​Regardless of what level of the organization you are being promoted to, you need to be onboarded. If there isn't a plan for that, create one yourself or with the help of your HR organization. Here are a few other tips: ​A manager's focus is on the team he or she manages.  The job is to build the team.    In contrast, a leader's focus is on the future (strategy) of the organization.  The job is to build the capacity to thrive in the future.  These are very different jobs and moving between them can be a challenge.   Identify people who have a job similar to the one you are promoted into.  Figure out who the best ones are, and observe what they do and say.  Figure out who the weakest are, and observe the same.   Seek first to collaborate.  Competition usually creates a battle and someone will lose.   Do research on the goals of the organization and make sure you understand the boundaries of those goals at your new level.  Know the playing field as quickly as possible.  Invest in leadership opportunities and learning.  There are so many wonderful programs online. Consider joining a peer group outside of your organization for additional perspectives.  If you end up managing people who used to be your peers, check out the wonderful book and guide by Kevin Eikenberry titled Bud to Boss. 

Some of you know that I have a passion for Accelerated Learning (my first book was The Accelerated Learning Fieldbook)and the research around how people learn.   At the end of our two day workshop on Accelerated Learning, I would always play the video. The song still moves me.  It's in Every One Us, especially YOU. Pull it out and use it.   It's in everyone of us to be wise, Find your heart, open up both your eyes, We can all know everything without ever knowing why, It's in everyone of us by and by ..  It's in everyone of us, I just remembered, it's like I been sleeping for years, I'm not awake as I can be but my seeing is better, I can see ..through the tears,  I've been realizing that, I bought this ticket and watching only half of the show,  There is scenery and lights and a cast of thousands, Who all know what I know, And it's good that it's so ..  It's in everyone of us to be wise, Find your heart, open up both your eyes, We can all know everything without ever knowing why, It's in everyone of us by and by .. 

The most important part of mapping your career is realizing "If it's to be, it's up to me".  Waiting for your boss or HR to give you your Career Map clearly proves that you're not responsible for your own growth.  In addition, implementing a Career Map created without you is not an uplifting experience.     Here's an example of a Career Map.  Notice it is different than a Career Plan.  Plans have a specific path and outcome.  Maps have alternate routes, which is a priority in our approach to ©Talent GPS.  To build a Career Map, consider the following questions:   What types of work really makes my heart sing? You may change this answer at any time as you experience different types of work.  Consider volunteering to do different types of projects to learn about all the new and redefined jobs people do. Leverage your DISC behavioral strengths and your Driving Forces (priorities) to map to the job you think is best for you.  Learn more from our white paper.What income is best for my goals? Does it align with the type of work I want to do?  It's brutal, but if you really like to make donuts, it will be more difficult to pull down a $100K salary.  This is the internal choice each person must make - what is most important to me and what are the trade offs I'm willing to make.  All answers are correct if you make them for yourself. What are my options? Build branches for the types of work you have decided to go after.  Put an income range on each of these branches (check out job boards to validate the income in your area).   Add smaller branches from the trunk of the tree to the end of each branch with steps you'll take to get to the work  and income you desire.  If you want, put dates on the little branches - 1, 5 and 10 years out.   Put life events on the little branches if it's relevant.  For example, if you plan to have children, move, etc. consider how these play into your branches.     Share with your boss.    Here's a sketch:  There may be a 'secret list' at high levels of organizations with people who have been identified as high performers.  Networking while contributing positively to the organization can get you on that list if you are not on it.  Having the ability to navigate politics is a key driving force (Commanding) if you seek to climb.  If you are climbing simply for the salary, I recommend that you reconsider the golden handcuffs you are about to add to your accessories. They will get really tight down the road.   If you are climbing because you believe you can make a positive impact on the organization, go for it. You can change your choice at any time.   The Career Map above makes your goals for promotion explicit.  

​One of the most effective Succession Planning I've seen was at Medco (now Express Scripts).  The organization had an open, shared process that enforced  that if you wanted to be promoted, be ready with your replacement.  Clearly, moving a talented supervisor or practitioner to another job leaves a hole in the organization that can be disruptive.  Medco believed that the individual who wants to be promoted must be ready to replace themselves.  This means you must encourage the creation of explicit Succession Plans for those who you think can replace you quickly. Usually this requires discussion with your boss and with HR specialists. Your candidate’s Career Map becomes your Succession Map.   Career Maps face up to your future and Succession Maps face across and down, looking for who will replace you when you move on.   This process should start the minute you are promoted into a job.  An intentional process for identifying your successor is a project, and requires documenting the steps clearly.  Here's a sample:   Identify the 1-3 people who have the most potential to replace you when you are promoted. Create a Job Benchmark and run Gap Reports (see Gap Report sample above) to verify that your choices are minimally biased.  Work with each person individually to create a plan to apply for your job.  Remember, it is their job with your guidance to create their Career Map (above).  Do not promise the job and be very careful not to set up the people to compete against each other which could create a disruptive culture in the team.   If possible, provide everyone in your team feedback and explain your criteria for the choices you've made so no one is whispering and conniving in the background instead of working.   Revisit the Job Benchmark every year in case the scope of the team responsibilities has changed.  

Leadership is not something you do to people. It’s something you do with people. I have believed this statement my entire career—and it might be even more important now than it was 35 years ago. Workforces are more diverse, workplaces are less centralized, and technology continues to revolutionize how business is conducted and how people communicate. The most successful leaders are the ones who partner with their staff. Partnership starts with clear and frequent communication. Leaders must establish a rhythm or consistent schedule of discussions with team members. I suggest that leaders meet at least once a week, for 30 minutes with each direct report. That might sound like a lot of extra work, but I guarantee if you spend this time you’ll create trusting relationships with your team that will improve morale and productivity in your department. Use these meetings to work with your team member to set clear goals, to praise progress on tasks, to redirect efforts if necessary, and to celebrate the completion of each project. It is critical that the leader and team member participate equally in these meetings, speak their truths, and listen with the intent of learning something—not judging. Some of you reading this might be saying, "This isn’t new information." You’re right it isn’t—but it is such a simple truth of leadership that I want to remind people again and again. You’ve probably heard me say that the information I provide for leaders is just common sense. But I also say that my philosophy isn’t always commonly practiced. My goal is to have every leader start having these important conversations with their teams. I urge you to partner with each team member to help them be successful. So, I provide this reminder for you to be a leader that makes this common sense, common practice. You’ll soon realize how a small investment of time spent partnering with your people will build a stronger, more self-reliant team.

In our research on successful projects, leaders and teams, we've found that there are two key needs that employees have:  Clarity around the purpose of their work (Why am I doing this?)  A bad example to prove the need: A senior IT leader is trying to explain some system issues to the business sponsor.  The sponsor says "Did I ask you what was wrong?  Did I ask for your advice?  Just make the change I told you to make. "   This type of conversation is not uncommon.  In our crazed addiction to juggling multiple tasks, projects and work, we have little time to listen to each other.  The outcome? Impulsive decisions which drive irritating rework down the road and destroy collaboration between the people involved going forward.  It's very expensive and very unnecessary.    Ability to measure and make an impact   A bad example to prove the need: A company was struggling with very low engagement numbers in their annual survey.  They knew they had already lost some good people to other companies.  To raise engagement scores, they pulled people out of their work for Happy Hours.  Months later, when they re-distributed the survey, the engagement had gone DOWN.  Turns out, Happy Hour was just another task added to an already overloaded day for most employees.  The next step was to run the TTI Success Insights Stress Quotient, which measures the actual components causing the stress.  The results? People were overworked and the organization was under stress.  They were fine with each other (so Happy Hour was not needed) but they were tired and frustrated.  The company acknowledged the need to the employees and hired  more people. The engagement scores went up.   Look at the questions on your engagement survey and see if they are answering the questions you need answered.  Are you asking questions like this?  What if you asked people to rate the following statements from 1 Not True to 9 True:  I clearly understand why I do the work that I do and what purpose it serves in the organization.  My daily work allows me to makes a positive impact on this organization.  The responsibility of each individual is to be an equal player in any discussion around engagement.  He or she gets to choose whether to be engaged or not.  It is a choice, not a virus. Each employee is responsible for stating clearly to his or her manager what is needed to meet these two goals for them.  Sure, the manager should be asking but if not, each individual has the right and responsibility to ask.  If you want to be promoted, do more good than others, then ask for the promotion explaining why you are the best candidate.   Choose your path.   

There are hilarious stories (many involving me) about hiring disasters based on our personal beliefs that we can 'read' whether a person will be a good employee or not.  By the way, you can't.  Nobody can.  You might have gotten lucky once or twice but there are huge problems with this:   There are no tricky questions that guarantee your candidate is capable or motivated to do the job you want them to do.  You come with pretty strong biases that you are not aware of.  These filters prevent you from being honest with yourself when hiring.    A big problem with hiring is your current Job Description.  It likely has 10 - 15 competencies that you expect the person to be able to do, in no particular order.  The candidate's resume has an additional 10 -15 competencies, promising brilliance in all of them.  The competencies themselves are not measurable, described with the same specificity as you describe 'World Peace'.  We believe that in general, disengaged less successful employees are not bad people, but they are likely in the wrong job for their strengths. In our Job Benchmark process, we facilitate the creation of 3 - 5 Key Accountabilities for a job based on input from SMEs and people who are currently doing the job well.  Key Accountabilities are measurable statements that describe the outcomes this person must contribute each and every day to support the vision of the organization.  Rather than look at how talented a candidate is at Communication Skills, the Key Accountability quantifies what you really need done, for example, 'Communicate with critical stakeholders to ensure project velocity is adequate for the business goals once a week'.  The next step in our process to build a benchmark is for the SMEs to describe the job with the Key Accountabilities. Next, these same experts complete our diagnostic Job Assessment and the results are 'smooshed' together into a Multiple Respondent Job Benchmark for that particular role.  It's good practice to test the benchmark on high and low performers to see how valid it is prior to using it in your hiring process.    Running a Gap Report compares each candidate to the benchmark for the job.  This allows you to see specifically the strengths, driving forces,  and competencies that are aligned (or not) with your unique job.  It also helps you compare candidates. You'll see areas for development which helps with onboarding (see below).  You'll find a sample Gap Report here.  We recently benchmarked five key Learning and Development roles using the Top 125 companies chosen by Training Magazine.  If you'd like to see the results, request our Free White Paper.

This month's "Nuts & Bolts" column examines social learning as it happens naturally, organically, as people go about their day:It’s not about ‘doing social.’ It’s about supporting workers as they work by giving them the time and the right space to talk about it. It’s about listening. And it’s about using social tools to support conversations and performance already in progress.upporting workers as they work by giving them the time and the right space to talk about it. It’s about listening. And it’s about uScenario A: An international company rolls out a new product. The trainers are thrilled with it and, despite some technical glitches, eagerly hop on to learn more about it. There isn’t much user support, so understanding more about specifics of the product proves to be a collaborative proposition. Trainers working with the product run into each other and talk, sometimes teaming up to work together.The company hasn’t provided any collaboration tools, so the trainers across locations begin talking in places like Facebook groups, Google communities, and Reddit. They share tips via text posts as well as screenshots, audio commentary, and video clips. A few create video tutorials about product features or shortcuts.Something like a community of practice—in which people work together to get better with the product—develops, showing hallmarks like a common vocabulary, accountability to the effort and each other, and in-jokes. There’s fun and energy around conversations. Master trainers emerge: Some commenters try to game the system but are mostly shut down by the other trainers. Some post wrong information, but it’s caught and corrected. The company keeps an eye on the activity and announces it will make adjustments to the product based on feedback gleaned from the community.Scenario B: An international company rolls out a new product. The trainers are thrilled with it and, despite some technical glitches, eagerly hop on to learn more about it. The company sets up an internal social platform that allows for text posts and photo attachments.Trainers are assigned to "communities"—separate discussion areas—based on their geographic location. The initial post on all forums is a disclaimer from HR advising trainers of guidelines for participating in discussions and reminding them of company communication policies. Each forum has a designated manager who facilitates conversation by supporting, redirecting, and if necessary deleting comments.Few people participate, and when they do they’re usually just posting a hint or two, complaining about a problem, or asking for help. Responses are sporadic, and back-and-forth conversation is minimal. People report glitches and offer ideas for improving the product, but the developers are not members of the communities, so the feedback never reaches them.Scenario B describes most failed initiatives at companies attempting to "do" social.Scenario A is … Pokémon Go.*You can access the rest of this article at Learning Solutions Magazine .

How Edward Tolman's experiments shaped our theories of learning. Edward Tolman's influential experiments with rats in the 1940's remain highly formative for the field of cognitive psychology, and continue to shape our discussions about learning theory. I suggested in the last blog post that his map analogies for cognitive processing might be another helpful way for us to think through "desirable difficulties" as an approach to learning.So let's look at his experiment more closely to see what I mean. Tolman's lab set up mazes for three different groups of rats, with each rat released into the same maze every day for 22 days. Each rat in the first group was released into a maze where food was placed at the end for all 22 days. Each rat in the second group was released into a maze every day for 22 days, but no food was ever left at the end. The third group was given the same 22-day test in a maze, except food was placed at the end of the maze starting on the 11th day. It was the performance of this third group that got the researchers' attention. The rats in all three groups were measured for speed (time from beginning to end of the maze) and number of mistakes (wrong turns). On day 12--the first day after the third group found food at the end of the maze--the third group's performance improved dramatically. While the first group's performance had been the best up until that point, the third group's improved immediately and surpassed both of the other groups.​The scientists interpreted the results of these experiments to mean a couple things, at least: one, that those rats in the third group were learning even without obvious incentives (this has been called "latent" learning, and we will discuss that in a later blog post); and two, that as all the rats were learning the maze, they were creating cognitive "maps." Those rats that were rewarded with food from the beginning learned the route but not as fully as the rats who first explored the whole maze without any reward, since the first group always stopped exploring once they found the reward. Once the reward was introduced to the third group of rats, they had the advantage of 11 days of wandering around and learning the entire maze, and thus were better able to retrace the route to the food.The concept of "desirable difficulty" was not part of the discussion about this set of experiments at the time--and it wasn't part of the questions that engendered the research to begin with--but it seems that we can read back on the experiment what scientists have learned about effort and learning: those rats that learned the maze best had to work harder for it, and did so by learning about the larger context of the maze through trial and error. And, Tolman and his colleagues have offered us the useful analogy of "mapping" for the way information is stored and processed in our brains.In our next post we will take up the question of how these results have been interpreted, and what the debate means for learning theory.

I usually know what direction north, south, east and west are but I still depend on my GPS (thank you Google Maps).  As I travel, I usually have an address for where I want to end up, but no clue how to navigate there.  GPS not only shows me the way, it also adjusts for problems with traffic and construction that I would never have been aware of.  I still get a little lost occasionally, but  I have to admit that usually happens when I go rogue and ignore the GPS.  Like most of you, I panic when it seems I may run out of charge on my phone before I get to my location.  I've become very dependent on my GPS.  Organizations are struggling with a similar problem.  It's difficult to map a route from hiring to retiring for all employees, a map that meets the needs of both the employee and the employer. There are two current popular challenges:    ENGAGEMENT - employees are not feeling good about their employment TALENT - it's increasingly difficult to find new employees who fit the job required  In many cases, we talk about these as two different issues, but in fact, these issues illustrate events that occur in the process of aligning people (talent) and work, or put another way, both are part of the map from hire to retire.  Instead of pretending that hiring, promoting, career planning and succession planning are all disconnected events, we must map a simple, clear way to glue the events together into a cohesive process.  This is the only hope to strategically align the people who work for us.  Building talent is a PROCESS not a series of EVENTS.    To speak holistically about growing employees into proud, aligned people who make an impact requires dispelling the current misconceptions:  Talent is a word that tricks us into forgetting that we are talking about individual lives.  Talent sounds anonymous;  our people are not.   Growing employees requires more than a training class, an LMS, a well-crafted survey, or any single event. Performance is built through ongoing trial and error, coaching and practice.  A great talent process means that your organization helps people get from where they are to where they want to go.  Not everyone wants to end up in the same place. Some may not want to go very far and may feel very secure staying put.  Some may want to reach for the stars.  All choices are good and a personalized approach to each person is critical to a great talent process. Talent development, talent management and talent all by itself are confusing terms and not used consistently across organizations.  Define these terms for your organization.  There is no magic software to build this process, but once built, many different types of software may help. Legality for the whole talent process is changing a lot, so be sure your process is compliant.   Do not wing talent.   RMA is currently researching and designing a realistic process to meet the growth needs of organizations and people.  Consulting on this process will be available from us beginning September 1st  and a book will (hopefully) be in your hands by the end of the year.  In the meantime, we'd like to share our initial research results and hope you'll send us your thoughts to add to our research on these critical issues.