Winning From Failing

Josh Seibert: The organization is Sandler Training. We are a Sandler Training Center. That is a global organization. We have training centers in, oh gosh, near 40 countries, and our purpose is training and development in the world of leadership, management, in the sales channel. And of course all the verticals that go along with that, so helping small to mid to even large corporate organizations build and develop their people for higher performance and better levels of success.

Personally, I started in the world of sales after leaving the United States Submarine Navy. [It] dropped me off in Charleston, South Carolina, and [I] began the world of sales in the insurance and financial services business. And that's where I learned the value of failure. I did that for a number of years, and climbing the corporate ladder in training and development, going through the rungs on the ladder of management to leadership, and finally ended up in the training and development division in that organization, until they wanted me to move to Newark, New Jersey. I've spent most of my years in the South and that wasn't in the cards. So that's when I found[ed] Sandler in 1999 and built a training and development center in the central part of North Carolina, with Sandler, and have been doing that happily ever since.

Rachel Salaman: What motivated you to write this book?

Josh Seibert: The motivation was to share our "why." Not only to describe the "how to do this," and what one should do to develop this learning culture, but really to express the "why." Our "why" is certainly different from our clients' "why," but we do this because we are one of the only training and development organizations in the world that embraces failure.

There's so much to be learned from failure, and you can actually win from it if you look at it from a different lens and make the paradigm shift. So I wrote the book to help learning organizations, to help management, leadership, understand too, as they're building their learning culture, a piece of that culture is to eliminate the fear of embracing failure.

Rachel Salaman: But it's interesting that your book actually doesn't focus on failure, does it? It's much more concerned with more positive aspects of the learning process.

Josh Seibert: Well the learning process, the positive aspects are what we want to gain: that's the result. So if we want to gain that positive result, we have to understand and learn from the failures, we have to embrace them, and actually, as I proposed in the book, pause them. You described in the introduction that, you know, we don't learn to ride a bicycle as a youngster by not losing our balance and falling off. That's part of the process, and unless we're allowed to do those things, we never really grow.

Rachel Salaman: Your book is primarily aimed at salespeople or trainers of salespeople – what does it offer people who work in other functions?

Josh Seibert: Good question. I had to choose a discipline that I was very familiar with, and I've been in sales my entire life, but this in fact applies to all learning. The overall purpose of the book is creating a learning culture for high performance. It doesn't just have to be in sales, although our expertise is in that sales channel.

Rachel Salaman: You start the book by saying that adults don't learn the way most people think they do. What do you mean by that?

Josh Seibert: Well, after we go through our elementary learning process, and our advanced learning process, and we enter the workforce, we tend to forget how we learned through that. So, what we see in the corporate environment is we oversimplify the adult learning process.

"All you gotta do..." – I hear that all the time. "Well, all you gotta do is read this book, you'll be fine." "All you gotta do is repeat this and recite this for 30 days and you'll be fixed." And, "All you gotta do is attend this seminar or this workshop and everything is good." Adults don't learn just by being exposed to newfound knowledge, although a lot of training stops at the knowledge level.

So, knowledge transfer is not how we learn, it's a piece of the puzzle of how we learn. And there's a process to be followed – it's not just the knowledge, Rachel, that we gain, but it's how we apply that knowledge. Because newfound knowledge in a book or a course or a seminar has to be adapted and applied in every given situation.

Unless we're mechanical, it applies in human relations. So every human is different, every situation is different and needs to be treated differently, so we have to take that knowledge and we have to figure out how to adapt it and apply it appropriately in every given situation.

As we do that, adults learn how to do that, they become skilled, and we become skilled at that application so that it's more automatic. Hence we own that skill, it's not just something we learned in a classroom but we own that skill. And then, as a process of owning it, we can apply it without thinking, we don't have to think about which skill do we pull off the shelf and use in this certain situation; it's automatic. So we gain courage, and as we gain courage from that, from that skill building, we develop habits, and those habits are the behaviors necessary to get the new result. That path is how we learn. That's how adults learn, not just by being exposed to newfound knowledge, it's what we do with that knowledge that causes the learning.

Rachel Salaman: And you call this in the book "going from knowing to owning," two words that you've just used in your explanation. Can you tell us a little bit more about that process?

Josh Seibert: Typically, organizations look to training as a solution to correcting a result. "We're not getting the performance that we need, we're not getting the end numbers that we need, we're not getting the efficiency or effectiveness that we need, so we must do training." So it must be a training problem, OK. So, to get a new result we must change our behavior.

First and foremost we have to think about what is the endgame, what is the result we want, and what behaviors do we want to establish. And, as I just described, to get that sustainable behavioral change, we have to go from knowing what we're doing inappropriately, incorrectly, inefficiently, knowing what it looks like, and then filling in the gap.

You see, there's new performance standards and new behaviors that we've identified to drive that new result, and we have to own those. We must personally, individually, own those new behaviors. And owning means we believe they're ours, we have confidence in them, and therefore we use those behaviors as opposed to the ones that were getting us the previous result. Hence going from knowing something to owning it.

Rachel Salaman: Now, we've talked a little bit about training, but training means different things to different people. Just so we're clear at this point, what do you mean by that term, and how does it relate to other terms, like development and, indeed, learning?

Josh Seibert: Everyone has their own explanation, but here's how I depict it and how I found it: training is overused and abused, I think, in the world and in the industry. My experience is that, oftentimes, training is a disciplinary tool, so: "If you aren't performing, then we'll send you to training so we can check the box, and therefore if you don't perform before we've done our job, we're protected, we can fire you." Inappropriately, unfortunately, in the world, it may be used from that perspective.

It's also used for onboarding, to educate, to bring someone up to speed. It's used as, also sometimes, a reward. So, it's used for many different things. But in my world, training should be viewed as a step on a staircase we call "development," to get to that next level that we want to get to, and we need to gain and grow to the next platform. And those are the development growth platforms of life and of our roles as we play in succession planning. So, to get to that next level, training is important, but training itself won't get us there without a development strategy that it fits in.

So, think of training as a tactical step in the development strategy, and learning happens along the way.

Rachel Salaman: Now, early on in your book you stress the importance of managers in the learning and development process. Could you expand on that idea?

Josh Seibert: In a traditional world, oftentimes we find that it's the employee, the workers, the sales people, whomever they might be, they are sent to training by the manager in hopes that some of that will sink in and it will help them – maybe because it helped the manager at one time. So they send them to training.

Now, the unfortunate part is, they get a lot of information in their training. But there's a rule that we use, and we know in the world of training and development, that 90 percent in 90 days (so remember that rule, 90 percent in 90 days): 90 percent of what we learn and experience in a training event will be lost or unused after 90 days, if it's not supported.

If training is going to work, and if the training program is efficient, it's effective, there has to be management support to help integrate that on the job, after the training is over. Because training tends to end, and when it's over, if there's no ongoing reinforcement and development for that individual, they'll retain the 10 percent, typically speaking. After 90 days, they'll retain the 10 percent that happens to be comfortable for them, and the rest of it is in a binder on a shelf next to all the other binders that are there.

So, we always start with management first. If management is prepared to coach, to mentor, to continue the development of that individual and they're involved in the individuals… they're responsible for much higher ROI on the training and development investment, than [they] ever would be by sending someone to training and the manager is not prepared to support it.

Rachel Salaman: So how can managers make sure that they really understand that process that you've just described, and that they're properly fulfilling that role?

Josh Seibert: Recognize first that there are four leadership roles for management. And we tend to spend a tremendous amount of time in a supervisory role, without development of the manager on how to engage with the other three roles, which are training, coaching and mentoring. If a manager doesn't know how to train, coach and mentor as a part of their supervisory role, then they'll tend to fall back upon those things they learned in the role prior to them accepting the role of management.

More often than not, managers are promoted based upon a principle that I call "PIE" – performance, image and exposure. It's the PIE formula for promotion. Organizations oftentimes will find their next manager by looking at people who are performing well in the technical role that they're doing on the job. Hence, let's use the role of sales, a high-performing salesperson is looked at as a possible next manager, yet the core competencies of management are completely different than the competencies to effectively sell. Where do they get that development for management? Oftentimes it's on the job, it's in the heat of the job.

So it first starts with a culture of developing management, and start with the core competencies of a manager, such that they can be more than a super salesperson in that role or a super technician in that role. They need to be a trainer in that role, they need to know how training and development works for their people.

They also need to be the best coach in the world, and training to be a coach is different from training to be a supervisor; training to be a mentor is different from being a coach or a trainer or a supervisor. So without that development of a manager, they'll tend to go back upon their strengths. If they were a good salesperson then they'll be a super salesperson and feel that that's the way that they ought to do it. If they were a technician then they're a super technician, and actually don't get results through people but with people, and that causes burnout and failure.

Rachel Salaman: So it's up to managers throughout the hierarchy to make sure that everybody knows how to get the best out of the people that they're managing?

Josh Seibert: Yes. Corporations who have learning cultures, who have developed a learning culture over time (and it takes time to develop this culture), avoid these pitfalls because they're constantly developing that learning culture. If everyone is growing, the entire organization grows. If everyone is growing professionally and personally, the entire organization benefits from that. The best investment an organization can make is in the people in the organization that drive that organization, we all know that. So if there's a learning culture that is always developing to the next level that individual, in their role or to the next role in the succession plan, that organization thrives.

You're listening to an Expert Interview, from Mind Tools.

Rachel Salaman: You say in the book that a strong learning culture and a strong culture of accountability are two sides of the same coin. Can you explain that?

Josh Seibert: Yes, a learning culture means we all have accountabilities, responsibilities in the role of developing the organization, which is a role of developing the people. So if we're going to have an organization that drives that engine, it works on what we call a three-legged stool. The trainer responsibility or training responsibilities has to be of good appropriate content, good curriculum, and it has to be delivered effectively and well done. If the trainer fails, then that leg of the stool fails and it will fall. We have to have the competent trainer, effective curriculum, and appropriate content for what we're trying to achieve – that's necessary, I think we can all agree to that.

But the second piece of that puzzle is we also have to have learners who are held accountable to learning, attending and checking the boxes and accountable for learning – there has to be accountabilities and responsibilities of a learner. As we always say in the training and development business, "We can't learn ya!" You have to take the responsibility of learning. You're the adult.

And learners have an accountability and a responsibility to learn. They have a role and a responsibility if they're going to be attending that training. We don't want hostages or vacationers in a training event, so those have to be described and agreed upon first, that that's their role and they're accountable and held accountable for not only attending but learning – and applying that learning that they have.

The manager also has an accountability, and management has to support that learning and training and development of that individual through mentoring. For example, if a manager is using a different system or a different technique than the learner is being trained to use, there's a gap. And it will never work, because the learner is watching the manager do something different than they have been trained or are trying to learn. There's a conflict: "Do what I say, not what I do" doesn't work in long-term development. So there's mentorship responsibility, that the manager has to know it at some level. (What I don't mean is that the manager has to be better than the trainee. In fact, I would prefer that the team is better than the leader.)

And lastly, that manager must be a good coach. The trainer cannot be in the field and provide just-in-time coaching and support for that learner to adopt the courage and the skills necessary. Skill building really happens in the field, that's where the real learning gets to that level of, "Do I have the confidence to adopt this behavior?" That happens on the job, in the field, and the trainer is never there with them, or rarely they're with them.

If you have those three legs of the stool, you have a learning culture that is energized in working. Take one leg out, the stool falls over.

Rachel Salaman: You say in the book that learners need to be both willing and able to learn, and you offer some clues for finding out if that's the case. Can you share some of those clues with us now?

Josh Seibert: Well, the ability to learn, you know, oftentimes it's something as simple as cognitive skills – do they have the ability to learn mentally, do they have the cognitive skills to be able to do that? And there are some forms of measure that one would know whether someone can learn, and oftentimes that's the easiest piece of the puzzle: can they do it, and do they have the resources to be able to do that? So we have to provide them the resources to be able to do that, as well – you can't learn it if you're not equipped, so if you don't have the tools, you don't have the time to be able to learn... they have to be afforded all of those elements so the learner is able to learn.

So if the expectation is that, "We're going to carve out a morning for you to go to a course, and then, when you come back on the job, you will have learned from that event, and the expectation is that you will apply it and everything will be good." Well, have we really provided the resources to take that learning event and actually learn, adopt and change from it? So if we don't provide them the resources, the ability to actually learn as opposed to the time to attend, there's a difference.

Now the willingness is the most important piece. We might be able to provide all the resources, but if we don't have a willing learner, someone who has the drive, the ambition, to actually go through the learning process, fail, the will to change, the will to grow... the old saying that you can bring the horses to water but you can't make them drink – that's where it applies. So if they don't have the desire and commitment, you won't find it in a training event.

Rachel Salaman: No. So what can a manager do if they suspect that his or her team members don't have that willingness?

Josh Seibert: Well hopefully it's not team members, plural.

Rachel Salaman: No, true!

Josh Seibert: Because if that's the case then we start with hiring someone else, and it might be the manager, so look at the root cause. But what we find is, first, hire the right people in the first place. Make sure that you've got the right people on your bus and the right people on the right seats of our bus. So the first thing that we oftentimes recommend: let's start with some core competency assessments, and let's find out if they have the core elements necessary to enter training and development, and where we should begin. So we do a bit of a gap analysis and that's where we start. So it doesn't start with training, it starts with assessment and benchmarking – we want to benchmark, where are our folks, so that when we put them in the training they're ready, willing and able to engage in that training and development.

So if I'm prepared as a manager, I'm a willing and able participant, so that when I spend my time and energy, that is a given. If I don't have a willing and able learner, through an assessment process or through observation, then before I put them in any training and development program I need to address those things first. I need to make certain that they do have the ambition, they do have the drive, and they do have the will. And if they don't, maybe it's because they're in the wrong seat on the bus, they're in the wrong position.

Maybe they have experienced burnout. Maybe they're experiencing some trauma at home. Now might not be the time. Until we can overcome those barriers, now might not be the time to invest in training and development with this person. It may be some coaching and counseling for that person before we inject them into the training room when they're distracted by these other things.

So let's do a survey, let's make certain, before we enter training, that we know, number one, we have willing and able participants, and number two, where their competencies are benchmarked. So that at the end of the day we know what gap we're trying to fill and we can measure it along the way.

The most important thing that we oftentimes miss, and I know we'll get to this, is if we're not prepared to measure training and development along the way, through that learning environment, if we're not prepared to measure at four different levels, we shouldn't be in training.

Rachel Salaman: Well, let's talk a bit more about measurement now, and evaluation of the success of a learning program. What are the most important measures of success?

Josh Seibert: There's an author by the name of Donald Kirkpatrick, who established the Kirkpatrick model, as it were, in 1959 (in an organization called ASTD back then, I won't go through that). And Kirkpatrick developed a theory that all training and development should be measured at four different levels, and I agree with that, I agree with that, it works.

Now, most organizations don't look at it that way, but if we adopt that model, we first start with the end in mind – what are we trying to accomplish that we're not accomplishing now? So what result, at the end of training and development, before we put these programs into place, what is it that we want as an end result. That's the first thing that we have to establish. And then from that, what behaviors need to be changed, what does the employee need to be doing – the manager, the technician, the salesperson – what does that salesperson need to be doing differently to drive that new result?

Now, there's many elements that are beyond training and development that might impact that new result. It might be the marketplace, it might be the economy, it might be the product itself. It could be a number of different things that will impact that new result, but a piece of it can be identified with, "What are the behavioral contributions to that result?" And that's where training and development of the, in this example, salesperson might come into play. They need to do something different than they're doing currently. And you can apply that to any role. So what are the behavioral changes that we're looking for?

So if we're looking for that behavioral change, that sustainable behavioral change, then we put a training and development program together along the way and we measure four different, specific measurements all the time, so that we can see how training and development is energizing all the elements to get that new result.

Those four levels must always be measured. Now typically, training organizations offer what we call "smile sheets", and that gets the measurement of reaction. And it measures, "Is the environment, the trainer, is the training appropriate?" So the reaction measurement says, "Yes, we feel..." It's a feeling: "How is the trainer, how is the environment, how is the content, was it professional?" It's that checklist at the end of most training events that say[s], "Did you like it?"

All that is important, but we also need to measure learning – did learning occur? So if we intended this training event, for example, to cause newfound knowledge, did it happen? Did the learner know something different than they knew before they walked into the training event? And that's a measurement. Was there a skill, were they expected to be able to perform a different skill, a newfound skill, and did that occur, did that measurement happen? So, those things in learning, do they know something and do they have new skills, those things need to be measured.

The next piece of the puzzle is, did their behavior change as a result of the training event? We must measure the behavioral change that happened on the job, in the field.

And the fourth measure is the result, how did that end result change. Those four measures are critical in any training and development strategy. It's not a ladder but a continuum, and that's why we illustrate it with the faders in the book, because we should be constantly watching those as a dashboard. We apply that everywhere from a learning event to the development of an employee or employees, to the overall performance of the organization.

Rachel Salaman: There's a section in your book about return on investment in training and development. What's your advice to managers who need to show that kind of return on investment to their bosses?

Josh Seibert: My biggest advice is don't engage in training and development until you've figured out and agreed upon an ROI before you begin. Without that, which is most organizations I find that engage in training and development, if they've not learned this from the beginning, what happens is they get appropriated dollars in funds to apply some training and development for the employees. They do it, and somewhere, a period of time after that, maybe a year later when budgets are up again, they ask the critical question, "What did we get for our money? We invested hundreds of thousands of dollars, so tell me, what did we get?" Well if it wasn't determined and agreed upon, what we should get from the beginning, then it goes down to, "Did we get better performance? Did we get a better result? Did our numbers go up?" So we invent those at the end because we didn't determine them at the beginning.

So, return on investment for training and development certainly should be looked at as a contributor to the overall result that we're looking to change. But it's a contributor, and more often than not, it's more of a contributor than it is the one-and-only factor for that performance improvement, for that result that we're looking to get.

So determine ROI in the beginning and agree on that in the beginning, that with this training event the return on the training and development investment needs to be defined. And if it cannot be supported only by training and development, what other contributing factors will be measured along, such that there's a true ROI, and training and development was measured as a part of that ROI. Always determine the ROI before you begin.

Rachel Salaman: Well, we've covered a lot of ground in this discussion. What are your top takeaways for managers who want to build and lead a strong corporate learning culture, starting today?

Josh Seibert: Start at the top. Without leadership involvement in building a learning culture, it will never happen. Don't delegate it. Number one, leaders cannot delegate the responsibility, they have to be involved from the top down, and not just by words but by behaviors. So it starts with leadership.

Number two, start with management development first, either in a training event or in overall training and development of your core employees. Management must learn first – their role as that applies to employee development, their role as it applies to it… A supervisor in that role, if all they're doing is learning how to supervise and put out fires and jump in and rescue, they're never going to get to that organization driving it, they will be the sole person that drives it, and no organization is dependent on one sole person – it's a team. So managers first, managers learn how to be coaches, how to be mentors, what the role in training and development is, as a part of their overall role in managing the organization. So, number two, start with management.

And, last but not least, make certain that there's an overall development strategy with the ROI first. If you're going to engage in training, know that training and development is part of learning, and that doesn't happen overnight. You didn't get to where you are overnight and it's unlikely that a training event will change your world overnight.

Rachel Salaman: Josh Seibert, thanks very much for joining me today.

Josh Seibert: It was a pleasure, Rachel!

Rachel Salaman: The name of Josh's book again is, "Winning from Failing: Build and Lead a Corporate Learning Culture for High Performance." I'll be back in a few weeks with another Expert Interview. Until then, goodbye.