Annoying Journalism

I read this story on Business Insider, and it proceeded to do nothing more than annoy me. Not because I feel some amount of trepidation over the problems the United States faces with cheaper competition in labor markets abroad, but because this story is just restating what we already know, while apparently seeking to send readers in the U.S. into a tailspin of doubt.

Is the transplant of manufacturing from the U.S. and other countries to China about money? First and foremost, yes. It is not part of the issue, as the author claims, it is *the* issue. Also, we didn't need to know that all the factories are there; millions have known this and have been voicing it openly in our body politic for decades now. It's not a revelation that it's cheaper not only to make the parts for a product there, but to have the facilities that bring all the parts together into a total product there as well. The "ecosystem" of manufacturing point is a given.

It's probably a small thing to get annoyed over a column stating obvious things, but what really got me going, I suppose, are the underlying assumptions that Mr. Blodget, the column's author, and a large segment of the American public, apparently aren't aware of. First off, the column describes how Chinese workers live in dorms or small apartments, often on-site at the factory, and often with members of their extended family, saving large portions of their income each month. We're told they work 12-16 hours days, for a pittance compared to what U.S. workers would demand. My mind kept screaming the further I read, because these are the sorts of conditions workers in the United States were accustomed to in the late 19th and early 20th century during the Industrial Revolution. There was a time when the average worker in the U.S. had to fight for a work week of "only" six 12-hour days. Living conditions were tight, families were living on top of each other, etc. The examples the author points out are nothing new; there's a good change one of his recent ancestors lived his or her work life in this sort of way, if they worked in the U.S. during that time.

The reason why that is such a sticking point with me is today, we have even American citizens saying we're too soft as a workforce, and that others work harder. Nevermind the fact that the U.S. workforce, as of at least 2010, is still one of the top 3, if not the, most productive in the world despite massive manufacturing losses over three decades, and nevermind the fact that most of the very efficient processes and technology now used by inexpensive Chinese labor were developed here or in other market-based economies in the first place.

But, there are also examples that counter the widely accepted notion that a move to China is the best for all. Intel Corporation, for example, has recently alotted many billions in U.S. dollars for bolstering and expanding their U.S. operations, as well as to committing monies to improving education in the sciences and techno0logy in the U.S. to produce more competitive workers. The article also flies in the face of recent reports that China itself is losing some companies to even cheaper labor elsewhere. Granted, it's not a tidal wave, but it shows that even hot economies will turn some away due to costs. And that takes me to my next point, which is the growing tide amongst Chinese workers of increasing pay and respect in the workplace. China may have many times the U.S. workforce in sheer numbers, but once their populace gets a taste of increasing freedoms, prices for everything produced by that manufacturing ecosystem will go up, and then companies will start looking to make more strong quarterly statements by moving operations elsewhere.

It's probably not a secret, at this point, that I personally have a lot of faith in what American workers can do. I'm not a protectionist, and I'm not running for public office. And I certainly don't blame China or its populace for needing jobs; I'm happy their economy is growing, and I like seeing their workers able to earn a living, though not at the expense of their humanity. My point, though, is that workers in the United States are very capable if given the reasonable faith they deserve, rather than being told their lazy bums seeking a government hand-out. That gets my back up, because I know many people who work a lot just to get by, and they don't deserve that kind of disrespect. The United States also didn't earn its name nor its economic reputation during those darker times for its own workforce; the U.S. got that reputation during and after World War 2 for being innovative, having a high standard of living where workers had respect, time for family, and recreation, and for advancing technologies that gave us what we have today in both the public and private sector. I'm not looking for a return to the good ol' days necessarily, but I am seeking some realism in this discussion, and I'm calling for us to take a leaf out of our own book, and take up the torch again.

This is not to say Mr. Blodget's intent was to portray American labor as lazy, but at the very least his column fuels the naysayers and pushes the notion that America can't compete anymore. We can't afford to buy that poison. We must accept what the current reality is, but if we choose not to adapt, we don't have an excuse. I think we can, and I'm going to try to help that along as best I can.

ISPI's Top Stories of 2012

I received ISPI's Performance Digest for the day, and I was struck by the lack of substance. Indeed, a couple of the stories seem to conflict ("Change Management vs. Change Leadership" and "Rise of the Change Manager"), many are the obvious ("The Best Approach to Training", "Stop Long, Boring Staff Training; Start Short, Social Learning Modules"), others are laments ("Intelligence Lost: The Boomers are Exiting"), and one puts forth a false dichotomy ("Social Media vs. Knowledge Management"). Without trivially casting aside many of the otherwise salient industry issues discussed in the collected articles, I must express displeasure with the terribly short shrift many of the subjects are given. This is hardly indicative of a quality set of articles that ostensibly have moved the industry over the last annum.

But the one I found most thin, is "Will virtual learning kill in-person training?" Nevermind that this question - or rather cliche, at this point - has been put to WLP and HPI professionals ad nauseum for at least the last 15 years, this horribly brief piece puts forth only one positive argument that virtual learning is best, and only one negative argument. Both arguments miss many points, enough to make me question whether the contributors involved were asked to cram as much as they could into a few short paragraphs. This article's inclusion in a year-end roundup is a head-scratcher, when surely there was something else of more value to communicate. The actual answer to the article's question is that neither form is going to disappear at any immediately foreseeable point, both have their uses, and both are more likely to increasingly meet in the middle as technology matures.

The other item that raises my ire today, is the apparent rise in false dichotomies, which pit one paradigm against another, and seemingly always failing to consider whether both may actually be contributing something. Take Change Management vs. Change Leadership and Social Media vs. Knowledge Management for example. This is classic one-or-the-other-ism that really doesn't do the professionals reading any service. Can the industry move away from presenting these often false choices?

Economic Woes Affect Even the Most Entrenched Corporate Culture

I recently finished reading Jeffrey Liker's The Toyota Way. It's a very interesting look inside the company and process that has had many a corporation, big and small, trying to emulate Toyota's success, whether in manufacturing, or other industries. From a performance improvement perspective, the book's exposition on Toyota's culture and worldview makes an engaging case study.

One of the key points I readily recall from the book is Toyota's relationship with its suppliers. As a company, Toyota has typically taken a constructive, bridge-building approach that essentially brought their suppliers "with" them on their manufacturing journey, so to speak. If the supplier could not fulfill a need, Toyota would help them improve to meet that need, as well as adopt Toyota's 14-point process and outlook. In contrast, Toyota's other competitors, particularly the Big 3, took a carrot-and-stick approach to suppliers, acting punitively if problems arose.

It seems though that the economy is forcing even Toyota to start taking a harder line, as outlets like Autoblog and Autoline are now reporting that the company has taken to acting more like its competitors. Granted, Toyota's situation has not been good as of late, what with the tragic earthquake in Japan this past March, which appears to have hit Toyota's business more so than Honda's or Nissan's. Add to this the global economic woes, and perhaps the change in tune is to be expected. But, this seems to have been in the works for at least the last couple years now.

Nevertheless, it is disconcerting to see a company so known for its uniqueness amongst large manufacturers to be changing its tune, particularly since their human performance legacy has been one of remarkable success over the last 40 years.

Hold On a Minute...

CLO magazine has a good, quick article that highlights what I think is an important point, especially for WLP professionals to consider. The article discusses the pitfalls of implementing best practices, especially in the information age, when those practices could change every other month, if not more.

I think this point is similar to an answer I once heard a corporate executive give in response to the question: "Why don't we have a company vision statement?" The executive's response was that by creating a vision statement, and following that sort of guiding principle for the company, and all that comes with it, there is the potential for the company to lose the very focus it seeks. There are surely disagreements with this, and anything properly policed will tend to function well over time. But the implicit point behind the response is regarding company culture, and in my anecdote the company in question was one that had never previously adopted vision statements. No small thing for a very large international corporation to just decide to create a vision, and then organize everything to meet that mold.

I find that the CLO article relates in that relying too heavily on best practices - especially very highly detailed ones - could have the opposite effect, in "legalizing" specific ways of conducting major, common work. And if these practices are given too much weight, who will be in control of these practices, and how is the inevitable force of change going to be accounted for?

No, I'm not advocating a wholesale jettison of the best practices concept. The point is, like many initiatives, these will have to exist at the right level, and be malleable enough that they can change without internal cultural or productive disruption.

This needs to be said every day...

I checked my LinkedIn front page this morning to find this update posted by a contact of a friend of mine: "Great meeting with a Danish customer today. They had some timeless advice for marketers I wanted to share: simplicity is valuable, the only person you hurt when you badmouth the competition is yourself, "do what you say" and share your failures as well as your successes."

This isn't necessarily related to Performance Improvement, but I found this notable, because it's how I think about competitiveness in business. Sure you have to keep your eyes out for competitors and change in your industry. But the best strategy is to mind your own ship, and not try to improve through simple 1-to-1 comparisons of yourself and your opponents. If you take that focus, and your marketing is clear and easy to understand, your clients will start coming to you.

Information Overload and New Initiatives

A recent article over at CLO online talks about the problem of information overload in the workplace. The article talks about the impact of this problem on the quality of work, the morale of employees, and the amount of time information overload causes when people have to keep re-orienting to tasks they get pulled away from, or get prioritized into.

While the thrust of the article is about how to reduce and manage information overload, what I think this article partially highlights is the importance of the design and adoption of informal learning solutions for workplace learning and performance professionals. The explosion of new technologies for activities such as social networking, social media, collaboration, and the various means by which information can be made available in different content forms, means that people are going to be forced to choose, and some may adopt a new initiative for things like internal social networking or collaboration, but others may choose to stick with the tried-and-true methods that they drew success from prior to the new implementation. As is often the case in today's world, it's about change management.

I have been in situations where I've researched different options for an effective informal learning implementation, and the design that ends up taking hold (because time constraints are short and no time is given to experiment, a separate organizational concern) is the one I know most employees are going to use, rather than the one that may be more effective at connecting people with information, and put that ever-important content curation dimension in the hands of experts. The influence of existing practice and the it's-what-I-know factor can be a serious challenge when trying to change the information behaviors of an organization.

The lesson of the article above, for me, is that buy-in and a sensible implementation and marketing strategy to move an organization away from older, less efficient formal or informal information systems, is the key to an organization's success from transformational and learning perspectives.

What's the "High Concept, High Touch" Solution for Organizational Learning Today?

June's Big Question over at LCB asks how WLP professionals might break down organizational walls to learning. I recently read Daniel Pink's A Whole New Mind, and one of the central themes of the book is that we are in an age where we have to think more conceptually, and less analytically, partly because the tools to free our minds from rote work are readily available. I want to borrow that theme in my answer to the BQ.

From my perspective, one of the most impactful ways for WLP professionals to break down organizational walls to learning is to think about the 'big picture' of learning within their organization, or the wider organization in general. Ask questions:

• What is the organization trying to achieve in near and long term scenarios?
• What is happening with learning in the organization, right now?
• What isn't happening with learning in the organization, right now?
• What may be maintaining the 'walls'?
• What level of shift is needed?
• How feasible is that shift if it were begun today?

In short, what WLP professionals need to have is vision. Not vision statements, but what the concept of the high-performing, high-learning organization in their respective settings looks like. This "high concept" will be "high touch", meaning its maintenance will be a very active process. The tools will be myriad and the networking will need to be diverse and, well, interconnected. To use another analogy, WLP professionals will have to seek and create new relationships (Harold Jarche's response is one specific way), and curate them over time and other pockets of leadership and skills evolve.

What I'm describing isn't big on specifics, but no two organizations are alike, and to twist a cliche, all learning is local. The point is that WLP professionals more than ever have the ability to couple the best our industry has to offer with the pulse of the organizations, and then facilitate the best possible solution (with a solid change management plan).

Easier said than done?

What does your organization spend on PM training?: http://ping.fm/cXKx7

CNBC puts a body on the annual March Madness vs. worker productivity "study": http://ping.fm/St1FF

Reducing Duplication...

I read about this in T+D's news. The four life aspects - body, mind, home, and community - that are the focus of DailyFeats' model immediately reminded me of Stewart Friedman's Total Leadership, which I read last year. Both use a four part model that helps individuals quantify what they are doing in each part of their life. Friedman's model, however, is more complete, I think. Friedman focuses on an individual's four life "circles" - Self, Family, Profession, and Community. Friedman then provides tools to help one address each of these areas equally, in an effort to develop one's self as a leader.

Comparing the two is a bit problematic, as DailyFeats' video explanation shows their model as a bit more rudimentary a total concept than Friedman's. It does use a good system of encouragement by integrating a point system. Nevertheless, the parallels are there. I think Friedman's model is more complete, and I would recommend you to pick that up, but the DailyFeats model has the power of social media behind it. I see an opportunity to combine the two successfully.