The $100 Hypothetical

As my home state emerges from lockdown, I reflect over the many months of confusion during the pandemic.

My fellow citizens were confounded by brain benders such as whether to wear a mask inside a ride-share vehicle; what qualifies as an “essential” item; and when one may travel beyond 5km from home.

No confusion over the Dine & Discover voucher scheme, however, whereby residents apply for $100 worth of credit to fund eligible recreation activities. As a populace, we nailed that one.

It is – by definition – an exemplar of the $100 Hypothetical.

The $100 Hypothetical is best explained by way of contrast.

In the context of corporate learning & development, consider the employee who complains of being overwhelmed by the number of search results returned by the online course library, yet happily uses Google which returns billions of results.

Who never posts messages to the corporate ESN, but avidly posts to Facebook; who never records a knowledge sharing video, yet uploads selfies to TikTok or Instagram with abandon; who refuses to use a software program until they’ve been formally trained in it, but jumps headfirst into a new app, phone or video game without ever crinkling the user manual.

The $100 Hypothetical holds that the same employee would readily find a relevant course in the online library …if they received $100 for doing so.

Similarly, they’d post plenty of messages to the corporate ESN, record loads of knowledge sharing videos, and find out how to do various tasks with the software …if each time they received a couple of pineapples.

The alternative

The $100 Hypothetical makes the point that whenever people don’t do something, it’s often not because they can’t, but because they won’t.

Which begs the question: Why not?

Well I’m not aware of anyone attending a course prior to using the likes of Google, Facebook, TikTok or Insta, so a lack of training evidently isn’t always a barrier to action. There must be other reasons; perhaps shyness, fear, laziness, apathy, pride, or myriad other human foibles.

Yet while it’s tempting to decry the poor attitudes of our colleagues, it’s important to recognise the common denominator: value.

They use Google because it connects them to the information they need. They post to Facebook because it enriches their relationship with friends and family. They upload selfies to TikTok or Insta because it’s fun or it boosts their ego. They figure out apps, phones and video games on the fly because they want to experience them immediately.

But they don’t perceive the value in pursuing similar activities at work.

If the theory of the $100 Hypothetical maintains the introduction of a financial reward would tip the balance in favour of action, the practice must be to supply an alternative source of value in the absence of direct cash.

In other words, what would motivate them to do it if they didn’t receive $100 for doing so?

The best of both worlds

There’s no point landing the perfect plane at the wrong airport.

That’s an analogy someone shared with me several years ago to explain Design Thinking, and it has resonated with me ever since for two reasons. Firstly, it exposes the solution-first approach that pervades the corporate sector; and secondly, it challenges our obsession with perfection.

When I look across the business landscape, I’m continually surprised by the decisions that some companies make on behalf of their customers, without those decisions being informed by said customers. It’s more prevalent then you might think. We humans are beset by bias, prejudice, arrogance and self-importance. We make assumptions and just know what is best for others. So we launch blind. No wonder so many initiatives fail.

Likewise I am continually surprised by the great lengths to which some companies go to ensure their product is flawless. All that time spent prior to launch represents time out of the market. And all those eggs put into the one basket means if it fails, it fails hard.

Design Thinking promises to overcome these problems by recasting the customer as the source of innovation rather than merely the recipient. Moreover, it’s agile – in the sense that it combines speed to market with continuous improvement.

Perhaps the most widely recognised variant of Design Thinking is the 5-stage framework espoused by Stanford University’s d.school. I won’t bother delving into its details when countless others have already done so. Suffice to say it involves empathising with your customers to find out what they really need; using those insights to define the problem you’ll solve for them; generating ideas for a potential solution; prototyping and testing (and modifying) the solution; prior to launching a minimum viable product (MVP).

Design Thinking is an iterative process, with an emphasis on cycles of learning: informing your decisions with intelligence; trying them out; failing fast; failing cheap; adapting; approaching ever closer to designing the right thing, and designing it right, to maximise its probability of success.

And it doesn’t end at launch. The MVP is a starting point, not an end point. In the heat of the market, the cycle of learning continues, and so the product evolves.

Of course Design Thinking has no shortage of detractors. One commentator likens it to syphilis (!) while others are even more offensive, calling it linear.

Much of the disdain appears to stem from the evangelism practised by fanbois who worship the idol of Design Thinking, the healer of all ills (including, no doubt, syphilis).

I also find the language of the protagonists sometimes misleading; for example, IDEO – the proponent of Human Centered Design, Design Thinking’s alter ego – claims “you’ll know that your solution will be a success because you’ve kept the very people you’re looking to serve at the heart of the process”. I know what they’re getting at, and I agree with the sentiment, but anyone with a freshman’s appreciation of statistics understands you can’t possibly know an outcome based on a sample. The best you can do is infer; or in layman’s terms, increase your confidence.

Nonetheless, I’m prepared to see past the breathless zeal and call myself an advocate of Design Thinking. Why? Because I consider it the best of both worlds: it’s evidence based, and it delivers.

Do your homework to check you’ll add real value, but get on with it and start adding that value now.

Over time, the value will grow.

7 tips for custodians of capability frameworks

Wow, my previous blog post elicited some rich comments from my peers in the L&D profession.

Reframing the capability framework was my first foray into publishing my thoughts on the subject, in which I argued in favour of using the oft-ignored resource as a tool to be proactive and add value to the business.

To everyone who contributed a comment, not only via my blog but also on Twitter and LinkedIn… thank you. Your insights have helped me shape my subsequent thoughts about capability frameworks and their implementation in an organisation.

I will now articulate these thoughts in the tried and tested form of a listicle.

If you are building, launching or managing your organisation’s capabilities, I invite you to consider my 7 tips for custodians of capability frameworks…

1. Leverage like a banker.

At the organisational level, the capabilities that drive success are strikingly similar across companies, sectors and industries. Unless you have incredibly unique needs, you probably don’t need to build a bespoke capability framework from the ground up.

Instead, consider buying a box set of capabilities from the experts in this sort of thing, or draw inspiration *ahem* from someone else who has shared theirs. (Hint: Search for a “leadership” capability framework.)

2. Refine like a sculptor.

No framework will perfectly model your organisation’s needs from the get-go.

Tweak the capabilities to better match the nature of the business, its values and its goals.

3. Release the dove.

I’ve witnessed a capability framework go through literally years of wordsmithing prior to launch, in spite of rapidly diminishing returns.

Lexiconic squabbles are a poor substitute for action. So be agile: Launch the not-yet-finished-but-still-quite-useful framework (MVP) now.

Then continuously improve it.

4. Evolve or die.

Consider your capability framework an organic document. It is never finished.

As the needs of the business change, so too must your people’s capabilities to remain relevant.

5. Sing from the same song sheet.

Apply the same capabilities to everyone across the organisation.

While technical capabilities will necessarily be different for the myriad job roles throughout your business, the organisational capabilities should be representative of the whole organisation’s commitment to performance.

For example, while Customer Focus is obviously relevant to the contact centre operator, is it any less so for the CEO? Conversely, while Innovation is obviously relevant to the CEO, is it any less so for the contact centre operator?

Having said that, the nature of a capability will necessarily be different across levels or leadership stages. For example, while the Customer Focus I and Innovation I capabilities that apply to the contact centre operator will be thematically similar to Customer Focus V and Innovation V that apply to the CEO, their pitches will differ in relation to their respective contexts.

6. Focus like an eagle.

Frameworks that comprise dozens of capabilities are unwieldy, overwhelming, and ultimately useless.

Not only do I suggest your framework comprise fewer rather than extra capabilities, but also that one or two are earmarked for special attention. These should align to the strategic imperatives of the business.

7. Use it or lose it.

A capability framework that remains unused is merely a bunch of words.

In my next blog post I will examine ways in which it can be used to add value at each stage of the employee lifecycle.

Reframing the capability framework

There once was a time when I didn’t respect the capability framework. I saw it as yet another example of HR fluff.

You want me to be innovative? No kidding. And collaborative? What a great idea! And you want me to focus on our customers? Crikey, why didn’t I think of that?!

But that was then, and this is now.

Now I realise that I severely underestimated the level of support that my colleagues seek in relation to their learning and development. As a digitally savvy L&D professional, I’ve had the temperament to recognise the capabilities I need – nay, want – to develop, the knowledge of how and where to develop them, and crucially the motivation to go ahead and do it.

But our target audience is not like us. While we live and breathe learning, they don’t. Far too many imho wait to be trained, and our boring, time-guzzling and ultimately useless offerings haven’t helped change their minds.

Yet even those who are motivated to learn struggle to do so effectively.

Sure, we’ve read about those intrepid millennials who circumnavigate the languid L&D department to develop their own skills via YouTube, MOOCs, user forums, meet-ups and the like; but for every one wunderkind is several hundred others scratching their heads once a year while they ponder what to put in their Individual Development Plan, before finally settling on “presentation skills”.

This is unacceptable!

While it’s admirable for L&D to be responsive to the business’s relentless requests for training, it’s time for us to break out of the cycle of reactivity. I put it to you that a capability framework can help us do that. It’s a tool we can use to be proactive.

If we inform the organisation of the capabilities that will improve our performance, enable individuals to assess these capabilities to identify those that are most relevant for their own development, and map meaningful learning opportunities against each one, we add value to the business.

In an era in which the ROI of the L&D department is being put under ever-increasing scrutiny, I suggest a value-added approach is long overdue.