, but hiring the staid, perfect fit seems to be the latest trend. Businesses are afraid to explore people options fully, and it may be up to us through leadership training or employee training to show companies and other organizations what they can be missing–potential creativity, new ideas, new methods.

Today we are told by the Human Resource experts that people tend to have several careers these days instead of one. In fact, many have several jobs and multitask unbelievably well. For some of those folks, getting a single, well-paying job is not going to happen since they’ve been…well, too diverse. Since when is being too diverse a problem?

All the geniuses I’ve ever heard of who went on to do great things in pretty much any field have been diverse in their experience. I could spend the entire blog making a list. So can you. Think of someone who has done “great” things, not just made a lot of money, but made a great contribution to society and you’ll find someone who has been around.

…they needed someone without training who had been doing the same job before. Or, so it seemed.

I’ve been in the job market more than 30 years and grant you, my resume shows a lot of experience and its varied. I think I did that before it was fashionable. Perhaps my special talent is that I’m pretty adaptable. I’m also not talking about a string of unrelated jobs, which doesn’t help when looking for a job. My jobs were all very related to communication; however, employers get very specific. Companies I talked to (if I got a response at all) didn’t want a talented communicator–not someone who adapted communication creatively all the time. Or, was it the military thing? No, they needed someone without training who had been doing the same job before. Or, so it seemed. Could it be the creative talent others saw in me and rewarded me with numerous, high-visibility projects was my downfall? Should it have been?

It seems we want just what we want and no more. We don’t want to invest to see beyond the obvious to find someone who might have potentially more valuable to offer the company in the long run. It’s a short-term business decision, but one that could be missing tremendous opportunity for a little investment. If you are a hiring manager: have you not hired someone who was outstanding on paper, and could have been easily trained for the job at hand, but the instruction came down that “no, we need someone now?” No training necessary. It could be a rush to mediocrity.

Just look at the specific job descriptions. Sometimes an organization is just following the regulations and it already has someone in mind for a position. It’s not really being competitive, but hundreds have wasted time applying–especially in this economy. I understand weeding out the ones who aren’t even close, but when a job is already locked, it doesn’t seem fair to waste the time of someone looking for a real opportunity.

Hiring the handicap or socially-economically disadvantaged may be the greatest diversity tool in business. It forced employers to look beyond the perfect fit–even at companies like IBM where people jokingly referred to being able to spot an IBM by his clothes and haircut alone. Diversity does go beyond the obvious and we’re foolish when we don’t see the hidden talents of our people.

What if we trainers through activities and testing could determine someone has much desired character traits for success? What if we could identify other talents a person has besides an ability to do the job? Wait, we can do that! What about exercises that demonstrate a person’s problem-solving ability, or the ability to think fast on their feet, or communicate the company’s needs to the max?

So, we already can and do those things–or at least we used to. Problem is: especially with the larger companies, we are looking only to fill a specific job and we have hundreds, sometimes more, applicants who have varying degrees of specificity or have less ability than that and barely reach the bar.

It makes sense looking early for diversity and individual talents that may prove useful.

My experience in getting a job after the Air Force was totally different, but in some ways still showed the stereotype of hiring around a budget or for the wrong reasons may not always be in the company’s best interest. Of course, anyone could argue, the decision they made at the time was the right one. It just seems a waste of talent and energy.

Stay tuned for Part II coming soon…if it’s not already here.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Enough grousing on my end. The Cave Man strikes again. By the way, I’m debating on a new name for my company. Cave Man Training and Communication, or Training Smarts–after my Acting Smarts company, which I’m setting aside to focus on training and development. What do you think? Check out my website and my eBook, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. In these places I look at training and development from a little different perspective. You’ll find more of What I Say under that category. I even review plays. Imagine that! Times change and perspective needs to follow.

Hope you found something useful in my grousing commentary. Happy training.

November 25, 2011March 22, 2023

Training and Teaching Public Speaking with A Difference

We need to fit in a workplace that has people there who come from a very different place, but if we can communicate… If we can do that, we can consider ourselves proudly, not just survivors but thrivers.

I am thankful for the opportunity to share what I think is one of the most important topics to society at large, to the world at large: good, clear, effective communication among us all.

I am fortunate to teach at a fairly basic level as well as coach corporate executives and business professionals who speak as an important part of their jobs. The college-level students, to be sure, learn it as a necessity to get through the college curriculum (if they see no other value). As educated adults we forget we learned it all along and, as we get into our special interest areas, we may discover how important it is to work and life. That’s why I consider it basic. The students are just getting started; the executives (one-on-one) have realized their performance or approach needs constant tweaking for them to be consistently successful at public speaking, which in turns enables them to be successful in business. Still the same basic tenants apply. For me, one job pays considerably better, but perhaps more satisfaction in helping those realize the importance of good communication who don’t see it yet, and need it more.

This may seem a little off topic in the training world but it has to do with training or teaching public speaking and presenting, and more. So, judge for yourself.

The focus on the class is just as much on organizing and maximizing impact on the audience as it is in practicing, or even better–gaining experience speaking.

I teach two classes of public speaking as a visiting professor–one class made up of mostly black students who live or work in urban in Philadelphia, and the other a suburban community outside the city comprised of mostly white blue-collar workers working mostly on technical degrees.

For these classes, the entire idea of communication is irrelevant or relatively insignificant; and to some, because they are so smart in other areas, they believe it is something akin to basket weaving–a no-brainer course. It is my intent to prove them wrong. It is also a subject where just getting them to verbalize what they personally have to say is difficult. Both groups take the idea of adding “yourself” to a speech, essential in good speech-making, all too personal.

Although I am a professional communicator and speaker, I do not teach my class as a performance class. Since I am also a professional actor and speech coach, it is also ironic, however, here my roles and goals are different. I am a teacher and a coach. My goals are success training and communication–oftentimes working hand-in-hand.

The first part of the term is devoted to developing ideas and supporting them–writing clear objectives and organization to those objectives, and hopefully give impact to ideas and purpose. I consider the first half of the class a chance for them to practice. We do an introductory speech, a personal speech (to put them in the speech-this I may change to an exercise later that puts them in any subject they talk about) and a scripted speech to understand the difference between doing a speech that someone else writes and they write (they learn empathy). If students have to make-up a class, it involves writing, organizing and presenting to the class.

The focus on the class is just as much on organizing and maximizing impact on the audience as it is in practicing, or even better–gaining experience speaking. Practice is what you do in front of a mirror; experience is what you do in front of an audience.

Second half of the class, my students are practiced and experienced, more comfortable speakers and have been instructed in the dos and don’ts of speaking as well as how to organize. Now they are ready for me to grade their informative speech, persuasive speech, and reflective or ceremonial speech; they are aware of how this works. I believe I am teaching them to communicate effectively rather than perform, but I am also teaching them to deal with their fear of speaking, among other things, and in the end they are all better speakers.

In the beginning, I have students who are smooth in front of an audience but can’t organize worth a darn and students so shy they can barely look at me. In the end, both groups hold their heads high, having accomplished what many thought was impossible–making a presentation and making a difference. It’s a great feeling for me, too.

My course is a variation of making a “mission impossible” for some, “an affair to remember.” We talk about knowing your audience, knowing your subject and knowing yourself. But in the end, it’s not just about public speaking; it never really was.

It’s about communicating–reaching out and touching someone else with ideas, facts and images to affect them personally and learning from your audience, from people, and interacting. It’s about making a difference. It’s about life and getting along, getting ahead. It’s about knowing others and yourself, and about being you.

In the end, both groups hold their heads high, having accomplished what many thought was impossible–making a presentation and making a difference.

It’s about fitting in everywhere, which is what humans do. In this vast world, man and woman has managed to live and survive, and often thrive despite the extreme climatic differences and geographic differences.

Effective communication with others has helped make that possible by the transfer of knowledge and fitting in where others lived before. (Granted the situations weren’t always ideal or morally correct. Hopefully, we’re better now.)

In the world closer to home, we still have to fit in with other people who may be very different from us in some ways but not so different in others.

We need to fit in the global economy, which means we need to understand cultural differences. That means analyzing our audience almost without thinking. We need to fit in a workplace that has people there who come from a very different place, but if we can communicate… If we can do that, we can consider ourselves proudly–not just survivors, but thrivers.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Other thoughts from the Cave Man of training and development are available on my website and in my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. I look forward to your comments. Just a reminder, if you are looking for an unusual, down-to-earth and creative approach to training, I’m your Cave Man. I also coach executives in the fine art of charismatic public speaking to bring out the best in you and give your presentation or speech the most impact you can deliver. You’ll find details on my website. Meanwhile, happy training.

November 21, 2011March 22, 2023

How to Brainstorm with Visual Aids

manager-brainstorming-with-colleagues-discussing-strategy-sharing-problem-solving-ideas-room-company-

I see immeasurable value in focusing ideas, presenting succinctly, ensuring your visual aids are perfect for a 15 second viewing.

This may seem an odd way to use visual aids, but you would be surprised at how effective it can be to brainstorm or even discover new ideas lurking in the audience. I discovered Ignite recently and was so impressed I put it up for my university speech students to see as an unusual way to use visual aids.

Ignite is the term for rapid-fire presentations.

“Enlighten us but make it quick,” says the website. “Ignite is a geek event in over 100 cities worldwide. At the events Ignite presenters share their personal and professional passions, using 20 slides that auto-advance every 15 seconds for a total of just five minutes.”

If you haven’t seen these, they are fun to watch and learn from. For trainers and professional speakers, I see immeasurable value in focusing ideas, presenting succinctly, ensuring your visual aids are perfect for a 15 second viewing.

Not only is the technique good for exercising speaking techniques and speech development, but it can also serve those folks using brainstorming as a means to produce new ideas, a new company vision or a new methodology or leadership approach.

This is what I told my students:

“I thought this might be of interest, as an example of both brainstorming and using visual aids. Now, in a regular presentation, you don’t want to allow the visual aids to run your presentation; however, here the purpose to stimulate thoughts and ideas. Even so, look at the care that goes into the slides used and what the speaker has to say about them.

“Can you see other elements that are missing from a normal informative speech? In a normal speech or presentation, you would say more, but the speaker is pointing out only the significance of the visual aid. In your informational speech you should use fewer slides, address what is on them more, and connect with your audience. As you can see, five minutes is not a long time to speak definitively about anything, but long enough to stimulate an audience.”

For the traditional student, this is a lesson in giving a presentation with a twist; it tells them what not to do, but at the same time shows them the value of each slide and the importance of each point made by the speaker. What’s missing is also important.

The introduction and the audience connection in these Ignite presentations has to be incorporated or ignored, which is not a good thing unless the series is set up and I’m assuming it is. So, for the student, what’s not there is also important. It can in fact be a glaring reminder that we need to remember to do that.

Content is important, too. If the speaker is not able to comment on the slide fast enough, let’s hope the slide speaks for itself, which by the way, is important in any speech or training session.

We want our visual aids to have impact. Here they do. We want to be careful that our visual aids don’t overwhelm us, which is what we can see happen here. For trainers and professional speakers I see learning examples galore–a way for us to stay sharp.

Ernie Jewell, John Jackowski and Arthur F. Thompson in MOONLIGHT AND MAGNOLIAS, a Collaborative Act Studio production.

In theatre, we often use rapid-fire line delivery exercises as way of getting our lines to the point where we don’t have to think of them before we say them; they are just there when we need them after we practice awhile. I could see a technique where a speaker might change the setting so the slides change slower and with that change, the speaker has to fill with pertinent material. Some of us might actually find that fun.

A final word on Ignite presentations. I understand they are being offered commercially in 100 or more cities now, and I’m assuming these are paid events for idea stimulation. I am not endorsing the product or events, but suggesting the technique behind these kinds of presentations might be useful to those of us who deal in presentations all the time.

Any thoughts or experiences you have had with the topic and wish to share are welcome. I am always open to learning new information. I admit this one is new to me. I guess I’ve been in my cave too long. Anyway, I am always available here, and on my website, where you will find information ranging from training, public speaking, interpersonal communication and even acting/directing and theatrical reviews. I am the guy who wrote The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development – A Common Sense Guide by the CEO of ActingSmarts, a different way to look at training no training novice, training developer or manager should be without. If you need a consultant, speaker or trainer, check out my website for details. Happy training.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

November 17, 2011September 15, 2022

Needs Assessment: Don’t Blow It, Motivate It

businesspeople-working-as-team-with-laptop

We never think much about our car battery until we turn the key and the car doesn’t start. It’s the same with training needs assessment.

Let’s get at the concept of what the training needs assessment is, who it’s for, why do it, and make it work.

Companies and organizations want to take advantage of anticipated better times ahead. It’s good that there is an immediate call for the company or organizational needs assessments, probably because the economy is showing signs of recovery–depending on who you ask. But it may not be time for your typical needs assessment.

So, perhaps this is also time for another treatment on the subject. Now, I’m assuming this hubbub is all due to the weakened economy and the need for employers not have workers with jobs working at peak performance.

I think we have to take a fairly basic look at needs assessments in how we present the information, and fill in the details later. The purpose of this blog is to get at the concept of what is it, who it’s for, why do it, and making it work. Four things, which can be blown out of proportion so easily because the “need” is so great.

A training needs assessment, according to the authors of the linked document, Janice A. Miller, SPHR and Diana M. Osinski, SPHR, in order for initiatives to “be effective and efficient, all training programs must start with a needs assessment.” So, it’s an important first step.

“Long before any actual training occurs, the training manager must determine the who, what, when, where, why and how of training. To do this, the training manager must analyze as much information as possible about the following:

• Organization and its goals and objectives.

• Jobs and related tasks that need to be learned.

• Competencies and skills that are need to perform the job.

• Individuals who are to be trained.”

Company performance–right down to individual worker performance–is critical now for survival.

As the economy begins to brighten–an it seems to be–companies are once again thinking it is time to bring everyone to peak performance levels. The “what” is the needs assessment, of course. What we really need. Optimism. Motivation.

Here’s where we don’t blow it. The “who it’s for” is the company, but the workers take the training. They rate and evaluate their own performance so the company can train them to be more proficient at their jobs. What if the employees feels this is an effort to seek out the dead weight in the company on a day they aren’t feeling terribly productive, and so today they are feeling vulnerable.

Your people have been with you through the lean times. Let’s assume the training needs assessment is an effort to see where we stand and what we need to move forward. Naturally we want to improve productivity. I’m sure you are aware that the workers have been doing this for some time, filled with worry and concerns that many will not share with you. Then, you send them the Training Needs Assessment forms, which look suspiciously like “we need to see if everyone is doing their jobs, and if not, train others to do them better.”

At this particular moment in time, a stressful moment for the employees, optimism is not a part of the picture unless you present it that way. There has to be a preamble to reassure employees that jobs are secure, and in fact this may be part of hiring initiative. It should also emphasize why the company has picked this time to do a needs assessment, made workers take it, and quite simply tell them what’s in it for them. There doesn’t even have to be a direct connection to the training. By telling workers simultaneously that because things are getting better that we can all benefit from the needs assessment, it may be enough to satisfy them.

Better yet. Offer positive credit for training by adding it to their personnel portfolio, encourage supervisors to endorse the training fully, and otherwise make workers feel that when they do the training they do not have to worry about their current job as well. Unless they are sufficiently pumped for the training ahead and feel optimistic about the company’s as well as their own personal future, they aren’t likely to respond positively to the needs assessment. The pages will be grumbled about and set aside until the last minute as the employees scramble to save their jobs.

A total miscommunication is possible–and yet the company has said the right thing. Good communication doesn’t operate in a void. There are barriers to effective communication and one of those is the situation or environment in which the communication takes place. Another barrier is the mindset of the listener, so the sender (the company or organization) has to take into account the psychological framing of the listener.

We know what a needs assessment contains. We need to ask a lot of questions about what the company needs to do its job better as well as the employees. The formalized needs assessment, given by the thorough training folks (who may also be disconnected from the workers by position) should be prepared for in such a way as to take the “new” situation into account. We are big on saying no situation is alike, and yet sometimes, we treat the situations as exactly alike. If it’s not broke… The needs assessment system is not broke, but don’t forget the assessment is still about training people, and people learn and perform best when they know what’s in it for them. You don’t want to send mixed signals to employees about this is critical business function.

Ironically, the company has the best intentions, and probably says all the right things–for a normal, prosperous environment. It’s a leadership issue as much as a training issue.

Trainers: this is your opportunity to make a major difference. Meanwhile, if you need a basic needs assessment how-to, here’s a good link: http://www.dirjournal.com/guides/how-to-conduct-a-training-needs-analysis/ Go for it.

These views are mine and mine alone. I hope I have tweaked some interest in the topic and shed some light on a topic not thought about much–except when we need it. You can find more of my thoughts on a variety of topics related to training, speaking, acting–anything to do with communication on my website under the What I Say category. Please check out my unusual take in my eBook, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development. Happy training.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.