While there are many change models such as ADKAR, Kotter’s model, and McKinsey’s 7-S Framework, it can be easy to get so focused on the model that we overlook the fundamental key to change: people. Even then, we can overlook a fundamental key to helping people change: relationships.

Consider a change you’ve made or been part of. Perhaps it was learning a new piece of software, getting a new boss, or following a new rule. Next, think of the people who either mandated the change or helped you implement or adapt to it. Were they people who you trusted, respected, and made you feel cared for? Or, the opposite? Chances are that the change was easier to embrace if you viewed the people behind the change positively and had good relationships with them.

Good relationships are crucial to making change successful. If we believe someone has our best interest at heart, if they genuinely want to see us succeed, and if they know and treat us as a person instead of an object, we’re much more likely to want to change.

I recently met with a work team located in another country that faced resistance for years in trying to implement new programs. It didn’t matter to the recipients how great their programs were, what data they could provide to demonstrate their effectiveness, or how smart the team was. What made the difference was the team making the effort to build relationships, understand their culture, and demonstrate genuine care. Through their continued efforts to build relationships they developed trust, and this trust led to recipients embracing the team’s ideas, programs, and recommendations. It opened a window that would have otherwise remained closed and resulted in both parties working together on opposite sides of the glass.

On the contrary, I also recently witnessed a professional, multi-million dollar consulting firm try to implement process changes on behalf of senior leadership. Their approach was to make some quick assessments, tell people what they should do differently, and implement a “thou-shalt” approach. This approach was mirrored by senior leadership, who just made a few token appearances during implementation. As you might assume, the recipients felt objectified and resisted the change. All they had to do was nod and wait it out for things to return back to normal.

Building relationships takes time, and there is no shortcut. It also has to be genuine and without agenda. For example, waiting until you need something from someone before getting to know them will likely backfire. Instead, we can start getting to know the people who work with, for, and above us. For senior leaders, this means getting out of the office and visiting employees. For managers, it’s things like building coalitions with other managers. For individual contributors, it’s asking leaders for things like informational interviews.

That said, building relationships doesn’t need to involve hours of bearing one’s soul or being best friends with everyone. Learning and using people’s names, smiling when passing people in the hall, asking people for their ideas and recommendations, or a genuine “how are you doing?” can go a long way. And, things like asking questions and listening are always helpful. Then, when it comes time to change, we’re much more likely to say “yes.”

In exploring ways to build relationships that support change, consider the following questions:

• When you reflect on times when you’ve wanted others to change, how did the quality of your relationship affect the outcome?
• What gets in the way of you building relationships with people at work?
• What kinds of change are you wanting to implement, and how can you leverage your relationships to support that change?
• What are some approaches you can use to increase trust and connection with other people, both professionally and personally?

• Relying on one approach such as training, coaching, meetings, or imposing rules as the go-to answer to just about every problem (regardless of the problem)
• Looking for the latest “new and bright shiny object” or trend to solve problems (flavor-of-the-month)
• Focusing on symptoms instead of root causes

When taking such approaches, organizations get caught up in superficial solutions and a neverending fascination with tools. In other words, they focus on how to go about solving a problem instead of determining exactly what they’re solving for. In order to find sustainable solutions, we need to reverse this approach. We need to determine if, in fact, it’s actually a nail or something else like a screw, thumbtack, piece of tape, or block of wood. To do so, we need to emphasize the “what,” not the “how.”

Hammers vs. Nails

Organizational “nails” often get reduced to generalizations, symptoms, or assumptions. For example, a need for leadership development, issues around diversity, or challenges with turnover or production.

As those issues like those are reduced to nails, the organization whips out its go-to hammer and starts whacking away. The hammer could be implementing training, hiring a consultant, or imposing rules and policies.

The same approach can be used when creating new programs or initiatives. People get excited about using the latest trends such as personality assessments like Meyers-Briggs, processes like Lean Six Sigma, or management approaches like “Who Moved My Cheese?” and try to incorporate these “hammers” into organizational training. The hammer then becomes a toy that doesn’t even need a purpose – it’s just fun to swing around. These hammers aren’t necessarily bad – they just not might be the right tool for the job.

Beginning With the End in Mind

The key to creating change is to identify what the “nail” actually is using approaches like research, analysis, and/or dialogue. This helps uncover what it is that we’re trying to solve for. We need to answer questions like:

• Is there really an issue? And, if so, is the issue actually what we think it is or something else?
• What is behind the issue?
• What are people’s challenges in dealing with the issue, and what do they need to solve it?

Asking these questions helps reveal the true nail. For example, instead of leadership development, the “nail” could be about limited access to career development resources. Issues around diversity might actually be about fear of conflict rather than getting more facts or tools through training. Production problems could be related to outdated technology versus people needing to work harder. Through deeper inquiry, we might realize that the nail is actually a staple, screw, or splinter.

Now that we know the “what,” we can figure out the “how.” Instead of relying on our trusty hammer, we can use the staple remover, screwdriver, or pliers to solve the problem more quickly and effectively. The same principle applies when creating programs, training, or initiatives. By knowing what outcomes we want (based on our “nail”), we can incorporate the right approaches.

Expanding Our Toolbox

Knowing the “what” opens up endless possibilities around the “how.” We can use creative, customized, and tailored approaches instead of off-the-shelf or one-size-fits-all solutions. The more tools we have at our disposal, the more options we have to solve the problem.

Organizational “nails” are rarely as straightforward as a screw or a tack, so they typically require multiple tools. Sometimes those tools are used simultaneously, sometimes in sequence, and sometimes they’re all rolled into one. Sometimes we need to invent new tools. The bottom line, however, is that once we know what we’re solving for, we no longer need to rely on or force the hammer. By expanding our toolbox, we create solutions that produce impactful, dynamic, and sustained results.

When emphasizing the “what,” not the “how, some questions to ask might be:

• What are my go-to tools?
• What tempts or distracts me from getting to the “what” and causes me to get sidetracked by the “how”?
• How can I incorporate more tools into my toolbox (or, even better, collaborate and leverage other people’s tools)?
• What indicators tell me that I’ve discovered the true “what” around a given problem?
• What are some current situations in which I’m too focused on the “how” without being clear on the “what”?

If I’ve learned anything from my training experience, it’s this: I no longer believe in training as we know it.

The Trouble With Training

I love being a trainer. Every aspect, from designing the curriculum to teaching new concepts to helping students overcome obstacles, is gratifying for me. A day of training seems to go by in an hour. And yet, despite my love of training and the impact I’ve seen it have on students, I see many flaws with traditional training. The potential of training to make a significant impact has been reduced to a generic solution for just about any problem. Having interpersonal issues in your organization? Do a training. Need to address diversity? Do a training. Noticing leadership gaps? Do a training. Ad nauseum …

It’s not that training per se is the problem. What is the problem is a) training is used a quick-fix stopgap for underlying problems, b) most training is based on outdated models, and c) most training is generic and doesn’t address individual needs.

To go further, let’s look at elements of a typical training session:

• Held outside of the normal work environment, which yields results that are less integrated into the daily culture and environment
• Likely at least a couple of hours. Most people’s attention and ability to store information times out after about an hour. We only have the capacity to learn one or two things at one time, and need practice to actually do them well.
• Covers a variety of sub-topics. When I look at training I’ve attended and follow-up with participants from training, most people only use one or two things they were taught.
• Rooted in theory. Training covers principles, tools, and techniques, with minimal direct application.
• Emphasizes mental and intellectual stimulation. Training typically doesn’t include physical and emotional elements. This makes it harder to apply and integrate learning.
• Little to no follow-up. Most training has no follow-up or integration afterward. People return to their normal environment and quickly default to old patterns of behavior.
• Little to no systemic support. Pockets of individuals attend training, and when they return to work the principles are seldom practiced or supported by peers, leaders, or the organization as a whole.
• No tie-in to larger needs or objectives. Training typically makes people adapt to content instead of adapting content to people. This core reasons for the training aren’t relevant to its initial needs or serve its purpose.

Some of these points aren’t necessarily bad. For example, taking time to train outside of the work environment so as to eliminate distractions or introducing theory and principles has its place. However, when training includes at least three of the elements listed above, as it typically does, it becomes more of a hindrance than a help.

The Impact of Traditional Training

Unfortunately, the impact of training can and often has become quite negative. In my years of training, some of these include:

• Cynicism about doing “another training”
• Being taken away from work and needing to catch up afterward
• A lack of “bang for the buck” given the amount of time spent compared to the amount of return for that time
• Active resistance to what is being taught, especially if there’s a perceived hidden agenda, that trickles back into the culture
• Lack of faith in the ability of training to make a difference

Over time, training becomes something to dread rather than look forward to. Employees go through the motions, get their certificates, and then? Not much. A lot of time and money is invested with minimal return to show for it.

Re-Imagining Training

To make training effective, it’s important to identify its strengths and align them with what people need to get the most from it. If we look at what we need to best learn, we can adapt training to people instead of the other way around. Consider some basic principles:

• We can only typically learn, apply, and master one or two new ideas, concepts, or tools at one time
• To put those ideas, concepts, or tools into practice, we need sufficient time to practice using them
• We typically lose attention and/or reach capacity after an hour, at most
• Applying what we learn in our native environment provides context for application
• One of the most significant factors in sustaining change is the people with whom we surround ourselves
• The more senses we use, the easier it is to learn and retain information
• Using tools to suit our purpose instead of adapting our purpose to the tool provides practical applications that meet our needs for using the tools in the first place

Incorporating these principles means thinking outside the box and significantly altering how we approach training. In order to do this, we have to be willing to shed the old models and let go of what we know. If we apply the basic principles above, some elements for successful training would then include:

• Short, lasting no more than one hour
• Delivered in or as close to people’s regular work environment as possible
• Attending with existing teams or working groups
• Ongoing practice afterward with those same people
• Delivered in stages
• Content that people can apply to their personal situations
• Incorporating mental, physical, and emotional elements
• Clear purpose and objectives defined by the organization that is integrated into the curriculum

A Case Study in Re-Imagined Training

Recently, my colleagues and I decided to put these concepts into practice. We developed training (or a workshop, as we call it) to build skills in a couple of areas: effective meetings and professional 1:1 conversations. Not surprisingly, the results have been quite different. To align with the principle above, the workshops include:

• Conversations around personal experiences related to the topic
• Personal identification of strengths and weaknesses around the topic
• A simple model that participants use for self-reflection and point of reference
• Activities that elicit group discussion, debate, and alternative perspectives and experiences while providing new insights and approaches to the topic
• Two one-hour sessions held one week apart, with homework in between to test learning and report back
• Emphasis on only one or two self-identified actions to take in between sessions
• Held in participants’ work areas instead of classrooms, including normal meeting spaces and/or board rooms
• Approximately a 20/80 ratio of facilitator speaking to participant speaking

The results have been quite astounding, especially compared to the results I’ve seen in traditional training. Some things we’ve seen and heard from participants include:

• The hour goes by in no time and they can’t believe it’s already over (and they want more)
• Immediate and sustained application of content
• Quick results that reinforce participants continuing to use what they learned
• Group accountability around implementing solutions
• Leaving the workshop more energized and inspired instead of drained
• Content directly relates to their personal situation and needs (and leverages personal experience to bolster content)
• More engagement and learning from one another

Making Training Work For You (and Your Organization)

This is just a start towards a new paradigm of training. There are plenty of ways to make training concise, practical, and sustained. The key is to think about what people need and how to most effectively meet those needs. It may take some creativity and a willingness to try something new, but there are countless options. To take that next step, consider the following questions:

• When you think about training you’ve attended, how much did you use of what was taught (and still use today) compared to how much you didn’t? Of the things you do use, how could the training have centered around those tools or concepts?
• What problems is training trying to solve? How could those specific problems be directly addressed in the training (or even in other ways)?
• What activities do you find most engaging in training?
• How could your team and/or organization reinforce, practice, and apply takeaways from training?
• What would people want to learn from training, and how can the training be developed to provide that learning?

Clear roles and responsibilities.

The Significance of Clear Roles and Responsibilities

The lack of clear roles and responsibilities yields many symptoms that are often misdiagnosed. Leaders tend to focus on dealing with these symptoms without realizing how they are part of a bigger problem. In fact, about 80% of organizational dysfunction can be traced to unclear roles and responsibilities. Some examples of roles and responsibilities include:

• Standards and expectations
• Defined job duties
• Decision-making processes
• Protocols, procedures, processes, and policies
• A clear chain of command
• Sponsorship
• Written documentation

When these elements are vague or non-existent, organizations fall apart. Work stalls, confusion ensues, conflict escalates, waste increases, and energy drains.

The Impact of Unclear Roles and Responsibilities

Let’s look at some common misdiagnoses and some go-to strategies that usually don’t resolve the issue:

• Two teams are assigned to work together on a larger project. Team A is responsible for the final product, and Team B is responsible for improving the processes to produce the product. Team A withholds information, avoids Team B, and generally blows them off. The project manager keeps telling them to work it out themselves using mediation, communication, and conflict resolution skills.
• A leader tries to push through a change initiative but continually gets pushback from colleagues who say things like, “You’re not my boss.” Despite senior leadership endorsing the initiative and thinking it’s a great idea, the leader can’t get any traction. They try various change management strategies, but none seem to work.
• Meetings don’t seem to accomplish much. Participants have lots of dialogue and ideas, but afterward, nothing comes from the conversations. On top of that, the meetings are unfocused, go over the time allotted, and include people who don’t even need to be there. People give feedback on how everyone should stick to the agenda and come away with action items, but it just doesn’t seem to happen.
• Two colleagues are developing an idea together. Shawna, an engineer, is feeling drained from trying to give input that doesn’t seem to land. She also doesn’t want to overstep her bounds. Mario, a builder, doesn’t understand why Shawna is even involved given that she isn’t offering much practical guidance and that he is pretty confident in what he’s doing. Balls seem to keep being dropped. Despite trying to take accountability for their respective mistakes and using conflict resolution strategies, time is getting short without much to show for their effort.

These scenarios are like the story of Alexander the Great who, instead of trying to untie the Gordian knot, simply cut through it with a stroke of his sword. Instead of using various skill-based approaches, what’s really needed are clear roles and responsibilities.

The Way Forward: Clear Roles and Responsibilities

As I mentioned in the list above, there are various aspects of roles and responsibilities such as sponsorship, clear job duties, and established decision-making processes. Let’s revisit the above scenarios and see how some simple clarification addresses the core issue.

• Instead of the project manager forcing the teams to work out the issue themselves, they recognize that, as the manager of the project, they are in a sponsorship role. That means that it’s their job to set standards and expectations for project outcomes and define what each team’s role is in relation to the project. They need to make it clear to Team A how they expect them to work with and include Team B. This sets the guidelines and foundation for the teams to work together and establish a clear protocol for the project.
• The leader pushing through the change initiative needs active sponsorship from senior leadership, not just an endorsement. The leader needs to ask them to step in and publicly sanction the initiative and set expectations for engagement. Although this doesn’t (and shouldn’t) be in a Draconian way, some basic explanation for the “why” and encouraging participation lets everyone know that the initiative isn’t going away with some authority behind it.
• The meetings need the role of a clear leader who also assigns roles such as notetakers and timekeepers, creates the agenda, and aligns both the content and stakeholders to the desired outcomes. The team needs to decide on (or at least be aware of) what their decision-making process to move forward with ideas they discuss. They also need someone to capture action items based on those decisions, and someone to follow up with them.
• The two colleagues need to create an agreement for how they’ll work together and who will do what. Given her area of expertise, instead of wondering how to engage with Mario, Shawna can present approaches for how she’ll provide feedback and direction (format, frequency, etc.) to Mario and get his agreement on those approaches (or negotiate). Each can clarify what they need from the other person, and agree on who will do what at each step of the project. They can also decide how they’d like to make decisions for moving forward and stick to the process, as well as who will capture and follow up on actions.

Diagnosing and Discovering Roles and Responsibilities

Again, most dysfunction and difficulty stems back to unclear roles and responsibilities. The trick is figuring out how to clarify them. In times of trouble, below are some questions to help clarify. Most of the time, the answers will lead you to the solution.

• Can each person who is involved describe what their role is to everyone else?
• Can each person who is involved describe what everyone else’s role is?
• What is the process for making decisions?
• What is the process for tracking actions?
• Who is the clear sponsor (the person/people who can impose formal consequences should it come to that)? What level of engagement is needed from them?
• Does everyone know the standards, expectations, processes, or rules that are expected of everyone involved? If they don’t exist, who will create, communicate, and enforce them?