top of page

Interviews transkribiert

... Lernen in geil als Text - erstellt mit KI

Manchmal möchte man "Lernen in geil" auch einfach nachlesen. Zum händischen Transkribieren fehlte mir bisher tatsächlich die Zeit und schlichtweg die Nerven :). Jetzt versuche ich mit KI peu à peu Transkribte anzubieten. Wer tolle kostenlose Tools kennt, bitte melden, ich probiere noch aus... 

#Folge 7 - Succession Planning that works 

Hello everybody, my name is Jennifer Withelm. from Munich in Germany. I'm learning and development professional and the maker and founder of this blog. I call it learning in Guile in German, translated with learn schmuck in English. It's a huge pleasure for me to introduce my first English speaking guest today. That is Michael Tim's he is leadership consultant and the author of the book succession planning that works, the crucial part of leadership development. And I think it's the really, really best book we have about this topic so far. Dear Michael, it's so great that we can chat today from Germany to Canada, nine hours of difference, maybe you could say in a few words, what succession planning is about and what it is not about.

Jennifer Yeah, glad to be with you today. And, and speaking about a subject that we're both passionate about, which is leadership and career development. So maybe what I'll do is I'll start off and tell you what, what succession planning is not. Succession Planning is not a bunch of a bunch of executives sitting in a room, and putting names and putting names beside titles. That's not succession planning. And yet, I find that most organizations think that's what succession planning is. That's kind of the very, very last step of succession planning. But the bulk of work around succession planning is developing people, and preparing them to take on greater responsibilities within the organization. And seeing what what the senior management team can do, and others within the organization can do to fast track people's development. That's succession

planning. Okay, so it's not replacement management, so to say,

Yeah, and so replacement planning is simply, you know, if this person leaves the organization, then who is going to step up? And typically what happens when organizations do that when simply when organizations view succession planning as simply putting names to titles must to replacement planning. And what happens is when it actually comes time, and somebody actually does leave the organization, and they actually say, Oh, gee, I think we have, I think we have a succession plan. Let's look at our document here. And I look at the documents, okay, well, that Sally is going to take over this position. Really what they're doing is Sally is going to take over this position on a temporary basis until we can we can do a search and find somebody externally to come in and fill that role permanently. That is not succession planning, does replacement planning,

you're very clear about the fact that succession planning must be a top priority of the CEO. What if something unforeseen, like Corona crisis pops up, and the company's strategy is upside down? And the CEO changes priorities for quite a while, but succession planning stays important. How can I make sure succession planning stays top priority?

You know, the CEOs role really in establishing in succession planning is really establishing the process. And I worked with organizations to help them to help them do that, and to establish a process that that happens. And will continue to happen, you know, pretty much regardless of what's going on, even in spite of Coronavirus or, or other other challenges that organizations might face. And so I think the key is really to that the CEOs understand that, that look, our ability to deliver on our promises to our to our clients to our customers is really dependent on upon how well our people are people's capacity to, to deliver. And and that's really, that really goes speaks to how well are we developing our people? And how well are we are we preparing them to take on leadership positions? But I think the short answer is really the bulk of the CEOs time needs to be spent on initiating and putting together a world class leadership and career development process. And then once that process is involved, as long as the CEO continues to, to be involved, and and talk about it, I think that's that's that's all we want from the CEO. That's all we need from the CEO.

In your book, you mentioned that 86% of companies around the world believe that leadership development is critically important but only 10% have a succession plan that works. Could it be that many companies still didn't realize the connection between leadership development and succession planning? Maybe that direct link between leadership development and succession planning is not 100% Fear for HR or many companies? Yeah. And

I think you're right. I think that I think that isn't clear. And I think when, when people think of succession planning, they kind of put it in a very small box. And they think, you know, if, if I've got, you know, if I'm the CEO, and I've got 40 things on my radar screen at any given time, maybe succession planning is one of those things. But when you look at any of the exceptional organizations out there, and if you look at their top strategic priorities, you're almost always going to find that leadership and career development is one of their top strategic priorities. Somewhere, organizations might not kind of make that link and say, Oh, well, that that really is succession planning is preparing people to take on greater leadership responsibilities, and building out their leadership capacity. And I think, I think that's probably your job in my job to help educate most organizations that, that that's really what succession planning is, if you're thinking if you hear the word succession planning, you might want to rather use the words leadership development, that's really, really what we're talking about.

So it's more or less a synonym for succession planning.

Yeah, and as a matter of fact, I actually am and almost moving away from using the words of succession planning. Because there is some confusion there is because people tend to put it in a very small box and think of it in small terms. And, and there's even some, some misunderstanding about what succession planning is. And so a lot of times, I just refer to it as leadership development.

Okay, another point that I get from your book is that, please correct me if it's wrong, performance management focuses on the performance in the current role. And succession planning focuses on preparing people to take on future roles. And I see this is a chance in large companies that offer a variety of possible positions for their good people. But what about small companies that rely on their good people even more, but can't offer that much perspective? So I'm wondering what they should do.

Yeah, and that's a good point, Jennifer, and you know, what the reality is, the larger your organization, the easier succession planning is going to be from the perspective of you will have more opportunities for people, that's a that's a fact. That's, that's, that's a given. But smaller organizations, really what we're trying to do, regardless of whether you have a different position for somebody or not, which what we're really trying to do is to is to increase people's capacity. So I think what a lot of organizations they get, they get caught up in this idea that, Oh, gee, if, you know, if we don't have enough positions, really, we can't do effective development, we can't do effective succession planning, because there's nowhere for these people to go. And so what I encourage my clients to do is to think, especially smaller organizations, I encourage them to think about leadership development in terms of kind of mini promotions. What are some what are we don't actually have to give somebody a new role. But what are some things that are perhaps on the CEOs plate or senior executives played, that they don't need to do that we could actually put onto somebody else's plate, lower down the higher hierarchy. And so I would my my recommendation to smaller organizations is to think about development, in terms of giving people many promotions, maybe that comes with a new title, but most of the time, probably not. But it's really about building people's capacity. And I would keep that the focus as opposed to thinking about what positions we can give people. Another thing actually, on that as is, I think one of the biggest problems with with succession planning and leadership development is that people think that the only way I can grow my career is vertically, right? If I'm not progressing vertically, I'm not growing. But in fact, when I speak to organizations with world class leadership and career development programs, they consistently tell me that the most valuable employees to them are the ones with the most breadth of experience, those people who have who have grown and developed laterally, those are the people that organizations can sort of when different opportunities come up, they can take these people and they can sort of plug and play depending on the circumstances. So that's another thing that I would really encourage organizations to do is to get out of the mindset of, oh, gee, the only way I can go grow my career is vertically and say no, look, most of your development is probably going to be laterally, think laterally think about broadening your skill set.

So is it to build up generalists instead of specialists?

Yeah, and I think that the answer is is yes. The tively The higher you go in the door In our organization, the more of a generalist you become. And especially this is especially true for founders who, you know, they, they started doing everything on their own. And they and a lot of times the people in top spots in organizations, they earn those positions simply because they are a generalist, and they kind of, they kind of have a good, they can wrap their head around all parts of the business, right. And the problem is, is a lot of organizations are organized such that we peg people into little specialist positions. And these people are never going to qualify themselves to take those top positions. Because they don't gain enough breadth of experience so that they can wrap their head around the entire organization around the entire business.

Another thing you say in your book is that asking an employee to work on a personality trait in which he or she has no natural talent is a quote humiliating and counterproductive. So let's say I have a great high potential with a weakness and active listening, typical problem. Am I really not allowed to ask him to work on it? Or what's the consequence? Would that employee not be allowed to become a leader because of this?

Well, that's a great question. And I'm glad you asked it. Because I think it's really important for organizations when we're thinking about developing leaders, I think it's really important to distinguish between what's a personality characteristic, versus what is a skill. And sometimes when I'm working with clients, you know, I will hear comments like, well, you know, to be a good leader, you need to be charismatic, or you need to be an extrovert, or you need to be fun, or you need to be funny. You know, you need it. Those are personality characteristics. And if you ask me, I'm not I'm not funny. Okay, I'm just not. And, and I don't think I'm especially outgoing. I'm certainly not outgoing. So does that mean that I can't be a leader? No, of course, that's not true. We can we can develop leaders in with any type of personality traits, just about? The key thing is to focus on forget personality traits, focus on skill sets, okay? Focus on skills and behaviors, what are the key thing? What are the key behaviors that exceptional leaders do to produce great results to have a great impact on people and results, there are certain behaviors that are learnable that anybody can learn, regardless of the type of personality you have. Likewise, there are certain skills that you will need to develop and you know, and that anybody can develop. So I would say my answer to that question is, let's be very specific about the difference between personality traits, and, and skills and address skills like active listening, that's a skill, that's something that anybody can learn regardless of their personality, right?

Another thing you say in your book is that HR needs to use its coaching skills in order to help the business realize solutions and needs net Totally agree on that it applies, asking questions, it applies, showing interest and empathy. At the same time, as sometimes ask myself whether the other technical departments will ever identify HR as a business partner and equal on equal eye level, when we are asking questions all the time.

Yeah, no. And I don't think that I think that HR needs to do my my comment in the book was simply I think that HR needs to do a better job of of diagnosis instead of coming in and prescribing too quickly. And so. So my my comment is, is simply just do more diagnosis before you prescribe. I wasn't saying don't ever prescribe. But another thing is that even when you do prescribe, my advice to HR departments would be to make do your best to make the solutions, your clients ideas. So involve them and say, you know, what do you think, you know, get, you know, do a lot of the question asking to figure out what is the problem and then get their thoughts on the solutions? Because people are far more willing to, to adopt ideas that they think came from them.

And you say, we should ask critical positioning comments and their direct reports directly in terms of their competencies for critical current and future roles. So in order to build up competence models, instead of asking a consultant about that, how can I develop this success profile? Just in case this critical position does not yet exist at all? There's no one I can ask

one time I I was presenting at the California HR conference and there was a There's a roomful of 200, VPs of HR. And I asked them, I said, How many of you have a consistent criteria for promotion, that everybody in the organization understands this is the key definition of leadership. And this is how we're going to evaluate people, you know, for to determine whether we're going to promote them or not, out of that room of 200, VPs of HR zero hands went up, nobody in that room had a consistent criteria for promotion, they all all agreed on. And so one of the first things that I do with my clients is, is to come up with that consistent definition of leadership for their organization. Because a municipality is going to have a different definition of leadership than, for example, a Google or an apple, right? There are there are for sure, there are going to be common themes and common behaviors among all organizations that what makes a good leader, but there are going to be certain certain differences. And so one of the key things that I do with with client organizations is I help them identify that that common definition of a leader, but by analyzing their success stories, and so I work with focus groups within an organization. And I simply asked them to tell me some stories about when things worked out. Well, when did when were you achieving your mission? When were you really rockin? And right? When were things going really well, and you produce great results? And so we look at those those success stories, and then we start to reverse engineer them. And we say, Okay, what were the specific results that came from those success stories? Like, for example, what was the impact on employees, on customers on financials, on your processes on your products? So we identify the results, and then we work backwards even further, in ways, okay, what were the behaviors that either immediately preceded that success story, or enable that to happen? And it's interesting when you when you get enough success stories, and you hear enough success stories, and you ask that question, often enough, you'll start to see patterns of behavior emerge, you'll start to see that there are a handful of things that people do, maybe they weren't in a leadership position. But there are things that people did that. And these behaviors lead to successful outcomes. And that's really what we want from our leaders is to produce successful outcomes more often have a positive impact on people have a positive impact on results.

Another thing you said in your book is that you've done like psychometric assessments too much in my write it because they simply don't work as people are complicated. And the leadership qualities in the future can't be predicted. Does that mean that companies can skip the budget for them completely?

Yeah, the short answer is yes. Actually, I would say yes, they are not worth the money for a number of reasons. First of all, a lot of research has has been done, and to identify who knows us the best, has the most objective opinion of our skills and abilities, you know, who's who has the least objective opinion of our skills and abilities ourselves? We have the least objective, least accurate understanding of our own skills and abilities. So psychometric assessments are simply they're asking the least reliable source for information about about you. Okay, so garbage in, garbage out? That would be the first problem with psychometric assessments. A far better tool would be a 360 degree evaluation, okay. And to use that way for development, not for performance, not for performance purposes. But another reason why psychometric assessments, I think are a waste of time, is because what's the purpose? Like what are we trying to accomplish with a psychometric assessment? Typically, we're trying to identify development areas, like areas that we need to develop, right? Like I would think that's, that's, that's the reason we use the psychometric assessments, or the one of the primary reasons we use them, right, is to find areas that we need to work on. Well, here's a crazy idea. Instead of instead of asking an algorithm to identify areas for us develop, how about I just say, hey, Jennifer, at the end of this interview, can you do me a favor and tell me what is maybe a couple of things that you thought that I did particularly well in this interview? And maybe what's one thing that you would suggest I do differently for next time? If I simply asked you that question and real human beings that question, I would get far more actionable, practical advice that I can immediately implement. And so that's Another thing that I think psychometric assessments simply are a coward's way of asking for feedback, the other danger of psychometric assessments. And really, you know what, if you want to spend the money, I'm I'm fine, go for it. And you can fill your boots and you know what? You might as in my opinion, I think, look, you know, look at horoscopes as well. And you'll get about as good information. But if you want to spend your money there, that's fine. But the real danger in using psychometric assessments is that organizations start using them for tend to make an influence employment related decisions, and that's my real beef with with psychometric assessments is that people will use the results to which are not valid, to make decisions about who gets hired, and who gets promoted. Using assessments in is a good idea if you're assessing skills, right. But if you're assessing personality traits, and things like that, and determining which personality traits will make a better leader, I think that's a really, really bad

idea. My last question is, it's been five years that you wrote the book succession planning that works. Is there anything that you would like to adjust today?

Yeah, actually, there is one thing. And in the book succession planning that works, I outlined a number of different tools that were common tools that organizations use to, to identify leadership potential. One of those tools that I included was the nine box and I simply included it because hey, this is a common tool that organizations are using. If I was rewriting the book today, I would not include that tool, because I think, I think it's a waste of time. And I think it takes away from the real work of succession planning. I mean, we only have so much time to spend on succession planning and leadership development. We can either spend our time categorizing people and labeling people and putting them in boxes. Or we can spend our time brainstorming, coming up with great AI development activities that will actually help fast track people's development. Which would we rather spend our time on? I think our time is much better spent thinking about development activities than it's spent on on labeling people and putting people into boxes. And so if I was rewriting the book today, I would not include that and I'd say, hey, look, the best way to identify leadership potential is to do the work to identify predictive leadership competencies by following the process that I explained earlier about analyzing your success stories, and what behaviors consistently lead to successful outcomes. Once you've developed that criteria, simply with a committee of people say look, does Joe live up to the standard or not? Do they demonstrate these behaviors on a fairly consistent basis? That's going to be the best predictor of leadership success.

Thank you so much, Michael. Tim's from Canada. And in the next episode, I'm talking to Charles Jennings from the UK. He is a pioneer and I would say eminent authority when it comes to the learning model 70 20 10 which is right now highly recommended by almost all learning and development professionals, and it is quoted pretty wrong from time to time actually, please subscribe to my YouTube channel and get in touch with me via LinkedIn. Looking forward to hearing from you

#Folge 8 - 70 20 10 Modell with Charles Jennings

Hello everybody, my name is Jennifer Withelm. from Munich in Germany. I'm a learning and development professional, and the maker and the founder of this blog, which I call leannon. In Guile in German, and that translate that with learn smack in English. The 7020 10 learning model is already a few decades old, but due to the corona crisis, it is currently being constantly discussed by HR and learning development professionals all over the world. The numbers are not to be understood, it's fixed, they are like a metaphor. The numbers stand for three different forms of learning, which often overlap about 70% stand for learning through work. This includes experience stretch assignments, practice and reflection 20%. And for learning from it with others. That means social learning with colleagues, superiors, top performers, members of community use, or the partner and the kids. Only 10% are formal learning, which include courses elearning, and books. And my feeling was well, as we currently ask ourselves how learning and development professionals could be helpful in the area of the 90% of informal learning. Why don't we ask the eminent authority and the pioneer of the model himself, Charles Jennings is co founder at the 70 20 10 Institute and has led learning and performance improvement projects for more than 35 years, he is considered to be the pioneer who first used a model in the practice their child's it is a huge honor for me to get the chance to talk with you. Thank you, once again, a lot of companies, as you know, are affected by the corona crisis right now. And it hit my career as well, as you know, so I'm looking for a new employer. But in terms of people development, every company I talked with mainly discussed curricula. No one was interested in how learning and development could support informal learning, though, is it just my feeling that most learning and development departments are mainly still engaged in the 10%? Field?

Well, Jennifer, first, first of all, thanks very much for the invitation to talk to you today. I think your experiences are very common. I think that people find it very difficult, or great difficulty in separating learning for schooling. So we've all been through school, and college, university, and so on. And when we get into work, everyone tends to think that learning is linked to schooling. In other words, formal learning is the only sort of sort of learning that there is, whereas actually, we know, the research tells us that most learning actually occurs as part of the daily workflow. And in fact, researchers at the European, the Research Center for Education in the labor market, found in a Dutch study that the worker spent an average of 35% of their working time on activities in which they, they learn. And if you compare this to the time in which workers spend informal learning, it's far far greater. You know, it's actually an order of magnitude greater is probably 10, or 20 times greater than the time people spend in formal training. And also the Research Center for Education in the labor market, who are economists looking at learning and education from a perspective of building organizational capability in the labor market, they found that actually informal learning accounts for about 90% 96%, I'm sorry, at the time in which workers are actually engaged in learning activities. So from one side, it's, it's not surprising to me that people tend to focus on formal learning, because that's what we've always done. Learning and Development, in the minds of managers in the minds of learning and development leaders is always been around programs around building courses, learning paths, structuring things in that way. And yet, we know that that only touches a very tiny bit of the learning time that all of us are spending in terms of learning. And so informal learning, as it were, is under the radar. So it's a challenge. And we need to it's something we need to change, actually.

Actually, you told us for years that you should focus more on the 90% or even 96% of informal learning. And I think it's almost 20 years ago that you start to use the 7020 10 model as a chief learning officer at Reuters. How exactly did you use it back then? And what has changed in your approach compared to today?

Well, last changed in those 20 years. Jennifer, I think, you know, the point that the figures I gave you earlier around around 96% of working time is spent. Learning time is spent informally. I think that highlights the fact that not to get hung up on these numbers of 70 2010 Why I introduced 7020 10 as a strategic approach, when I was brought into Reuters, the big information company, the Global Information company, as chief learning officer in 2001. And I was aware that the amount of time effort resource and money that was being spent on developing capability, both at individual team and organizational level that that was probably not being spent very well, in terms of almost all of it was focused on formal, formal learning. So my introduction to 70 20 10 came from that, and came from the fact that I'd seen actually, in Goldman Sachs, the big international investment banking company, had been using 7020 10 as a framework for accelerated leadership development, and where they were really drawing on, on learning from working and learning from others, as well as formal structured learning. And I think that one of the challenges we have with 70 20 10 is that people take the numbers literally. Whereas even the original research where the numbers emerge from the original research, the numbers weren't no nice, round numbers. So what we found at Reuters is that when you start to extend this scope, and the focus of learning and development, and don't just focus on that, that 10, which is important that formal learning is important, but it's not everything. And in fact, my colleague, yas Eretz, who has written and worked in this area for years, says that, you know, formal learning, and I absolutely agree with him. Formal learning will help people become competent. But formal learning alone will never produce expertise. And we know that we only need to think about that, in our own lives, you know, we were not getting our university, certifications, qualifications, degrees, didn't make us experts in any area, it gave us a good grounding, and gave us the basics. And so I think that's why I've always found the 70 20 10 approach is really powerful. However, one of the one of the constraints is that people tend to think of 70 20 10 in terms of the 10. And in fact, we often talk about 10 Plus and 20. Plus, I often have conversations with people, and they say, Yes, we use 70 20 10. And our programs, well, actually, that's not quite right, what you're doing, if you've got a maybe a leadership program, or some sort of program that you're running, and you've introduced some social aspects to it, and maybe some experiential learning to it, what you're doing there, it's just building really, really good formal programs. It's what we call 10. Plus, it's not 7020 10 plus 10. Plus, and I think my thinking, the way my thinking has changed in the last 10 years, is initially, I was focused on and when we were when I started at Reuters, we were focused on really building learning into the workflow. And I think we were more focused on building formal learning into the workflow, then, then really extracting learning from work, and helping people learn as teams. Of course, we did some of this, but we didn't do it as fully as we do now. Whereas our 7020 10 methodology is based around how do you build in helping organizations build capability to really understand what the fundamentals of the business problems we're trying to solve? And how we can help l&d can build solutions to help solve those problems. Sometimes, formal learning is involved. Sometimes formal learning is not involved. It just depends on on the requirement.

So what can I as a learning and development professionals offer concretely regarding learning on and near the job? Because originally, I thought, and usually you're quoted, or that model is quoted that way in Germany as well that the 20% are as an example for floor workings, mentoring, coaching, but it seems as if these kinds of solutions are not the stuff that you define as informal learning, it just gave the book hint, that's very beneficial as well. But what exactly can I do? Maybe you have one or two examples in the area of the 20 to 70% field that makes it a little bit more concrete.

Sure. And in fact, Jennifer, all of those things you mentioned are really part of that 20 learning we learn through it might be having informal support in some way. It might be having a floor someone floor walking, or it might be having brown bag lunches, or it might be having all sorts of ways in which we're sharing, sharing our expertise. To give you some examples, teams of people spend time together simply reflecting on the experiences they've had, where they've had successes, where they challenges which they're finding great difficulty overcoming, and actually sharing that sitting around in a group, maybe in a team or it might be sitting with your manager. And, and thinking about what what I've done in the last couple of weeks. The successes I've had the challenges I've still got, what I do differently to address those to be more successful, and then reflecting on okay, what have I learned from that? Because, of course, you know, we learn from we learn from experiences and again, thinking back at the economists, some of the greatest economists of our era, Nobel Prize winning economists have studied this, and Kenneth Arrow who ran his when his Nobel Prize back in the 1970s, he studied the way in which capability is built in the way in which productivity is built, an arrow came to the view that learning only occurs through activity, one of arrows, students, a man called Joseph Stiglitz, who also won his Nobel Prize in the early part of this century, Stiglitz again, reiterates that and says, we get better by doing things, we do something, we carry out an activity, we work on a project, we reflect, we improve the next time we do it, we reflect we improve the next time we do it. And that's the way that we build high performance. And in fact, next week, I'm talking to a group of high performing sports people and managers, so managers of people like Juergen Klopp, and managers or football, football teams, and so on. And if you said to anyone who was involved, for example, in sport, that practice and reflection weren't terribly important in terms of learning, and that all they needed to do is you just needed to help help your players develop the skills, then they can get out on the pitch and they can perform. And once they performed, oh, that's fine. Okay, well, maybe they can go back to doing a bit of skills work is if they if you suggested that they didn't think about reflection, they didn't understand that they needed to identify the areas where practice is required. I think you were crazy. You know, of course, that's the way if you're going to be a world class performer on the sporting field. It's all about experience, practice, sharing with your teammates, getting that dynamic together in terms of knowing what others will do and where that others have their strengths and weaknesses and how you how you fit with this. And of course, that reflection is really key. And the example I often give Jennifer, is this if you think of Rafa Nadal is an absolutely perfect example of learning in the workplace and how someone can outperform their talent. And in fact, I know a man called Santiago Alvarez, the man who's a professor at the AC business school in Barcelona, who's worked with Rafa Nadal since Nadal was a young man in his teens, and San Diego has said that Rafa Nadal has never been one of the top five tennis players on pure talent Ever. Which is crazy, really, because of course, Nadella has been not just one of the greatest tennis players now he's probably one of the greatest tennis players of all time. But what Nadal does, if you think about how Nadal performs, if ever you've seen him, have you seen him on the tennis court, he has a set of routines, which allow him time extra time to reflect. So Nadal, for example, has lost more points for time wasting on serving than any other player in the Open Era, and what he's doing, and I've seen video of Santiago and Rafa Nadal talking about this, and whilst Nadal is bouncing the ball before he serves, he's thinking, what happened last time? What was it that led to a good outcome or a bad outcome? What do I need to change? Okay, what have I got to do next? So, Nadal is what you call a, an obsessive reflector. And we don't think about that in knowledge work, we often don't think about it in our work in our own work, that actually, reflection is really, really critical, and reflecting either individually or with other people. And I've seen this occur, I've seen performance go up significantly, by simply using that technique of just reflecting with others. I've seen it with, with groups of senior managers where when they have their quarterly meetings, they spend maybe an hour over two days, just put away their laptops and everything and just talk about ask those three questions. What's been going on for me since we last met? What would I do differently if I had my time over? What have I learned from that? And that just simple little techniques like that have really really powerful outcomes.

So what you say is, should say goodbye to the term coaching when it comes to informal learning the bird reflecting time what Be a better word for that. Yeah, well,

yes, to a point, I think, you know, coaching is coaching is really helpful. I mean, again, with a sporting analogy, very, very few top sports people get to the top without a coach. But again, we tend to think, in our knowledge work of coaching, being something which is formal, we're assigned a coach, we have to meet at a certain time, we go through this structured process, there are all sorts of coaching methodologies, and so on CO coaching, peer coaching, with your peers spending a bit of time, even just over a coffee coaching, your colleagues listening to, to them talk about where they think their strengths are, where their challenges are, it also opens up, opens us up, we need, sometimes it makes us quite vulnerable. Because we have to admit that, you know, we're not gonna admit the reality that we're not all great at everything. And so, so that coaching piece is very important. So the role of l&d the way that thinking of the world from, from a performance paradigm, rather than a learning paradigm, what that does in terms of changing the role of LMD is that if you take coaching, for example, it's not simply thinking of coaching as a process. And we need to get a professional coach, or we need to train our managers to be coaches or whatever. It's thinking about the outcomes, saying, What are we trying to do? So how can we utilize these conversations in some way in which will help people to perform better? And so it's not coaching conversations, I would never recommend to a manager to have coaching conversations with with their reports. But I would certainly recommend to managers to say, look, next time you sit down with your team, individually or as a team, just ask those questions, you know, what's been working for you, since we last met? What successes have you had, what failures? What would you do next time? What have you learned from that sort of build that? That culture of continuous development, questioning and reflection?

You just mentioned, managers and leaders? I think it's been 2014, when McKinsey found out that the most leadership trainings do not work because the context is missing. So how can leaders attain the competencies they need for future roles in a more effective way when we want to focus on informal learning?

Yes, yes. The McKinsey study, looking that found that that overlooking context, and also they found four things, in fact that McKinsey study, they found that the first thing was that leadership is contextual. But many leadership development initiatives actually assume that there's one size fits all. So it overlooks that context. And that's a problem. The second issue that that McKinsey study found was that if you decouple reflection, from real work, you have a problem. So we need to make sure that any, any leadership development is actually tied in to real work, real issues, real challenges, and so on. And this is where the Harvard case model has become, a lot of people have become very critical of the Harvard case model, because it really puts people into artificial situations to, you know, solve complex problems in a few hours or overnight or whatever. And actually, that's not that's not real situation. The third issue that the McKinsey study found was that an underestimation of mindsets. In other words, we're looking to change behaviors, and underlying mindsets. And that can't be done just through a course. You know, a formal program Leadership Program is not going to change mindsets alone. It's a long process that requires a lot of work beyond the formal leadership development program. And the last element that was a key factor that the McKinsey study found was a failure to measure results. And that's a general issue with learning and development. Overall, in that we are very bad at measuring very poor at measuring business results, because we try to, we try to link learning outcomes with business results. And that is extremely difficult, if not impossible. And we have all sorts of learning metrics, which we then tried to convince senior exit senior stakeholders and executives, that these learning metrics are meaningful, actually the only metrics that really matter to if you go and talk to a chief executive. The only metrics that really matter them are business metrics, thinking about measurement, I asked a group of senior HR l&d talent people in a group I was cheering Earlier on this week about how they measure results. And very few, if any, one or two said we measure the results on a few, very important of our programs, some of our senior leadership programs, we, we try and measure results. But actually, very few of them could give me any evidence of results of business results that they were measuring. I then asked them the question, in terms of how they determined or chose, did they choose their suppliers, their partners to work with, based on their ability to deliver results? No one said they did that. And when I again, when I asked, I said, Do you ask your suppliers to give demonstration in terms of how they can demonstrate or give examples, case studies of how they delivered results? Very few often did that in terms of business results. And that is a major major challenge that Randy has to has, with formal learning.

I read that you use screen based performance support, what exactly does that look like?

Well, yes, yes, we do. I've done a lot of work with performance support over the years. And, again, performance support, whether it's screen based, or whether it's it's a simple a simple checklist or anything like that. It really doesn't matter what channel you're using, although screen based, screen based, and particularly apps now, performance support apps on mobile devices are really, really helpful. And the core principle behind using performance support rather than deep training is is a fundamental, which, again, I think is a challenge for learning and development professionals. And we talked about it in the big book we wrote, called 7020 10, towards 100% performance. And it's this, the closer you are to the point of need, that you learn something, the more effective is likely to be. Because as humans, you know, our memories aren't perfect. We forget the detail. You know, if any of us carry out a study, and maybe do the exam, we have to revise for the exam. First of all, you know, it's interesting to me, when I think about my university days, or anyone's university days, I don't think anyone would have finished their their course, and then set the exam with no revision, because we revise because we forget things. And this principle of the closer to the point of use, that learning or support occurs, the more effective it's likely to be, is basically the basis of a performance support. In other words, if we can get a quick list of the things we need to do, or the process we need to follow, at the point where we need to use it or just before the point we need need to use it, we're much like more likely to follow that correct process, or to do the work to do the work more effectively, than if we learn something we learned a year ago, or whatever. The only way that the things we've learned a year ago or two years ago, where we're going to be effective at using it is if we've had time to practice it. And we've done it again and again. And again, we all know this, we might have a quick checklist that we need to follow. And after we've done that, follow that checklist four or five times we just know, we know it because we've done it. So performance support is based around that. performance support is just one of the 70 type solutions that we can use where we can provide support. There are some very good examples. There's a man called Atul Gawande, who is a surgeon worked at at Harvard Medical School and is written a great book called The Checklist Manifesto. And Gandhi has worked with medical health organizations around the world, reducing mortality rates, particularly in surgeries, and medical surgeries or hospital surgeries are a good example of where performance support really comes into its own. Because traditionally, surgeries are very hierarchical. The senior surgeon leads the team makes the decisions drives the team. So if I'm a junior, say a junior squad nurse in a surgery, if I see that the senior surgeon isn't following the defined procedure, exactly. I am unlikely to step in and say say to them, hold on, we need to do this. But if you have a checklist that's owned by everyone, and everyone has responsibility for that checklist, that swab nurse who sees the checklist isn't being followed is much more likely to step in and go one day has in his works certainly here in the UK, has decreased mortality rates in some of the health services he was working with by 47%. So nearly 50% less deaths from result of surgery simply by using checklists. And actually, there was another very good book called black box thinking written by a man called Matthew Syed, who's an Englishman. And that looks at two industries. And it looks particularly at the issue of checklists is in that book, and sired looks at one industry where there are a lot of errors. And it's a not very, not a very safe industry, and one industry, another industry where there are very few errors, and actually is a very safe industry. The era the error strewn industry is, again, the medical world, you know, we all know we go into hospital, we have risks, not just for the treatment we're going to have, but also to other risks. And the very safe industry. In fact, the one of the safest industry is the aviation industry. It's quite interesting, our perception is that when we get into an aeroplane, you know, it's quite a risk. In fact, it's very little risk, you know, we are in more risk driving to the airport that we are flying. And, and again, back to the performance support. The aviation industry runs on performance support. So when the flight crew go into the cockpit, they have a set of checklists that they go through. As we take off, they're going through a set of checklists, as you're in the air, they're going through a set of checklists. So the whole thing is run by performance support. And yet, again, when we step back and think about working in our knowledge industries, how often to check this use? Well, they are used, of course, but not a lot. How often do learning and development professionals see checklists as being part of their armory, in terms of their solution set? Not very often, you know, we will tend to think of a course or a program before thinking, well, maybe this problem could be resolved by using a checklist.

Charles, what about topics that should affect the mindset of the people, I currently see a lot of formal trainings regarding unconscious bias and diversity. And in an article you wrote that psychology research and field studies have shown that it is quite difficult to train away stereotyping. And that training actually decreased diversity of behaviors rather than increase them. So what is learning and development able to do if we want a change of mindset?

Jennifer, this is a really, really challenging area. And you're right, there was a large meta study that was that was published in the Harvard Business Review, that studied some 800 Plus studies, or studies of diversity training, over I think, 29 years. And the outcome of that demonstrated that diversity training has no impact whatsoever on behaviors in terms of diversity behaviors, and in some cases, particularly with Afro American women in business in the US, it had a negative effect. even wider than diversity training. When we think about about the whole bias issue. Jeff Kaplan, who's a lawyer who's one of the leading experts on compliance training, and again, another American, Kaplan, has identified the fact that compliance training has very, very little effect on compliant behavior, unless it is absolutely targeted. Kaplan found that most of most compliance training has no impact, because it's too general. It's everyone is trained across a complaint about compliance across everything. And it's not not specific enough. And so therefore, compliance just becomes a compliance training becomes a process. It's a tick box exercise, it's a way to keep the chief executive out of prison essentially, but doesn't have any great impact on, on on behaviors. And the whole area of beyond compliance beyond diversity, the around if you're looking to change behaviors and attitudes, doing it through some form of training program is extremely difficult. We all know, the culture of an organization is created by the behaviors of the people at the top of the organization, or the people who are influential in the organization. It's, it's, you know, if you look at the if you look at a really an organization with a really good culture, it always leads back to the behaviors, not just what it said, but what they do have leaders in the organization. If you look at a team, the culture of a team always leads back to the behaviors and the attitudes of the leaders of that team. And so trying to train them that into people is extremely difficult. It can be done by example, it can be done in various ways and helped in various ways, by example, but and again, coming back the full circle, I guess, to our conversation, if you can encourage reflection and self reflection for people to step back and say, what message am I giving? Is there a way in which I can give my message in a better way? Is there a way in which I can support and help people in a better way, that's far more likely to be effective than any number of structured training programs. And that's just, you know, we need to step away and think about how we as humans, how we interact with people who we look up to, what we aspire to. And I think it comes back to Daniel Pink in his book drive about motivation, identified three key motivators. autonomy, mastery, and purpose. In other words, is my purpose aligned with the organization's purpose? Is it aligned with the way my managers purpose? Do the mastery piece is sort of natural because as humans, we have a desire to get better. And that should be encouraged. And the autonomy is really interesting, in terms of that seems to be a key driver. And in fact, I, I listened to one of the people in this event I chaired earlier in the week, was a professor at Warwick business school in the UK, and Warwick business school have done some work over the last few months in terms of the impact of organizations in the COVID crisis. And one of the one of the two key factors that came out of their research was autonomy. So with managers who gave people autonomy, but also we're there to help and support them when they needed it. They were the two major factors for individuals and teams performing well in difficult times. So those sorts of things are really critical. And, of course, we can do all sorts of things, l&d there are real opportunities for l&d to help and support these, but not necessarily through the formal part. And that's where the informal learning really comes to play. And to be honest, Jennifer, I don't think that l&d has really stepped into this yet into this informal area yet. And in fact, one of the things we've done this week, the 7020 10 Institute as is launched a new initiative, and basically rebranding ourselves into a, an organization called Tulsa, which is the reverse of result on the basis that we're looking at, at really helping build this whole new approach to helping people do their jobs and helping organizations perform better become high performing, by exploiting not just formal learning, but informal learning and organizational learning, not just thinking of individuals, thinking about teams thinking about organizational development, you know, how agile, how responsive is an organization because that's going to lead to success. If any, our organizations aren't, don't respond to change, don't develop new business models. If l&d doesn't develop new business models, you know, we're going to have real struggles. So I'm very positive. I think there are a lot of opportunities here. But we need to change our focus, we need to move beyond the formal learning. Beyond developing leadership programs beyond the program mindset. And even beyond the learning mindset we need to move into the performance mindset.

Thank you so much, Charles Jennings from the UK. And then the next episode, I talked to Professor Dr. Nele Graf from Germany. She is learning and leadership expert and we will discuss the future role of l&d and classroom trainers. Please subscribe to my YouTube channel and get in contact with me via LinkedIn. My name is Jennifer Withelm

Folge #16: Working out Loud Podcast with John Stepper

No worries. We'll start with my John stepper interview in a second. John stepper asked me whether I could add my personal experience with Working out Loud. In this video, before our interview, when I got the confirmation for my interview with John stepper, I was in week five of my working out loud circle including the task with a 50 facts about me. And my first impulse was poor water nonsense. What 50 facts about me? Should I tell strangers? My question in the LinkedIn working out loud group boss has anyone seriously done that yet. And pretty soon, John stepper himself shared his 50 facts list and I was really deeply touched because there were actually facts that I wouldn't put on my resume, and that I wouldn't maybe even tell long term colleagues or even friends. At the same time, I was truly amazed because my sympathy or maybe even an affection for John grew within seconds by reading the list or foe we had never spoken personally before. And I thought to myself, if this is the effect, I'll do that to, at least to also tell my interview partner, a few personal things about me in advance of our video, and to show my respect for him and his work. But I didn't just want to write down a list. I am a visual type and I wanted to give my facts or visual support a further level on which I was able to communicate myself, in addition to the mere facts. I think it took me around about six hours until I had 50 matching pictures. But it was a lot of fun. While creating the presentation I thought about my life, what I had already achieved. And I would even call it a meditative exercise. A treadmill slideshow with a 50 facts publicly on LinkedIn. And yes, I am an introvert. So I was just insanely curious what would happen. Within one week, my post generated around about 10,000 views, countless likes, comments and shares and many great networking contacts. Never before had I had such a response on LinkedIn. And there was not a single negative word. Of course, maybe many people thought they're shared because I shared that much private stuff publicly but somewhat. We are all people who hopefully have experienced a lot in our lives. So why should they pretend to be slick facades. I would love to see more public 50 facts let's because they are a great base to break the ice immediately and get to know real people virtually not just profiles. I'll share the link to my 50 facts presentation in the show notes on their knees this with you so many thanks to jump stepper for the impulse and now enjoy the interview with John stepper, the author of Rocky out loud

Hello everybody my name is Jennifer from Germany and the learning and development professional and the maker and the founder of the block Leyland in Guile which I translate with learn schmuck or learning in cool something like that. And today it's a huge honor for me to speak to the one and only man himself of working out loud, John stepper. And Dear John, it's a huge honor for me. Thank you for taking the time. And you you live in New York City. What is the city like these days during the pandemic?

First of all, thanks for the introduction. We're excited. I'm excited to meet this guy. In New York City, it's you can already feel what a difference it is. In terms of the lack of tourists, the number of closed shops, masks everywhere. I mean, like many other places in the world. But what the sense is, is that New York City, it will never be the same. So a lot of the conversation is about that like with no Broadway shows with no theatre or other big events of what will replace it. And, you know, for some people, it could be worse. And for others, it could be better. It could be a more livable city. But it's certainly not going to be the New York that I grew up with.

And what's your prophecy? What will New York City be like?

New York, I grew up. I've lived here for 56 years. And I was here when New York City was a very dirty, dangerous place. We defaulted on our loan. So like literally, we didn't pay back our loans, all sorts of bad things happened in the 1970s. And people had written off New York many, many times. I found that it's a very resilient place. It's very resilient people. And my guess is built. There'll be some uncertainty and some maybe some dark times, but that will come out of this as as a fair better, stronger city. And I absolutely believe that

is it a similar feeling like after 911, everyone said New York City will never be the same again, that's a,

that's a good if, if not happy comparison, that's a good one. And for very similar reasons I live downtown, I can see the World Trade Center from my window. And even 10 years ago, really gonna live there. It's beautiful. It's downtown is is reimagined. It's a wonderful place to live, beautiful parks. And so out of the out of that tragedy, there was kind of a rebirth. That doesn't mean that you forget what happened and is a memorial that we can also see from our window, but it does mean that you can still move forward and create something positive out of it. Yeah,

yeah. I'm sure. So has the corona crisis been a booster for the working out loud movement? Maybe because after all, working out loud really helps to keep the people collaborating while maybe it's been more important than ever.

Yeah. You, you hate to think of how one might benefit from a crisis, which, which is affecting people in very uneven ways. But you're right, and that you may have seen this funny cartoon that made the rounds on LinkedIn, like, who's leading your digital transformation? Is your CEO or CTO? Or is it your No, that's a COVID-19. And, and that it's funny because it's true. The companies where they may have considered working out loud, but weren't sure. Now we're very much actively looking for a way to keep their employees engaged, to help them use digital tools to build connections to to navigate the company to collaborate. And so there's a much greater acceptance and willingness to try working out loud or to spread it.

I don't really want to go too much into detail how Working Cloud works, because there are so many podcasts and so many great videos online, I think it should be easy to find out how working out loud works. So I want to go a little bit behind the scenes. So I would be interested in how come that the method is called working out loud, actually, because I intuitively intuitively always want to call it learning out loud.

That phrase has been around for a while, okay, first blog post might have been 2006, you could do a lot of things out loud, you could love out loud, you can party out loud, you can all sorts of things out loud. The reason why I embraced that particular term was that everybody works. So I felt that this this approach of saying, whatever it is I'm trying to accomplish. There are people out there who could help me in some way. They have knowledge, they have experienced, they've got resources, they've got ideas. And if I could develop some kind of relationship with them, then that would increase the chances that we'd exchange information or cooperate. So it was a, it was a mindset more than anything about how I could approach getting something done. And do it in a way that felt good. If you call it Learning Allowance, like people don't have time for that at busy. But in the workplace, everyone's there for 10 hours. And if I could use the workplace as a way for people, as an environment where people could develop this mindset, then I could reach a lot more people that way. And I think that's turning out to be the case.

So the development of the method working out that was not something which happened from one day to the other underneath a shower, some insight. So that's

it. I was I was in I was in the bath and this you know, bolt of lightning hit me. Alright. It was it was really a series of experiments that started 10 years ago. And then gradually changed. I continue to experiment. So at first was this idea that for me, I was looking for ways to take a bit more control over my career. All it takes is for you to get a bad performance review and or reorganization or a budget cut, and you realize how little control you have. So I was looking for what can I do that? It wasn't just about me and my balls for my particular project. But there's a big company out there I worked at Deutsche Bank so 100,000 people, so how can I take advantage of that shaped my own reputation earn access to my own Network my own opportunities. And my first instinct was that we would introduce a social network inside the company a tool. And that would be, that would be the thing. That turned out to be important, but not enough. And so experiment after experiment led to me coaching people, one on one, lead to circles lead the circle guides. And then 10 years later, we're on version six of a method.

Did anyone inspire you for this whole approach? I read about Bryce Williams and Wikipedia, or are there any other people who inspired you like Adam Grant, Carol Dweck? Are these people interesting or important for you?

They're all interesting. And they were there. There's plenty of researchers who've who've done work. You mentioned Carol Dweck and Adam grounds. Plenty of researchers who've said like, here's a better approach you'd like, here's some science, this is why this would help you be more effective, or be happier. So yes, there are all sorts of input Keith Ferrazzi, was another one who had written a lot of important books for me about relationship building. But there was one in particular that I read pi 2008. called The Art of Possibility, by Benjamin Zander and his wife, Rossmann, and this beautiful book, if you haven't read it, I totally recommend reading the Art of Possibility, beautiful yellow cover it, it was such a joyful human book that said, there is so much more that that you could realize both for yourself and with other people, if you take a different approach to them, if you see them in a different way, if you're more open to possibilities. And that book, I think, made me feel, you know, whatever I see inside a company in the org chart and kind of a systems that we had, it didn't have to be that way like there were there were other ways that collectively, we could realize more of our potential. And that sparked me

Are you currently member in the working out circle?

No, but I had my earlier this year is in my 10th, one, with someone you may know Mikhail Troutman who does the on the way to new work, podcast, and has become a friend. And also two ladies at Beiersdorf. Christina and Catherine. We strangers like we hadn't met each other, we met at a Beiersdorf event in Hamburg. And they were going to form a circle, I invited myself, which was odd. And by the end, I mean, we felt close. And I like their friends. And that may sound strange, because, you know, we only met a few times, because most of it was virtual. But it was this giving and receiving over this 12 weeks, that really led us to trust each other and feel connected. And so we're still connected well, after our circle,

what would be a topic that you would like to learn these days, if you would be part of working on Cloud circle or in general,

four years ago, I published something on the internet for free, and it spread, and then it continued to refine it. And then it continues to spread. And now it's well, how would you scale that in a sustainable way? So in week 11, of the latest version of the circle, guys, it talks about, about leadership, and how you influence people, and examples of people who have reached millions of others, they've helped millions of people, somebody with a method and an idea. And a network actually unleashed something positive in the world that helped a few million people or more. That would be my goal, which is to learn from them in a structured way, in support of my circle, how could I explore who's done this before? What can I learn from answer I could, I could avoid some mistakes and go faster and be more effective, right? That would be my goal,

when will you start this project?

So it's one of those things where, you know, I'm working on and that that was the goal in my last circle, I'd probably build on that now. or refine it in some way. And that's, that's why you may want to like, why would you be in 10 circles? I should know my own method by now. Because, and I do. But it's not just about some set of techniques that I understand, right? It's the idea that Hey, the circle gives me the structure, the shared accountability and support to actually do it like to actually put in the time in the work at least an hour a week towards this goal that I care about. Because if I don't have that, then there'll be a lot of other things on my to do list that will squeeze out that time, and I may never get to it. And so that's why I would form another circle, I probably refine my goal a bit based on what I learned last time. And that'll help me make progress. You know, people are like,

right now you're associated with the method working, I'd love very, very much. And I mean, sometimes I think you could have nightmares already about working out loud or something like that. But I'm sure you do other stuff as well. So I'm interested in what a typical jump stepper week looks like.

One of my 50 facts that you know, is that I got five kids. So like, there's usually a lot to keep you busy. But when it comes to working out, you know, when I first wrote the book, have friends, and people still gonna care about this two years from now, like, how long can you go with this idea. And it turns out forever, because it isn't about some method so much as it is about people. And I'm getting tired of people, every circle is different. Every use case is different. Last week, I wrote about a woman who got diagnosed with autism and her story and how she used this to change her life. That's cool, you don't get tired of that. So what a typical week now is something my time I spend, I spend trying to spread it like reach more people. And then other time I spend developing new formats, this. So if working out loud, helps you with a certain set of behaviors like building your network relating to people, there's a new mindfulness format that helps you with a different set of behaviors. There's a personal productivity and purpose format, to help you with other behaviors, and so on. And so it's a nice balance of spreading, enabling other people to use what I've already made, and also making new things. And I'm gonna do this for the rest of my life.

Glad you glad to hear that. And I'm very sure that the method working out loud is something forever. But when you look into the future of learning, what's your prophecy apart from working out loud as a method? How will you learn in the year 2030

predictions are, are fraught with risk. But there are some things that are clear.

And a friend of mine, she works at Merck, she's the chief learning officer. And I think she's got it right when she says the future of corporate learning at least, is much more self directed, and social, or experiential. So the era of certainly learning in the classroom feels dated, may not be over. But it it's declining. The idea of even the workshops are like, oh, we'll take 10 managers, we'll put them in a workshop. It's not leading to sustainable change, it's not leading to behavior change or new habits. And so what that's going to happen. Now working out as one example, there are many, you're going to put people who can do things at their own pace, and with other people. And they're going to learn with small steps over time, until it becomes a new set of behaviors. And then it'll be much more flexible, it'll be a hell of a lot cheaper, and more fun. And it'll give control back to the employee about what they're learn how they're learning with whom they'll learn, it'll be much more practical, because they'll be able to do it at work, and do it using skills that they can apply every day.

Really looking forward to this. So no more boring classrooms and so on.

Change come slow. So we've we've we've predicted lots of new work kinds of changes that we haven't really seen, like, we see evidence of them, we may know that they're better. But you find the old ways of working, have been incredibly resilient or resistant to change. And I think that's because it's what we know, like habits die hard. It takes repeated deliberate practice over time, ideally, in a psychologically safe space where you can just try things not have to worry about being judged. That's what it takes to change habits. And that's been hard to do in the workplace. What I hope to have offers one way that we can help people experience a new and better way of working now, so that they can use it every day in their own career in life.

So yeah, as you said, change happens. And I'm sure that your new book, which is, which will be released in German, in a few days, will help to make this change happen. So my question is, apart from the language, which of course is different to the English one? Is there anything else which is different from your other books?

No, it's the same. It's the same book. It's also in Chinese later this year, which is a miracle I could not have anticipated. I think so. How that was received in Germany is different. I think in Germany, there might be an even stronger adherence to professionalism, to hierarchy. And the companies that I work with in Germany, they're not better or worse. They're certainly very capable, they get things done. But they're conservative. And no one talks about it. But it's hard to change that. If it's even baked into the language, right, we have to have campaigns that just do it, just call me by my first name. So I think the way it's received in Germany will be, ah, here's a way that that we can, that we can change things in the workplace, that we can humanize the workplace, even in Germany, in a way that really is still about work. That's good. It's about us being better, realizing more of our potential being more effective, it's work, right. But it's working in a way that's more suited to our kind of natural condition as human beings. I think the Germans, hopefully will appreciate that, that they're, they're being given the permission to do this at work, knowing that it's good for them as individuals, and also good for a company.

Sometimes I wonder whether there are certain German challenges to implement working out loud. I've heard of colleagues who are struggling with a works council or other restrictions. Are there any experiences by yourself to give advice to learning and development professionals how to manage these challenges? Caterina Krantz

a good example, at Bosch or Lucas at Daimler when they started as a grassroots campaign, and they're volunteers, Hey, we should try this. Let's do it. Well, he said, Don't work hours. You know, who told you you could do that, etc. And that's true for kind of any grassroots initiative. What, what happened though, both those companies is they went from grassroots to institutionalizing it, they started to put it in onboarding programs, they got sponsorship from HR. So you had the head of HR at Bosch say, Macbeth. This is the kind of mindset we need for a connected company, where they hadn't Mikael Brecht, who's the head of the works council at Daimler say, this makes work more humane. And it's that shift instead of a group staying a grassroots movement that was fighting against the company that was like, fighting against the the org chart in the machine. They leveraged it, they got their support. And that enabled it to spread. And all those challenges went away.

Thank you for this advice, Dear John, and it was a huge pleasure for me to speak with you, and all the best.

Thank you very much. I love meeting you. It was really a pleasure.

I hope that we will meet one day in New York City and all we are all happy and safe and sound.

I would love to share glass wine. That'd be great.

I come back to this

I would be very happy if you subscribe to my YouTube channel or you subscribe to my podcast which is available via Google podcasts, iTunes or Spotify. My name is Jennifer Withelm. I would be very happy if he would contact me via LinkedIn on my homepage. This is

bottom of page