How to organize Knowledge Sharing in and out
What path does an unprepared team leader see when there is a need to teach something to his colleagues, whether it is a development team or people who accompany, support or sell his product? That's right - to make a presentation on 100,500 slides, book a meeting room or conference room, throw an invitation to the mail, and wait for all those who are distantly interested to come and make their own efforts to understand the issue. It is easy to guess that the chance of success of such an event is 0.00%.
But why, and how, in fact, it is necessary to approach knowledge transfer within the company in order to achieve a result, knows Evgenia Goleva ( cheaffa ). And us at TeamLead ConfShe said, and now she will share with you many years of experience in adult education.
About the speaker: Evgenia Goleva has been engaged in adult education for 10 years, recently she combines this with work as a devrel in Tech.Lamoda.
Contrary to popular belief, Lamoda is not just an online store, but a huge logistics system. The site itself is only 10% of the development, there is still an automated warehouse the size of a football field (imagine another 5 floors up), our own delivery service in 600 cities, 3 call centers. Global fashion brands are buying logistics services from Lamoda in Russia and the CIS.
300 IT-specialists develop and support more than 100 internal services, which are used by all 5000 employees. Knowledge sharing is ongoing. Most users are internal employees. Sometimes it happens that a team leader has to teach not only users, but also neighboring teams, new employees in their teams, and generally everyone, if new technologies appear. At times, it would be good to teach customers because they require the impossible.
On the example of several cases from everyday Lamoda I will illustrate the basic principles of adult education, which you can apply in your work.
I will use the following terminology:
Case "ERP Developer Training"
A request for training usually looks like this:
- There are limitations: about the same amount of time, 2-3 presentations, 2 articles and a certain number of people who agree to spend an hour. I prepared a presentation, how to do it better, how many people and at what time to call for training?
With this approach, the efficiency of the event will tend to zero, and that's why.
We have ERP - a financial accounting system, which consists of two parts:
ERP interacts with all other systems. In addition, there are many internal ERP users.
When the guys from ERP come to me with a proposal to tell all our developers (300 people!) How these systems work, I take out my scheme from the zashnik (the teacher is me on the left, CA on the right).
I’m starting to ask questions - we’ll go through them all.
My problems
“No one understands how our systems work.” Ok, maybe they don’t have to? What is the real problem? What is burning? Where does it hurt?
After a few iterations, it turns out:
It would seem that there was one problem - there were two. But at the same time, they became more specific and it is easier for us to understand what to do with them.
Then we think about the result we want to get:
- If the teams take into account A (do something specific), and Helpdesk will ask questions at the address and use the documentation, will this solve the problem? It seems not to the end, because it would be nice if they took into account B and C.
Add:
We consider the result immediately, when we are just talking about the problem, because this is the purpose of our training:
Lecture hall
Who usually makes decisions in a team, where is it important to consider A, B and C? Most often this is not the whole team, but only the technical lead. Therefore, if about A, B, C it is enough to talk with techlides, then this reduces the target audience - you need to learn only techlides and Helpdesk.
CA problems
Next, we ask the question, what are the problems of CA?
The problems are pretty obvious:
Here, when we look for the problems of Central Asia, we find motivation - those strings for which we will continue to pull and try to help people. In this case, we see that the technlides have rather negative motivation. Engaging them with a two-hour lecture on complex systems will be cruel. Helpdesk's motivation is high, because it really solves their problems and helps in the work.
Then we must look at the level of these people (we have two CAs).
A bit of theory. Informed competency
The scheme of informed competence is below.
This is already in the fourth square, but since then, when he last looked in the SDA, they have changed, and according to the SDA's competence, he is in the first quadrant.
This concept is not about the level of a person as a whole, but about individual knowledge (competencies). A person can be in different zones at different competencies at the same time, like our driver.
If we talk about training, then most often we mean zone 3, which begins with knowledge.
The knowledge is partially located in zone 2: we have some horizons, but we did not dig deep. Knowledge accumulates and in practice flows into skills - these are technologies: do it once, do it two, do it three - checklists from repetition become skills.
Many of us paid in advance for English courses (or any other courses), and then did not go. Reasons: the decision was not made to the end, the choice was not made to the end, too little effort was put on the realization that it was necessary, and I will do it.
I dwell on this in such detail, because more often they begin to learn this way: “Look - technology: one, two, three!” “Cool, but I'm not ready to take it, I'm not ready to get to the end of this training, and you are already pushing me into it.” Most likely, a person will simply fall off in the middle of the path.
Conscious competence is the third zone. All other zones are unconscious and incompetent.
We return to the case with ERP systems, where we wanted to conduct Knowledge Sharing for 300 people.
Helpdesk on the diagram is in the third zone on the border with the second. They would be in the second if we showed them the system for the first time and told them to start supporting it. But they are already working with her, they are doing something and know - that is, they are in the third zone.
Tehlids are in the fourth zone - they know for sure that A, B and C must be taken into account, and once again telling them about it for two hours is rather not worth it.
How did we solve this problem?
Helpdesk was taught separately at two meetings:
Thus, what was happening was relevant to everyone. They were vitally interested.
Tekhlids were not invited to the lecture, but they asked:
“How do you do this?”
- We have such a workflow.
- Well, let's put a checklist here, here and here in this workflow, and you will take these A, B, C into account.
The guys were happy - finally they were helped to do their work.
The items "My task" and "Remainder" remained. The task in the first case was to teach, and in the second - to help establish the process. The dry residue was completely different. In further cases you will see how our task and the dry balance of the audience change from the level of CA.
Conclusions from the case "ERP Developer Training":
But if you do not teach, then what?
Let's see: we have my problems, the problems of CA, my result, the level of CA, and then my task. How is she changing?
Newbies
In the first zone, there are often beginners. They come without knowing anything about the company. At this moment it is difficult for them to explain how everything works for us, it is better to give at least some kind of card. Here we do not teach, but solve two problems:
Thus, our task is to inspire rather than teach. Burning eyes will not appear on their own, someone should light them.
Case "Hiring testers"
The QA manager comes to me and asks for help to understand a situation where recruiters choose a resume of inappropriate candidates. We look deeper - they "float" in the databases.
Somehow in the industry it is customary to think that in any incomprehensible situation it is easiest to change recruiters. But we have a great team, it just needs to pump expertise in this area. In general, it’s useful to teach recruiters - how do they otherwise find out what we need?
Recruiters are located in zone 2 of our scheme, that is, “they know they don’t know” - they have heard something, but they don’t really understand.
What result would you like to receive from their training? Naturally, we do not expect them to suddenly begin to sort out the databases. It would be nice if HR:
Then the teacher’s task :
In the remainder we get the expected result: understand what they say; know the keywords.
The story ended with the head of QA having three meetings at which HR specialists directly deployed databases, opened windows, sent inquiries, received some data. So they remembered much more than if they had listened to a review lecture for 40 minutes with definitions. So it was possible to effectively solve the problem of explaining “on the fingers”.
Case Study Analysts
In the following example, a person is on the verge of the second zone in the third.
Every year we recruit a group of interns in analytics. The practice is quite common - giving a course of lectures on the database, just to compare the terminology adopted at the university, and slang in the company. They will work with it, and everything will be fine with them.
But we thought deeper. Here, in fact, the problem of the target audience is not a problem, but a sincere desire to learn. That same motivation. People really want to study (also for a salary)! This situation is ideal for learning.
The result that we expect:
These are measurable metrics that you can record and evaluate learning outcomes - what we love and that allows us to understand why we spent time.
Task:
The remainder: that same skill - one, two, three.
We did a session with applied tasks. Every week, for 10-15 minutes, the trainees were told about a solution, they suggested trying it. If it did not work out, they sorted why. Further, the interns still practiced on the spot, spent exactly a week doing the same tasks, and then moved on to the next topic.
We used the so-called Kolb cycle .
When you come to the training, they usually give you a diagnostic exercise. If you possess the skill that the training aims to develop, then you do this exercise easily, effortlessly. More often, they fail him, because the skill is not enough. At this moment you are considering the experience gained, why didn’t you succeed, and want to find out how it was needed. Here the trainer comes out, or you yourself throw out ideas - how could you do better, that is, collect technology, think critically and raise to the level of abstraction: "You could do that." Then you come up with a theory and then with this theory proceed to the next exercise, apply it in it (“It seems to work!”), And go into life, repeating it over and over again. This is the Kolb cycle.
If the task is to teach people exactly skill or technology, then it is convenient to use the Kolb method.
When people are in the third zone and, it would seem, know and are able to, what can go wrong?
Case "Falling base"
Olga from BI (Business Intelligence) comes to me and says: “Once a week, our base falls, and it seems to be dropped by marketers. What to do?".
You can, of course, come to the marketers and say: “You write bad requests - don’t do that! Do this. ” Where do we go after that? Most likely, far away. Therefore, we went the other way.
We have a problem - the base drops once a week.
As a result, we want people to:
And they don’t have such a problem, but there is interest or another problem - they would like to:
In general, marketers are not to blame - they have a huge amount of data of epic size. In order to make a forecast of user behavior, they really take data from the database as they can, without thinking about query optimization. This is not in the zone of their interests. If you think about their problems and find how to help, then people with greater favor will accept our help and training.
Our task is, on the one hand, to solve the problems of marketers, on the other hand, to convince them to do differently (Y). So that we can convince them, the bottom line should be some kind of factology, that if you do Y, you get a better result than if you do X.
We had several SQL advanced sessions for marketing. Before that, the guys from BI came, sat down with the marketers, looked at how they make requests, asked questions, why, why. The preparation was quite lengthy. After that, BI understood how to help get better data and not drop the base every time.
It worked - marketers happily came and started to learn. If this did not happen, but simply stood on the calendar: “Come learn SQL”, they would say: “We know SQL, we won’t go - we have other tasks!”
Thus, one of my tasks as a teacher is to convince people, not just teach.
Case "Feedback to team leaders for leadership"
The development manager comes to me and offers: “Let's conduct training for department heads on how to give feedback to team leaders.” I thought: department heads have been working for more than a year — probably they have given feedback more than once, and they know how to do it. It seems that they are in the fourth zone.
What is the real problem ? At the Performance Review, it turns out that the approaches to team leaders in different departments are somewhat different, due to which the career development of people who could move from one department to another with team leaders is complicated. The requirements are different - it is not clear what to do.
What result do we expect? We would like for us to have a unified approach in all departments.
What is the problem for department heads? In general, they have this problem, but not that it was paramount. However, you can go from the other side:
Task: let's look at the cases - who works how, who faced what, exchange experience, systematize it. In the bottom line, the guys come out with complex cases and now they can already at least approximately imagine how to solve them.
We have worked on the problem of Central Asia, now we need to work on our task: to develop common rules. In the bottom line, in order to get our result, they must not only work out the rules, but also agree that it is really necessary to take a unified approach, and decide to adhere to the general rules.
If you look at the task a little deeper - not just teaching feedback, as the customer asks for - then you can come to the format for analyzing complex cases. This also requires a long preparation: you need to come to everyone, sit opposite him and ask: “Darling, what hurts you? How do you do this? What were the difficult cases? ”
To make quality training, it would be nice to talk about what hurts them while promoting their interests.
So, one of our tasks is to help make decisions.
Framework
When we looked at the problems, and at the results, and at the level, we determined our task and what dry residue people will endure, we can start talking about limitations. We remember that we have limitations:
But they often forget that in the first column there is a budget . Sometimes it is nonzero and can be used.
Important note: Many people think that the teacher is good when he is in the fourth zone, where he drives the car, closing his eyes. This is a misconception because the best teachers come from people from the third zone.. They are aware of what is happening, they know the methodology and can explain it. Therefore, it is not always effective to teach yourself. If you are communicating in a cool way, but cannot explain why you are doing this, by what method, it is better to call a person who is in a more conscious zone and can put the methodology on the shelves. Sometimes it’s more efficient to spend a budget than to do it yourself.
In the second column, processes are sometimes forgotten . I have already said that the process can both limit and help. Think about the process, remember about it - maybe it can be modified so that it is convenient for people to do what you want, and it is not always necessary to teach them.
Decision!
Now, finally, we can talk about the solution and discuss the format:
An important parameter is the number of classes. Some skills without regular repetition are not acquired. If you give a person technology once, most likely he will not assimilate it. Therefore, we have, for example, a club of speakers, which I talked about in February, where people regularly come and learn to speak publicly. If you do not repeat, people instead of moving from the third zone to the fourth, fall into the second. Some things must be repeated regularly.
Summary
To teach and ...
In addition to learning, it would be nice to be able to inspire, explain, persuade, facilitate and customize processes.
Everything is told about this in the books that I have collected for you - they are placed on the diagram just in those areas in which they are needed.
But why, and how, in fact, it is necessary to approach knowledge transfer within the company in order to achieve a result, knows Evgenia Goleva ( cheaffa ). And us at TeamLead ConfShe said, and now she will share with you many years of experience in adult education.
About the speaker: Evgenia Goleva has been engaged in adult education for 10 years, recently she combines this with work as a devrel in Tech.Lamoda.
Contrary to popular belief, Lamoda is not just an online store, but a huge logistics system. The site itself is only 10% of the development, there is still an automated warehouse the size of a football field (imagine another 5 floors up), our own delivery service in 600 cities, 3 call centers. Global fashion brands are buying logistics services from Lamoda in Russia and the CIS.
300 IT-specialists develop and support more than 100 internal services, which are used by all 5000 employees. Knowledge sharing is ongoing. Most users are internal employees. Sometimes it happens that a team leader has to teach not only users, but also neighboring teams, new employees in their teams, and generally everyone, if new technologies appear. At times, it would be good to teach customers because they require the impossible.
On the example of several cases from everyday Lamoda I will illustrate the basic principles of adult education, which you can apply in your work.
I will use the following terminology:
- I'am a teacher. In a situation where either I teach people myself or I am a customer.
- They, the target audience is a group.
Case "ERP Developer Training"
A request for training usually looks like this:
- There are limitations: about the same amount of time, 2-3 presentations, 2 articles and a certain number of people who agree to spend an hour. I prepared a presentation, how to do it better, how many people and at what time to call for training?
With this approach, the efficiency of the event will tend to zero, and that's why.
We have ERP - a financial accounting system, which consists of two parts:
- Axapta because we are an international company.
- 1C, because we pay salaries in Russia, Kazakhstan, Ukraine and Belarus.
ERP interacts with all other systems. In addition, there are many internal ERP users.
When the guys from ERP come to me with a proposal to tell all our developers (300 people!) How these systems work, I take out my scheme from the zashnik (the teacher is me on the left, CA on the right).
I’m starting to ask questions - we’ll go through them all.
My problems
“No one understands how our systems work.” Ok, maybe they don’t have to? What is the real problem? What is burning? Where does it hurt?
After a few iterations, it turns out:
- Teams forget the important. They take into account the processes of Lamoda, forgetting about the partnership processes that can occur at any time.
- Helpdesk asks many questions to the wrong address - to the wrong developers, distracting them from their current work, and this is not very good.
It would seem that there was one problem - there were two. But at the same time, they became more specific and it is easier for us to understand what to do with them.
My result
Then we think about the result we want to get:
- If the teams take into account A (do something specific), and Helpdesk will ask questions at the address and use the documentation, will this solve the problem? It seems not to the end, because it would be nice if they took into account B and C.
Add:
- Teams consider A, B and C .
- Helpdesk asks questions at and uses the documentation.
We consider the result immediately, when we are just talking about the problem, because this is the purpose of our training:
- Check if this solves the problem? Sometimes it happens that training, for which we did not think in advance of the result, does not solve the problem, but is simply a waste of time.
- The result focuses on what exactly needs to be put into people's heads.
Lecture hall
Who usually makes decisions in a team, where is it important to consider A, B and C? Most often this is not the whole team, but only the technical lead. Therefore, if about A, B, C it is enough to talk with techlides, then this reduces the target audience - you need to learn only techlides and Helpdesk.
CA problems
Next, we ask the question, what are the problems of CA?
The problems are pretty obvious:
- Overload of techlides with information - many systems go through them, however.
- Helpdesk has a bad deal, SLA is not sustained . Moreover, the emergency often occurs when an incident occurs, and support cannot find the right developer and suffers.
Here, when we look for the problems of Central Asia, we find motivation - those strings for which we will continue to pull and try to help people. In this case, we see that the technlides have rather negative motivation. Engaging them with a two-hour lecture on complex systems will be cruel. Helpdesk's motivation is high, because it really solves their problems and helps in the work.
CA level
Then we must look at the level of these people (we have two CAs).
A bit of theory. Informed competency
The scheme of informed competence is below.
- They don’t know that they don’t know. Imagine a child of 4 years old who first saw a red car with a man driving. He thinks: “Wow, how great! "I also want to turn the steering wheel - the machine goes from the steering wheel!"
- They know that they don’t know. At 10 years old, the child already realizes that the machine is not driving, but there are mechanisms that somehow add up to each other, and he has to study it.
- Know what they know. At the age of 18, a person goes to study at a driving school, and there they tell him about the rules of the road, how to release the clutch pedal so as not to stall on the hill. He learns to look in the mirrors and taxi to the right lane by turning on the turn signal. He suffers, but learns. He has a long checklist of what to do.
- They don’t know what they know. Many years later, he is already driving as he breathes: he shaves with one hand, with the other he takes something out of his pocket with which he steers - only God knows. And at the same time, he somehow still manages to fit into complex turns.
This is already in the fourth square, but since then, when he last looked in the SDA, they have changed, and according to the SDA's competence, he is in the first quadrant.
This concept is not about the level of a person as a whole, but about individual knowledge (competencies). A person can be in different zones at different competencies at the same time, like our driver.
If we talk about training, then most often we mean zone 3, which begins with knowledge.
The knowledge is partially located in zone 2: we have some horizons, but we did not dig deep. Knowledge accumulates and in practice flows into skills - these are technologies: do it once, do it two, do it three - checklists from repetition become skills.
- The transition from the first zone to the second occurs with children in case of interest (wide eyes, red car). But adults, unfortunately, are already more callous, they can cling to problems. Better if there is interest, but more reliable through problems.
- A person transfers from the second zone to the third when he already has fragmentary knowledge from various fields. It takes a lot of energy to choose which one to spend your time on right now, make a decision and begin to study it.
Many of us paid in advance for English courses (or any other courses), and then did not go. Reasons: the decision was not made to the end, the choice was not made to the end, too little effort was put on the realization that it was necessary, and I will do it.
I dwell on this in such detail, because more often they begin to learn this way: “Look - technology: one, two, three!” “Cool, but I'm not ready to take it, I'm not ready to get to the end of this training, and you are already pushing me into it.” Most likely, a person will simply fall off in the middle of the path.
- The transition from the third zone to the fourth occurs through repetition and process. Sometimes we taught people, gave them some kind of technology, but it is not applicable in their real life, their process is arranged differently. It is important to remember that when you give technology, you must definitely check that it is suitable - it does not interfere and helps.
Conscious competence is the third zone. All other zones are unconscious and incompetent.
We return to the case with ERP systems, where we wanted to conduct Knowledge Sharing for 300 people.
Helpdesk on the diagram is in the third zone on the border with the second. They would be in the second if we showed them the system for the first time and told them to start supporting it. But they are already working with her, they are doing something and know - that is, they are in the third zone.
Tehlids are in the fourth zone - they know for sure that A, B and C must be taken into account, and once again telling them about it for two hours is rather not worth it.
How did we solve this problem?
Helpdesk was taught separately at two meetings:
- A simple lecture, answers to questions, 2 weeks of work.
- After 2 weeks, the lecture is more complicated, the answers to questions that have arisen.
Thus, what was happening was relevant to everyone. They were vitally interested.
Tekhlids were not invited to the lecture, but they asked:
“How do you do this?”
- We have such a workflow.
- Well, let's put a checklist here, here and here in this workflow, and you will take these A, B, C into account.
The guys were happy - finally they were helped to do their work.
The items "My task" and "Remainder" remained. The task in the first case was to teach, and in the second - to help establish the process. The dry residue was completely different. In further cases you will see how our task and the dry balance of the audience change from the level of CA.
Conclusions from the case "ERP Developer Training":
- Different levels of CA are different approaches. There are different ways to work with people.
- It is not always necessary to teach.
But if you do not teach, then what?
Let's see: we have my problems, the problems of CA, my result, the level of CA, and then my task. How is she changing?
Newbies
In the first zone, there are often beginners. They come without knowing anything about the company. At this moment it is difficult for them to explain how everything works for us, it is better to give at least some kind of card. Here we do not teach, but solve two problems:
- the simplest is not to demotivate, not to scare ;
- to interest is about those very burning eyes.
Thus, our task is to inspire rather than teach. Burning eyes will not appear on their own, someone should light them.
Case "Hiring testers"
The QA manager comes to me and asks for help to understand a situation where recruiters choose a resume of inappropriate candidates. We look deeper - they "float" in the databases.
Somehow in the industry it is customary to think that in any incomprehensible situation it is easiest to change recruiters. But we have a great team, it just needs to pump expertise in this area. In general, it’s useful to teach recruiters - how do they otherwise find out what we need?
Recruiters are located in zone 2 of our scheme, that is, “they know they don’t know” - they have heard something, but they don’t really understand.
What result would you like to receive from their training? Naturally, we do not expect them to suddenly begin to sort out the databases. It would be nice if HR:
- understood what the candidate was talking about;
- owned terminology that can be google.
Then the teacher’s task :
- explain very simply, without complications (not everyone can);
- give a map for reference.
In the remainder we get the expected result: understand what they say; know the keywords.
The story ended with the head of QA having three meetings at which HR specialists directly deployed databases, opened windows, sent inquiries, received some data. So they remembered much more than if they had listened to a review lecture for 40 minutes with definitions. So it was possible to effectively solve the problem of explaining “on the fingers”.
Case Study Analysts
In the following example, a person is on the verge of the second zone in the third.
Every year we recruit a group of interns in analytics. The practice is quite common - giving a course of lectures on the database, just to compare the terminology adopted at the university, and slang in the company. They will work with it, and everything will be fine with them.
But we thought deeper. Here, in fact, the problem of the target audience is not a problem, but a sincere desire to learn. That same motivation. People really want to study (also for a salary)! This situation is ideal for learning.
The result that we expect:
- fewer questions and errors of certain types;
- higher speed.
These are measurable metrics that you can record and evaluate learning outcomes - what we love and that allows us to understand why we spent time.
Task:
- give technology;
- show shortcuts.
The remainder: that same skill - one, two, three.
We did a session with applied tasks. Every week, for 10-15 minutes, the trainees were told about a solution, they suggested trying it. If it did not work out, they sorted why. Further, the interns still practiced on the spot, spent exactly a week doing the same tasks, and then moved on to the next topic.
We used the so-called Kolb cycle .
When you come to the training, they usually give you a diagnostic exercise. If you possess the skill that the training aims to develop, then you do this exercise easily, effortlessly. More often, they fail him, because the skill is not enough. At this moment you are considering the experience gained, why didn’t you succeed, and want to find out how it was needed. Here the trainer comes out, or you yourself throw out ideas - how could you do better, that is, collect technology, think critically and raise to the level of abstraction: "You could do that." Then you come up with a theory and then with this theory proceed to the next exercise, apply it in it (“It seems to work!”), And go into life, repeating it over and over again. This is the Kolb cycle.
If the task is to teach people exactly skill or technology, then it is convenient to use the Kolb method.
When people are in the third zone and, it would seem, know and are able to, what can go wrong?
Case "Falling base"
Olga from BI (Business Intelligence) comes to me and says: “Once a week, our base falls, and it seems to be dropped by marketers. What to do?".
You can, of course, come to the marketers and say: “You write bad requests - don’t do that! Do this. ” Where do we go after that? Most likely, far away. Therefore, we went the other way.
We have a problem - the base drops once a week.
As a result, we want people to:
- stopped making X;
- started to do Y - the way we need.
And they don’t have such a problem, but there is interest or another problem - they would like to:
- receive data more accurately;
- receive data faster.
In general, marketers are not to blame - they have a huge amount of data of epic size. In order to make a forecast of user behavior, they really take data from the database as they can, without thinking about query optimization. This is not in the zone of their interests. If you think about their problems and find how to help, then people with greater favor will accept our help and training.
Our task is, on the one hand, to solve the problems of marketers, on the other hand, to convince them to do differently (Y). So that we can convince them, the bottom line should be some kind of factology, that if you do Y, you get a better result than if you do X.
We had several SQL advanced sessions for marketing. Before that, the guys from BI came, sat down with the marketers, looked at how they make requests, asked questions, why, why. The preparation was quite lengthy. After that, BI understood how to help get better data and not drop the base every time.
It worked - marketers happily came and started to learn. If this did not happen, but simply stood on the calendar: “Come learn SQL”, they would say: “We know SQL, we won’t go - we have other tasks!”
Thus, one of my tasks as a teacher is to convince people, not just teach.
Case "Feedback to team leaders for leadership"
The development manager comes to me and offers: “Let's conduct training for department heads on how to give feedback to team leaders.” I thought: department heads have been working for more than a year — probably they have given feedback more than once, and they know how to do it. It seems that they are in the fourth zone.
What is the real problem ? At the Performance Review, it turns out that the approaches to team leaders in different departments are somewhat different, due to which the career development of people who could move from one department to another with team leaders is complicated. The requirements are different - it is not clear what to do.
What result do we expect? We would like for us to have a unified approach in all departments.
What is the problem for department heads? In general, they have this problem, but not that it was paramount. However, you can go from the other side:
- look at others;
- show yourself.
Task: let's look at the cases - who works how, who faced what, exchange experience, systematize it. In the bottom line, the guys come out with complex cases and now they can already at least approximately imagine how to solve them.
We have worked on the problem of Central Asia, now we need to work on our task: to develop common rules. In the bottom line, in order to get our result, they must not only work out the rules, but also agree that it is really necessary to take a unified approach, and decide to adhere to the general rules.
If you look at the task a little deeper - not just teaching feedback, as the customer asks for - then you can come to the format for analyzing complex cases. This also requires a long preparation: you need to come to everyone, sit opposite him and ask: “Darling, what hurts you? How do you do this? What were the difficult cases? ”
To make quality training, it would be nice to talk about what hurts them while promoting their interests.
So, one of our tasks is to help make decisions.
Framework
When we looked at the problems, and at the results, and at the level, we determined our task and what dry residue people will endure, we can start talking about limitations. We remember that we have limitations:
But they often forget that in the first column there is a budget . Sometimes it is nonzero and can be used.
Important note: Many people think that the teacher is good when he is in the fourth zone, where he drives the car, closing his eyes. This is a misconception because the best teachers come from people from the third zone.. They are aware of what is happening, they know the methodology and can explain it. Therefore, it is not always effective to teach yourself. If you are communicating in a cool way, but cannot explain why you are doing this, by what method, it is better to call a person who is in a more conscious zone and can put the methodology on the shelves. Sometimes it’s more efficient to spend a budget than to do it yourself.
In the second column, processes are sometimes forgotten . I have already said that the process can both limit and help. Think about the process, remember about it - maybe it can be modified so that it is convenient for people to do what you want, and it is not always necessary to teach them.
Decision!
Now, finally, we can talk about the solution and discuss the format:
- Individually / 6 small group / 12-16 training group / x * 12.
- Lecture / meeting / demo / training / workshop / business game / simulation.
- One-time / several meetings / regular club.
- Working / non-working hours.
- Weekdays / Weekends.
- 1 hour / 2-4 hours / 8 hours a day.
- Morning / lunch / evening.
An important parameter is the number of classes. Some skills without regular repetition are not acquired. If you give a person technology once, most likely he will not assimilate it. Therefore, we have, for example, a club of speakers, which I talked about in February, where people regularly come and learn to speak publicly. If you do not repeat, people instead of moving from the third zone to the fourth, fall into the second. Some things must be repeated regularly.
Summary
- Проблемы ЦА — это ее мотивация. На это важно смотреть, и это большая подготовительная работа. Даже если не вы сами учите, а заказываете обучение, к вам приходят несчастные HR и спрашивают: «Какие же у вас там проблемы?», важно не выдать свои проблемы за проблемы людей. Чаще всего это разные проблемы. Если люди из Training&Development будут решать ваши проблемы, они не попадут в ЦА. Важно знать, что же на самом деле болит у людей, как вы можете им помочь.
- Разный уровень — разная задача. Не нужно пытаться учить людей в зоне 1, 2, 4! Старайтесь правильно оценивать этот уровень.
- Не всегда нужно учить. Но если учите, то делайте это по Колбу.
To teach and ...
In addition to learning, it would be nice to be able to inspire, explain, persuade, facilitate and customize processes.
Everything is told about this in the books that I have collected for you - they are placed on the diagram just in those areas in which they are needed.
More useful recommendations on working with teams will be available at TeamLead Conf in Moscow on February 25 and 26. Specifically, we will discuss knowledge management at KnowledgeConf on April 26, starting with what tools to use for documentation, how to reduce risks, before it can quickly board new employees and deal with the bus factor. APPLY if Charite in knowledge sharing as a Eugene
Subscribing to the newsletter will help you not to miss news such as this decryption article.