Soft Skills vs. Technical Training

Question asked this week: Why are so many companies fixated on technical training with little or no emphasis on soft-skills training (management development, interpersonal communications, customer relations skills, etc)?

First of all, the training listed in the question is, I believe, technical skills training. These are not soft-skills training courses. Soft skills training is the kind of training you would offer to make the individual a better person, not a better manager. Management development IS technical training – you are training a manager for the work place. That’s a technical skill. However, a personal leadership development course which grows a better individual with better self-confidence and compassion is a soft-skills training course. The better the individual, the better that individual would perform their job.

I believe that business gets better when the people in the business get better. Improve the individuals at the personal level and the workplace will naturally improve. In fact, ask yourself, “Will the workplace deteriorate when the people I work with become better, decent, courteous human beings? Of course not. The truth is that sales get better when the sales people get better. Customer service gets better when the people who serve customers become more compassionate, understanding and communicative. Management gets better when the managers get better.

Most technical training (sales, communication, time-management, teamwork, etc.,) in the workplace is a complete waste of money. Organizations and corporations throw away billions of dollars every year on useless training that is designed to make people more proficient at a job that they, as people, are not capable of doing. And it’s not because they don’t want to become better. It’s because they, as people, lack the “self” skills to do it better (self-confidence, self-esteem, self-discipline, self-motivation, etc.).

Here’s what I mean by that. Let’s just say that there are ten representatives working in your sales department. Five of the reps have outstanding sales track records: they consistently hit their targets every month, customers love doing business with them and they seem to achieve their targets effortlessly. Then there are the other five reps who struggle every month to come close to meeting their targets. They can’t seem to get motivated to either get on the phone or make the in-person sales calls. They struggle with dealing with tough customers and know, in the backs of their minds, that they need to improve their respective performances or risk being let go.

Here’s what many companies would do: bring in a sales trainer to improve “company sales.” Even though five of the ten reps are consistently meeting their targets, the company thinks sales training is the key to get the whole team performing well. So, in comes the sales trainer to solve a problem that is clearly out of his realm since the problem isn’t corporate sales, it is five specific sales people. So the company penalizes the five top-performers by making them sit through a course that they already don’t need help with, and then place the five under-performers into a situation where they are now being studied by the peers – and judged as well.

Sales training is a waste of time on someone who lacks the self-confidence to ask for the sale, pick up the phone or make a cold-call in person. Time Management training is a waste of time on people who have no self-discipline. People without self-discipline revert back to old ways because, well, they have no self-discipline to stick with a new strategy. Teamwork training is wasted on individuals who have low self-esteem since they already feel they don’t deserve to be part of the team. And on and on the list goes. You can’t build a structurally sound house on a shaky foundation. In the same way, you can’t build a high-performer out of someone with a poor sense of self-worth.

Attitude Adjustment: Leadership is an attitude – management is a title. Service is an attitude – customer service is a department. Engagement is an attitude – employment is a paycheck. One is personal and one is technical. Organizations, on their own, work fine - it’s people who screw them up. Fix the people (at soft-skills level) and you fix most every problem in the organization.

Waiting On "Hold"

So I'm on hold with the call-centre at Telus, the phone company. I have been on hold for about twenty minutes now.

I have heard this message twelve times so far, "Are you looking for a career in the telecommunications industry? Telus currently has open positions for call-centre agents. For more information, visit our web site."

Hmm, something tells me I'm going to be on hold a little bit longer.

Thanks Telus for the second-best laugh I've had today.

The Attitude of Leaders As Hosts

Leadership is an attitude. Management is a title. You don’t need to be in management to be a leader.

So what does leadership look like in your own life?

Let’s say you are having a social gathering at your house. That would make you the host and those who attended your party would be guests. When in someone else’s house, the guests all defer to the host as being the leader. In other words, you are not managing the party, you are hosting it. The guests will join the host (the leader of the party) even sometimes begrudgingly if the host wants to play a game of charades. It’s the host’s party. We, as guests, will follow along. When there are followers, there must be a leader.

I read an interesting article recently about the concept of “hostmanship” as opposed to the concept of customer service.

There are six fundamentals to hostmanship:

1. Serving others
2. Perceiving the whole
3. Taking responsibility
4. Being caring
5. Searching knowledge
6. Practicing dialogue

The hostmanship web site describes hostmanship as the following:

Hostmanship without pride is empty and cold. In contrast to service, Hostmanship is focused on practice, on people as hosts, on the cultures of businesses, and on the capacity of organizations to tie it all together. Being a host is much about having the courage to let loose your talents and express your personality – to be brave enough to serve every person as she is and to listen to the needs she expresses. Hostmanship also differs from service in that it’s not about treating others as you yourself want to be treated. Hostmanship is to treat a person as she wants to be treated.

Seth Godin, in his Blog, wrote this past week:

If I pay $1000 extra for a first-class seat, odds are the flight attendant will be nice to me. If I pay $2000 extra for the presidential suite at the hotel, odds are the front desk clerk will be nice to me. If I give the valet $50 to park my car, odds are he'll be nice to me as well.

So, here's the question: if all I want, the only extra, is for someone to be nice to me when I visit your business, how much extra does that cost?

I think there's a huge gap between what people are willing to pay for nice (a lot) and what it would cost businesses to deliver it (almost nothing). Smells like an opportunity.

Attitude Adjustment: Is it your right to host your guests or to serve your customers? Or is it a privilege? Shifting your attitude away from customers simply being dollar signs to a nicer approach, that they are your guests, will go a long way to providing you with customer loyalty, better employee engagement, a more courteous and considerate way of dealing with those who choose to support you and, finally, a solid foundation upon which you can build your business and business relationships. Change your mind. Change your attitude. And serve your “guests” as you would wish to be “hosted” at their places of business or even their homes.

Big Rig - Little Brain

OK, now I've written about this particular subject in past and yet there are still a lot of people who, as the offenders, don't seem to care - and as those who supervise the offenders, well, they don't seem to care either. Such is my plight and here is my NEW story.

It was late afternoon as I drove on the four-lane highway. I found myself in the left lane slowly passing a big-rig truck who was just under the speed limit in the right lane. As I successfully got past him, I was unable to change into the right lane as some slower traffic was just ahead so I stayed in the left lane. The big-rig that I had just passed had apparently just called upon all of the horses under the hood and was accelerating quickly in the right lane now - well over the speed limit.

In my mind I thought there is no way he can get all of that rig into the space between me in the left lane and the car just ahead in the right lane. But he tried and without any consideration for any other vehicles he attempted to change lanes just as his back wheels were even with my back wheels. Had he continued to change lanes he would have either knocked me into the median or I would have to go there voluntarily. He put his rig just across the center line and tried to force me to either jam on the brakes (which I couldn't as there was a vehicle coming up behind me) or drive into the ditch. He then, aggressively put his truck back into the left lane to let me go by.

As I passed him I could see him waving his arms, looking at me and mouthing obscenities. I read, just below his face, the sign on the door: Marshall Trucking and the toll-free number. Once past the line of slower moving cars I pulled into the right lane as he flew past me well over the speed limit. I called the toll-free number.

I explained my story to the dispatcher who made a quick radio call and left the line open. She said the following to the driver: "Some guy out on the highway is complaining and wants you to slow down."

She came back on the phone and dismissively said, "Good enough?"

"Nope," was my answer. "Let me speak with your safety supervisor."

I was connected with Dean who listened intently. It was only when I identified myself as someone who works in safety attitude did he seem to genuinely take an interest in my story about his company and his driver.

Attitude Adjustment: If your company has vehicles on the road, please remind your drivers that they are flying the flag of the company when they drive. And if you get a complaint from one person, you can multiply that one phone call by fifty. Fifty is at least the number of people your driver has likely affected but only one stood up to make a complaint. I don't care if you're short-staffed and can't find any other drivers. If one of your drivers chooses to be unsafe on the roads, you should fire him immediately. It will save your company's face and send a very strong message to your other drivers to get with the program. The fast-moving highway is no place to have a little brain behind the wheel of a big rig.

Arrogance vs. Attitude

Question posed this week: What would you do from your own professional perspective to overcome an arrogant attitude in management and encourage to them in being proactive in accepting the necessity, convenience and relevance of an organizational change?

Let's be clear. In most instances, it's not "management" that is arrogant. It is the individual people who hold the title "manager” who may be arrogant. Some managers have come to believe that their title carries with it a deluded belief that they are superior to those who work for them. Change the attitudes of the individuals and you can begin to successfully change the culture throughout the organization. But without acknowledging the existence of the arrogance attitude within oneself, there is likely to be little change in this regard.

Management is not the same as leadership. Management is a title. Leadership is an attitude. I doubt that a true leader, one who genuinely wanted his or her people to become better, smarter and more efficient and to become the best people they could become, would operate from a place of arrogance. But one who chose to try to keep his or her minions down would be operating from that arrogance place.

Here’s a self-test for managers: have you met every single person in your department and had at least one conversation with each of them? If not, what is keeping you from doing that? I can guarantee that employee engagement will increase when the employee begins to feel that their contribution matters. Leadership is encouraging performance that perhaps even surpasses the abilities of the leader. Leaders are selfless. It’s impossible to be arrogant when an individual is selfless.

In any organization, it is not only leaders holding management positions. In fact, arrogant managers actually fear employees who are perceived by their peers as leaders within the ranks. Employees with leadership abilities are influencers. Arrogant managers fear influencers who could undermine their position.

But a real influencer may also be able to influence the arrogant manager by having a private conversation, away from prying ears. It takes courage but it is possible.

Also, it takes courage from consultants and speakers to say what needs saying instead of plying platitudes to ensure the check gets signed. This is an all-too-sad truth in our industry – saying what is safe to say instead of saying what needs to be said.

Attitude Adjustment: There is good news on dealing with arrogant managers. As the market changes (customers expecting better service, expectations of quality products, purchasing patterns, economic forces, etc.,) so will the attitudes of managers ... eventually. All is not lost. This transition time, as Boomers leave the workplace and are replaced by Gen Y's or Millenials, the dynamics of the relationships between those at the top and those who actually do the work will begin to change. The one saving grace is that the customer (us) can tell the difference. We customers vote with our dollars. When the polls (dollars) start to swing away from those organizations with arrogant leadership, the shareholders of those same organizations will correct the problem in short order. The market always has a way of correcting itself.

Die, Conference Dinner

I ran across this article recently in Meeting Planners International magazine. I thought it was brilliant, so much so that I felt compelled to share it with you. If you are a Meeting Planner, pay attention. If you have attended one of these events, well, enjoy. It was written by Tony Carey, CMP.

It would be difficult to invent an occasion better designed for social discomfort than the end-of-convention dinner with its incompatible mix of stale etiquette, corporate protocol, culinary sensitivities, age, gender and cultural frictions all squeezed into a few short hours that, for many participants, seem like an eternity.

Pity the poor association meeting planner (for it is in this field that the tradition survives in its purest form), required to devise a social activity in which the preordained ingredients leave scope for nothing more creative than changing the colour of the table linen.

The evening’s schedule must include a drinks reception, a dinner of at least four courses, a speech by the chairman, another by the principal guest, a series of toasts, the presentation of awards, dancing and then—to show that the organisation isn’t as old-fashioned as the previous four hours have conclusively proved—a disco.

Given the diversity of delegates at most association conventions, few of them will enjoy all these ingredients. For the younger attendees, the reception and the disco fail to compensate for the dinner discomfort and the tedium of the speeches. For the older ones, failing digestion, hearing and prostate glands make the meal an ordeal. Women (who are promoted to “ladies” for the occasion) are invariably disappointed by the men whom they are placed next to, but at least they have the pleasure of putting on a party frock. Generally speaking, men do not share women’s enthusiasm for dressing up. This may be because dress shirts shrink two sizes between uses.

Protocol demands that men and women should be seated alternately at the dinner table. This is arguably the most ridiculous piece of social etiquette since the invention of the fish knife and, fortunately, is increasingly ignored. Any good host will tell you that compatibility and mutual interests should determine a seating plan—not gender.

Would any half-professional meeting planner dare to inflict on delegates, in an auditorium, the levels of discomfort that are deemed acceptable at a banquet? No. Ten guests to a round table ensures that some can’t see the speakers and, as if the room wasn’t hot enough, everyone stokes up on calorific food eaten off warm plates. To further challenge the air conditioning, each table has a candle.

It is a physiological fact that women feel the cold more than men, so, of course, the ladies appear in backless, strapless, insubstantial little numbers (invariably black) which attract welcome attention and an unwelcome chill—while conformity demands that the gentlemen perspire in tuxedos. But I digress.

So the meal has ground to an indigestible conclusion, toasts have been drunk and the awards presented. The chairman has finally sat down to lethargic applause, so it is time for the band to strike up with a tune that only 25 percent of those present will recognise as music and to which no one will dance.

By this time (midnight), the ambient noise has reached battlefield level ensuring that conversations with foreigners—especially Virginians—have become impossible.

Most of the men would rather talk than dance, and most of the women would rather dance than talk. But the single girls have a problem: since most of the younger generation is propping up the bar, their choice of dancing partners is limited. They can choose from another woman, a septuagenarian, a drunk, their own handbag or the Greek they were sitting next to at dinner. (It’s a particularly bad evening if all they can find is a drunk old Greek with a handbag.)

But it is at this point that the group—which has been held together all evening by the glue of conformity—really splits up. The very old and the married couples go to bed, the very young escape to joust, sweatily, in the disco, while the middle-aged singles bribe the barman to remain at his post so they can rearrange the world.

Ironically, because everyone ends the evening doing what they enjoy, the event will be regarded as a considerable success. Such is the amnesic power of alcohol.

TONY CAREY, CMP, CMM, is a speaker and consultant. He can be reached at tonycarey@psilink.co.je or via his Web site, www.tonycarey.info.

One Person Makes Every Decision

Here’s a question that was posed to me this week: what do you think is the major cause for an organization suffering unnecessary employee attrition or turnover?

I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of people would point the finger at: bad hiring, bad management, poor wages, stifling organizational culture, not keeping promises, misrepresentation of the work involved or failure to align with the corporate vision or mission statement.

There are a ton of possible reasons, most of them pointing the finger at a nebulous position or something else. Have we lost sight of the prime component here? Don't we undertsand that as long as we blame an entity or a position that we can’t quantify, that we will continue to face the same issues?

What about the employee who “needs” daily ego-stroking? Is it management’s job or the responsibility of “culture” to ensure that needy employees get their daily dose of Vitamin “Ego?” Not every single employee is cut from the same cloth. Just because they may have attended the same school doesn’t mean they have the same qualities and values as the next person.

HR needs to stop considering candidates for interview primarily from resumes. The world is changing. The new generation of worker bounces around from job-to-job looking for a fit. The new generation of workers doesn’t interview as well as older workers (unless they can interview by text message). The new generation of worker doesn’t even think like their interviewer (generational gaps). Can your HR department figure out what makes this worker tick?

Ask yourself this question: when your place of business has an opening, does it simply hire a body or does your place of work see the value and skill-set in a potential candidate and make a place for that person? There's a difference. Discover what your people are really good at and encourage them to do what they do best. Then hire someone else to do the work not being done but make sure they want to do it.

Want to change the culture? Change the people. I’m not talking about firing the lot. I’m talking about providing tools that employees could grow as people, could get better, more confident, build their individual self-esteem, improve their decision-making capacity, improve their communication skills and improve their daily dispositions and attitudes. Yeah, yeah, yeah I know. It’s soft skills training. But if you really want to grow your organization you will first have to grow your people.

Organizations work fine. It’s people who screw them up. Fix the individual and you will fix the organization and the performance of the organization. But unfortunately, we’ve become a society of finger-pointers and blamers. And in doing so, it’s easy to blame an entity or a title (department) for the results.

In fact, some will actually argue with me that it’s got to be harder than just making the people better. My response is; have you tried it yet? Have you fully experienced poor results from actually implementing some sort of personal-development culture within your organization and can, from a place of experience, say it doesn’t work because you’ve actually tried it?

Attitude Adjustment: If you don’t make a change on the focus of the problem, you will never solve it. Every decision, every success and every screw-up in every organization can be traced back to just one person. Improve the person and you improve the decision. Improve the person and you improve the work. Improve the person and you improve the performance. Improve the person and you improve the attitude towards the job. Improve the person and you improve the attrition rate. Simple huh? Now stop blaming “management” for not allowing this to happen and go talk to the one person who can make the decision. It all boils down to one person – always.