Tom in The Glass Menagerie wants to know how the magician or anyone can “find a way out of coffin that is nailed shut without removing one nail,” or you could say how to find “a way up the slippery slope.” Work and work relationships can do more harm than good. This is one such tale.

My friend, Phil, is an intelligent, creative and passionate worker as well as an excellent communicator–only problem is: he doesn’t fit his job description. According to his supervisor, he was, to put it kindly, miss-classified when he was with higher headquarters and just doesn’t fit in in the Regional office model.

Some might call it a personality conflict with the boss. Some might say Phil was just incompetent, and did nothing but make everyone else work harder. Either way, no one was happy with the situation, and the system it seemed left everyone paralyzed to do anything about it. Except Phil who was trapped.

Here it is: the story I’ve wanted to tell for a long time. The story of a worker, moved by higher headquarters to a regional office with a different mission, left high and dry after a reorganization with a boss who didn’t think he was qualified. He was a star at headquarters, but the Regional office wanted to show how it was important, too. He went from being a star to being a nobody, a nothing, a loser. Sadly, it wasn’t his fault, but no one will ever claim otherwise.

Unfortunately for Phil, it meant staying on in a position where his talents were unappreciated, professionally ruined and alienated in his own office and the one he left behind in central office. He was completely isolated by those he used to call friends who were not willing to support the once-king creator, now loser. No doubt ego played a huge role, but we don’t even have to go there. The system failed him–plain and simple.

While there may be many options in the system to deal with situations like this, most deal in a negative way for the employee, and work for the supervisor by putting an uncooperative employee “in their place” or making them quit altogether. Safe management, not leadership. The options made for Phil were the ones where he had to initiate and there was, of course, his own admission that he was unable to do the job assigned. Hence, he admits to incompetence when that is not the issue.

There was one attempt intended to make him feel the system was trying to help him, but it left him virtually demoted under the guise of “no way to create a job at the same level,” which he accepted, and with a real loss of self esteem, which left him depressed. With the depression was a trail of times misspent worrying about surviving the job. Lost time and lost opportunities. Fortunately, no loss of life (his own) in these desperate times, although his health was profoundly affected. The body reacts to stress.

There seemed a willingness only to let him fall on his own sword, a willingness to use the system to pressure career decisions he didn’t want to make because he needed the job, an unwillingness to move him to another position, create a position or just change supervisors. Falling on his sword or any of the “forced” decisions on his part would help any supervisor stay unblemished by the association, and the higher-ups not having to make a “leadership” decision that they’d have to live with that involved a breathing human being and not a spread sheet.

There’s always more to it, but I’ll try to stay focused on how to remove oneself from such a position gracefully, and win back in the end the most important loss–self esteem.

What to do? Apply for jobs, but in this economy–not a good option. Many resumes and letters later, Phil begins to wonder if the supervisor who encouraged this move was also not supporting him when the calls for recommendations came in, or if word had already spread among Phil’s professional world he had been black balled–all for the sake of ego.

Sad but true, despite all the conversations that said, “don’t worry about your job, I’ll do all I can,” until such time and every creative decision is derailed because the supervisor wants any efforts made to change the situation made by Phil himself, on behalf of himself. Phil’s reputation prior to the move had been founded on his ability to find creative solutions, but here he was stuck.

Fortunately possibilities for retirement were near–just not a Phil’s timetable. It was still years down the road. He had made the original move for family; his wife had been offered a great job near her not-so-well parents. The commissioner in headquarters, impressed with Phil’s abilities, made the call the Region felt obliged to honor–his request to hire Phil. But commissioners change, and some aren’t always the leaders their predecessors were. Thus, follow-on support was influenced by present conditions…and the viewpoints of others affected–except Phil’s. His story didn’t matter no matter how professional he made it, with no accusations–just a simple request the system couldn’t handle. At some point, one has to think it was the people who didn’t want to be connected to Phil in any way so not doing anything to help ensured their anonymity, although their intervention would have made more sense.

So, Phil stayed, determined to see it through and do whatever he had to do to make it work. He played nice with all his colleagues, maintained everything he did at a professional level, and kept asking how to make things work. The work piled on as the goal it appeared was to never let Phil succeed. He had seen a memo where his supervisor had expressed her doubts that Phil would be able to succeed (in fact she was sure of it) and by not doing so would bring the unit down, the agency down, etc. And, the supervisor was determined not to be wrong in this assessment. It appears the mark of her leadership was always calling it right. It appeared she saw chances and trust laced with risk despite that it would have shown strength of character on her part. The depression and sleeping pills helped Phil gain nominal normalcy of life. At least, he found a way not to obsess about his failure at work, to his family to himself for a time

The way out. Retirement. No burned bridges. Relief. Phil was more busy in retired life, but he smiled everyday. He was not at all proud of his last eight years on the job–a job he once thought important to others, one he once seemed dedicating his life to. It was now the one topic that made him feel dead inside–no feelings whatsoever. No, that was just what he told himself. In reality he even took a few calls and talked with clients about their problems and not his; he listened and gave advice with the caveat he was retired now with no real authority. He couldn’t help himself; he was just that kind of guy.

No time now to be bitter–only time to live and try to do what he loved. It was a little late. Eight years spent with passion would have been better than the stress spent to survive the job. Now that passion was spent writing and doing those things he didn’t have time for. He had incorporated some while still on the job, taking time away from the family, but it save his sanity.

Suddenly, Phil is something of a hit in retirement now being able to say what he thought. His creativity and view of the world are appreciated and even revered by some–something that began as a “mistake” was made whole again. He feels validated for the first time in years. Vindicated, maybe never. However, he blogged and he spoke on things not related to his old job. His view on the world was different, appealing in its difference to an audience who had been there, too. They connected.

And then, it was over. The stress had taken its toll. He died. We all know many people who die six months after retirement. Could this be a reason? A possibility?

There are so many other ways this story could have gone. There were simple solutions that would have left Phil happy or at least relieved–and productive, willing to give back tenfold what took him away from the hellish situation. The moral of the story is to see the tree, not just the forest. The worth of a man is beyond his classification. Instead of looking for weaknesses, look for strengths, train and use those strengths, and the company will gain even more.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

The Cave Man trainer has again tried to put a new face on a training topic. This one, I admit, was a little different. It came from the heart. You can still find more of my writings on my website, and leave comments here or there. You don’t have to agree with me to find favor. I am happy to post opposing views, and even offer guest bloggers a chance to voice their opinion in some detail. Check out my book The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development on sale now with a coupon code to make it irresistible. Thanks for listening.

Happy training.

Here’s your question–just for the fun of it. What will training be like in the future? Have you thought that far out? What will companies look like that far in the future? We know what they were like in the past. We know who they bankrupt and “ages of misery” they spawned. We know how they affected laws, immigration and the world’s economy. How they left us scratching our heads, desperately seeking solutions. We’ve seen corporations and faceless conglomerates turn Third-World countries into booming economies we fear will rival ours–all for the sake of greed–ours.

Since training isn’t perceived to be very important in big business, let’s think small. Training doesn’t need to be a big cog in wheel of business, economy and society…or does it? What do you think.

We’ve seen what small and big thinkers can think. Stick to the topic. Are any of us thinking that far ahead? What if we don’t? Could what’s wrong with our economy today have anything to do with our lack of foresight or just plain greed? You tell me. Does a company or corporation, or especially the non-profit corporation, or any other organization have a responsibility to society besides making money? I’m sure courses are taught on it every day.

And, don’t get me started on ethical business practices…

Now, I leave it in your hands to think about, comment on, and ask other questions. A good place to start the week, wouldn’t you say?

I look forward to your comments and playing along with you. Who knows? We may just save the world.

This post is different, I admit, but what do you expect from the “Cave Man of Training”–a man who looks to the beginning and the future at the same time. I’m not a mentalist, a futurist, prophet–just a person who cares. I hope my ideas prompt other ideas. I wrote a book about the Cave Man. I wrote it deliberately that way “Cave Man” instead of “caveman” because I’m not just talking about the prehistoric man, but a primitive man, a basic man. A man who thinks about his needs with his brains and his heart. He builds his society based on those needs. Shouldn’t we? Maybe corporations and business shouldn’t be about profit (different prophet) but about the “growth of a nation.” I’ve heard that said once or twice. Have you?

I challenge you to give us your best ideas. I’m no genius. Maybe I’m just an idea man–a creative man. Still, I expect to lose if this were a competition (It’s not), but let’s hear from you and the others who know what it takes to run a company, build a vision, build a workforce capable of building a nation. Let’s not spend our time looking for the easy way. Let’s banter some ideas. Let’s argue and stir some visceral responses, and with that some ideas that have merit for a possibly uncertain future. Let’s change some rules and see if they do it for us.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

My book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development, has some interesting ideas you may totally disagree with today but not tomorrow. I’m told it is a different take on the world of training and development. For a piddling investment, you could have a few extra ideas.

My novel, Harry’s Reality–another creative side of me speaks–is available now though Amazon books. You’ve heard of Steve Martin’s film, “The Man with Two Brains?” I may be the man with two right brains…if you agree with that theory. Harry’s Reality is all about what happens when people stop talking to each other and let their devices control what the world becomes based on facts, proven and tested. By the way, the world is doomed. At first a fantasy, then doomed? That’s a “visceral” question if I ever heard one. Better check it out, too, before it is too late.

You don’t really want to make a wrong turn and there is no GPS for this.

How often do you consider the training method you will use to train a particular topic in terms of its actual outcome?

To do that requires much thought and speculation.

With all the products out to choose from, the process can be a mess of twists and turns. It is a labyrinth when you consider what training will produce the best results for the minimum of cost. The frustration makes us want to jump a hedge and take a short cut or believe when we should be more discerning of the information we are being sold.

Let’s face it.

• There are topics we must make sure our people have signed off as knowing. Those topics don’t need a trainer to go over it in class. Here is a good opportunity to use a web-training, a simple PowerPoint, or even a less technical handout everyone must sign.
• Those pieces of information, employees will read and understand simply, and will take your word for its importance; for this type of information the employees doesn’t need elaborate or expensive training. It is likely that, this kind of information you are required to give your employees by law.
• In fact, the more formalized you make it, the less likely they are to take it. However, the more creative and fun it appears the more likely they are to take it without complaint.
• My plain and simple advice: if it requires motivating change, face to face training works best.

Some would argue “I can do it simply on video.” Some trainers can be dynamic on video but they do lose the power of interaction if they are done too simply. I have heard of webinars, video conferences, and teleconferences that can do this very well for some subjects.

If you choose a video or online source that claims to have interaction with its audience, check it out for yourself to see if you are convinced this “interaction” is effective.

There are tricks to the trade that are indeed sufficient for feedback in situations not face-to-face. Still not much beats a good trainer in a face-to-face encounter. It’s hard to anticipate the questioning or skeptical looks, among other nonverbal audience reactions from a distance and without a visual conduit.

Where does that leave us? Match your training with the training product or method that will give you the result you want. Be careful not to alienate your people by force feeding them the “cheap.” They will resent it and feel less appreciated, and you may find this is worse than not giving them the training the need or are required to have by law. Try to understand when they grouse about about it. Believe it or not, it is usually because they, too, feel it is interrupting or affecting they way they do their job for you.

And, there’s more.

Maybe this does require selecting an in-house training manager (if not a trainer) who does more than select off-the-shelf training or does-it-all in-house, without a lot of creativity. There is more to training these days than ever. We know more about learning, and we have more tools to achieve maximum results. We also have so many to choose from it becomes confusing as to which is most effective.

It seems to me navigating the labyrinth is an important job that shouldn’t be relegated to the most junior executive. It is not a starter position and yet it is often treated as such. Perhaps an answer lies there. A trainer is not just a presenter or a manager of off-the-shelf products or an employer of outside trainers, but a discerning eye toward what is needed by the company.

So the discussion starts there–with a training position that should be neither a starter position nor a glass ceiling position; unfortunately, sometimes it is regarded as both. Hopefully, as we have seen training emerge into the strategic side of business this situation is changing. A training manager that is key to company success contributes to morale, motivation and performance.

Selecting the right training method or tool is an important part of all three. It starts with you, the manager, and the training manager, if you have one, and ends with effective training. If you feel that the proper selection is not something you can do yourself, hire someone from outside, not a vendor, but a professional training developer who will help you select a variety of methods and tools as needed and not his or her own product.

A short one today. Feeling a little under the weather. Check out my website for more. If you need a training developer, I am one as well, but go with whom you feel most comfortable. I don’t have a list of referrals, but I’m happy to chat for free if it helps you decide what you need. Happy Training.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

In an article I wrote called How to Make Training “An Affair to Remember I didn’t talk a lot about different training methods; I was concerned mostly with the trainer’s role and responsibilities in making classroom instruction most effective. For a long time I highlighted this point on my website. Even though some time has passed, I still think the ideas are valid. My training group on Gov Loop received a question which merits a revisit to that article.

Here’s the question: Do you think this [article] refers only to traditional training methods – or can it also be applied to e-learning and distant learning? Is there a way to capture the charisma and energy Shaw highlights in digital training modules?

As a public speaker, psychologist, actor, director as well as a trainer, I believe we all need an audience to interact with us–even if it is unperceived by the audience itself. This is in the form of biofeedback.

You can make e-learning and distant learning more exciting with dynamic presenters, however, the biofeedback is hard to add. Whether online digital even with video of individuals, and dynamic special effects has the same effect on learning is suspect. In some cases, I’m sure it can have a positive effect. In others, I’m not so sure because some people are simply more prone to respond to others who respond to them in some direct fashion. How much effect has not really been studied, but the ads for these programs would have you believe they do indeed have a healthy impact. They are certainly cost effective.

With either training method, there is little direct feedback the presenter can see (or sense) in the audience and adjust his or her presentation for that particular audience in the moment of time it is occurring, if at all. With pre-packaged programs, there is none at all; the closest you can get is anticipating audience reactions. Still not optimum. I’m not saying there is not a place for this kind of training, but it can’t compare with the right trainers motivating and working with an audience, and immediate learning taking place.

E-learning and distance learning, for the most part, are designed to reach more audiences or audiences that can’t be reached by traditional methods. It’s also cheaper. Some e-learners can learn with applications that involve the students interaction and learning by doing as opposed to or in conjunction with seeing and hearing. It’s not the same thing; however, I won’t deny it can be effective for some.

Generally speaking, people probably do not learn best by this method or even stay attentive. Going back to my experimental social psychology days in graduate school, I suppose we could place electrodes on their fingertips, brain or elsewhere on their body and when they drifted off zapped them to attend to the subject at hand. It might result in getting their attention, but not making sure learning took place. We know learning takes place best when it is self-motivated.

Ironically, a blended teaching and training method is taking hold. It’s not just the Corporate Universities, or the pragmatic universities like Phoenix, DeVry and others whose market is mostly those who work and don’t have time for a traditional college-level program, but many traditional universities teach many blended or online courses to cut down on class time and costs. In some classes it can be more effective, but how valid is it in a public speaking class or a class that needs lots of time in face-to-face discussions? It’s not much different from training.

There is a different between what people say online and how they say what they “say” (subtext included) in a face-to-face discussion; the same goes for class room training or coaching. Body language plays a part, especially questioning or puzzled looks, I-don’t-understand looks, I-don’t-agree-but-I’m-not-going-to-say looks. These are times you can adjust. With the other methods, you can’t adjust if you don’t see it.

A more dynamic presenter can add “charisma” and even a dynamism with some creativity to e-learning and distant learning modules, but it still loses something in the direct connection.

Keep in mind that the stage is different from the television or the computer screen in the actual performance approach by the trainer. Just like acting for the stage is different from acting for television or film; one is a distance medium and the other is filled with close-ups.

I would treat the e-learning and distant learning as a close-up performance because your audience is mostly intimate. You can assume otherwise, but I would say the same rules apply. By the way, if you are talking teleconferencing, remember that even radio announcers use mirrors to give them the feeling they are talking with a real audience instead of an imagined ones. It’s hard to make numbers of people real, but that is one technique to make it easier, believe it or not. Ask any DJ whoever did a show in an empty studio. Should work for podcasts, too.

It bothers me a bit that we are losing our direct contact with our people through our wonderful technology, but hopefully, we can adapt as we go to get the feedback or make the best of what we do receive. My novel, hopefully out this year, deals with the subject of what happens when we stop talking face-to-face and rely only on the devices for acceptable communication.

There’s an interesting play, LOVE LETTERS, that I reviewed for STAGE Magazine. In the play, a couple are separated but write each other all the time. What the audience sees on stage are actors reading the letters, but the letters tell the back story, which loses a bit as the audience sees what happens without face-to-face communication.

Letters are cleaned up; versions are adapted to ensure the person receiving them gets exactly the message we want to send. The point of the play is that the subtext that is missing or words and feelings left out for the sake of brevity may be important, too, leaving unanswered questions and even miscommunication.

The same can be said for digital learning, and, in fact, any kind of training that does not take place where the trainer can see his or her audience and react to them. Even an actor, with lines memorized, does not act in a void. An actor wants an audience because it makes the performance complete; it also makes each performance a little different. So, it should be with training.

That’s my opinion and I stand by it. As always, I welcome opposing views and if there is research out there, I’d love to see and post the statistics for all to see–either way. My other “outrageous” writings are available on my website, or in my new e-Book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development, which is a common sense guide to training and development. Personally, I think it takes you back to thinking what training is all about from the beginning rather than finding a single focus to ply your trade. But I would be wrong to say I haven’t found my niche, and it’s a passionate one. We go with our strengths and I hope I’ve made the right choice for me just as I hope for you have for yours.

I’m here for you. Have your say and come back often. I’m pleased to have guest bloggers who have different points of view or focus on one aspect of training. speaking of which, Sandy Cormack will be back with Unlocking Creative Potential – A Neuroscience Approach, Part III. It’s good to learn to stay fresh and stimulated. Happy Training and Happy Holidays.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.