Follow the trailer on BBC NEWS at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8414929.stm

Listen to the programme tonight at 20.30 GMT or find the podcast / listen again at http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006s609

ROCK ON!

Peter

Well we did finally meet at Imperial – let’s follow the meeting with a discussion about how to work together.

The Radio 4 In Business Programme on this topic broadcasts on 17th Dec at 20.30 GMT and 20th Dec at 21.30 GMT

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4

Peter

Full details at http://www.academy-of-rock.co.uk/press

Date 27 Nov 10.30 – 13.30

Where London

Habits are difficult to break and I always ensure that there are plenty of things that follow a training, to cause people to simply recall what happened, and more importantly do something it.

Just back from a Mott the Hoople concert, so quite shattered and hence a short reply today.

Many thanks for your comment – more please!

Peter

Accordingly, wherever possible, we not only design programmes that prepare the delegates for the ‘intervention event’, but provide a 13 week period of follow-through, combining desktop technology that records not just individual learning outcomes and an action plan, but monitors learners’ progress towards their achievement – and provides them with links to resources that will help them. But we also realise that technology is not a magic bullet. We seek to actively involve other stakeholders – especially line managers – so that the message that ‘what they learned at the time’ isn’t the ultimate point of a training event: what matters is how they use and apply that learning, and that the organisation realises it has a role to play if it is to make the most of its investment in the training. And we can provide additional support in a more human form, by providing coaching support (and both coaches and line managers can access the same desktop technology to both monitor progress (or lack of it) and provide timely and constructive input that may help to sustain the learner’s motivation.

‘Not perfect … just better’, as we have been known to (modestly!) say about ourselves. I don’t think – as you say – that we would ever claim to ‘pinpoint’ ROI, but we are guided to a large extent by research that identifies a number of reasons why training so often fails to have much impact:

• An inappropriate focus on learning objectives rather than business outcomes
• Failure to invest appropriately in activities away from the point of learning that would support transfer and application
• Trainers pursue a false ‘finishing line’, believing their job is over at the end of the course or workshop
• Trainers are rewarded for the inputs that they provide, rather than for delivering the outcomes that are actually sought
• Learners return to the workplace lacking a learning transfer and application support infrastructure
• Line managers – potentially the most influential players – are increasingly likely to support their colleagues
• Training evaluation typically measures the wrong things.

Measurement of ROI on training may not be exact science, but there is a flipside to the scenario: addressing reasons it is typically so low can surely only be a positive move.

Q1a There is a mood in business that suggests we should all get a bit more serious about work at the moment. However, the smart companies (also some of the more successful ones) are still spending time on maintenance of a climate where bright ideas turn into long term innovations. I was working with Johnson and Johnson the other week on just such an exercise. They have the ability to see the longer term as well as short term expediency. A successful leader strikes a balance between such things and does not over-react to short term crises?

Q3a Yes, public servants are often there because of deep seated calls of duty and, in a sense, they will often agree that some rock musicians are more authentic than business leaders. If we set aside rock’s narcissists for a second, Sir Bob Geldof is a leader that balances his ability for showmanship with a deep sense of purpose, backed up by great emotional intelligence that allows him to put his purpose before his ego. I met him at a Live 8 event some while back, and he has a great sense of self deprecating humour that allows him to engage an audience, back by an almost manic sense of focus that ensures he gets his message across.

I also had the privilege to meet Bill Nelson again at the weekend. Bill has authenticity written through his veins, having rejected the rock circus lifestyle to do what he believed in. To those that don’t know him, it is sufficient to know that Bill owned a mansion, a Rolls Royce and several other sports cars in the 1970’s, but left EMI to pursue his real purpose as an artist rather than a puppet of the music business. He has been a great influence on the great and good of rock’s hierarchy, including David Bowie, Brian May, Eno et al. When looking for examples of authenticity, I find it hard to better Bill Nelson as an example to us all. I use Bill’s principles for personal reinvention in my seminars and they are detailed as a cameo piece in ‘Sex, Leadership and Rock’n’Roll’ I will be posting a set of slides that include these in a week or so at http://www.academy-of-rock.co.uk/RUExperienced I’ll be speaking about these issues in my next open event in London on November 06 – See http://www.open.ac.uk/oubs-alumni/Whatsnew/Events/detail.php?id=468381595&return=Date%255Bm%255D%3D11%26Date%255By%255D%3D2009%26Region%3D%26CategoryQualification%3D%26Keywords%3D%26submit%3DSubmit

As with musicians, businesses that get hung up on their own ‘cool’ may be more concerned with style than substance. If you cannot ‘do the do’ then it’s no good reaching for a slick marketing campaign!

So, I’m all for a healthy blend of style and substance. Prince is a good example of this. People like Miles Davis and Chaka Khan do not go on stage with a…. holes, but they play with Prince. Interestingly enough, he lets them take front of stage, rather than hogging the limelight. This speaks volumes about the artist’s emotional IQ.

Speaking of Prince, does that create enough ‘controversy’ to provoke a reader into a response?

atb

Stay Young

Peter Cook

Q2a There’s an argument that ‘play’ means more that celebrating success and creating great places to work – that it involves giving people the space and the permission to experiment a little, or to extemporise from processes and procedures. Through play, through loose rather than strict interpretation, can come ‘happy accidents’ – serendipitous moments that provide real breakthroughs and insights. These are essential by-products of the quirkiness of people: if human capital is the golden goose, these are the free-range eggs. How far do you think there’s a current danger that a current ‘noses to the grindstone’ atmosphere – partly of course, in response to the recession – might meant that some companies won’t be laying many eggs for a while?

Q3a Actually, in a way that possibly isn’t so surprising? The interest from the more ‘orchestral’ organisations – especially those in the public sector – may be reflecting a number of things: a self-awareness that a ‘stuffy’ approach isn’t always the answer; that their staff (and it may be a cliché, but from my own public sector experience it contains some grains of truth) are initially motivated by a sense of social purpose as well as a salary and a possible career, and that maintaining this motivation is important to the whole organisation. Also that the public/society they serve is changing, and they must reflect that.

It’s almost the opposite that interests me: are there businesses too hung-up on their own ‘rock and rollness’ that they could do with a more traditional rethink? (I’m thinking, among other things, of the people in Douglas Coupland’s novels who work in thoroughly modern enterprises – many of them terribly ‘cool’ – but don’t necessarily feel any more creative, engaged or cared about than social workers or call centre workers. ‘Bit flippers’ as Wired used to call them.) There’s an element of ‘if you have to try to be ‘cool’ then you’re not’, of course, but also an element of knowing the rules so that you can respond to or re-interpret them as well as simply breaking them. Some of the greatest innovators were highly technical capable – Picasso, for example. Being given enough rope is better when you’re familiar with the rope!