Delivery methods and content for transition training vary greatly by level. At the supervisory level some portion of the learning might occur via web-based training (WBT). When classroom training is used, it often is delivered in-house during several sessions, possibly days or weeks apart. Roles, competencies, and systems are commonly taught at the same time using behavior modeling technology. First, trainees learn the importance of a role (e.g., performance coach) to their job success. Then, they learn the organization’s systems relative to that role (e.g., performance management systems). And finally, they learn, practice, and receive feedback on the behavioral skills needed to help a direct report set goals and review progress toward them (Byham & Pescuric, 1996). A meta-analysis of 97 studies of behavior modeling shows that it is uniquely and consistently effective in developing interaction skills (Taylor, 1994). Figure 12-1 outlines the learning process for a behavior modeling training module.

Figure 12-2 shows the typical content of a transition training program for new supervisors. Behavior modeling is used to deliver most of the content.

For the new middle manager, transition training programs rely more on discovery learning and experience sharing. Feedback from direct reports and peers often is integrated. Sessions are compacted into two or three days, and programs are usually delivered at a local hotel or the company training facility. As with transition training for new supervisors, all three of the components (what, how, and with) are usually addressed in the same program—some through behavior modeling training, and some through discussions and other means. Figure 12-3 shows the content of a typical middle-management program.

When people reach a level at which they have to be involved in strategy and long-range planning, and they must take an organizationwide view of what’s happening, they have reached general management. At this level transition training focuses more on roles. It is assumed that individuals reaching general management have developed sufficient behavioral competencies, such as planning or leading, and if not, that deficiency will be dealt with on a case-by-case, prescriptive basis (see the next section). It is also assumed that the individual has acquired knowledge of the organization’s systems or will acquire it as needed. The only thing that’s left is knowledge of the roles. Surprisingly, an increasing number of managers are reaching strategic leadership positions without a clear understanding of what they are responsible for—the roles they must play to assure organizational success—and if they know the roles, they aren’t very good at them. We believe that these knowledge and skill gaps have been caused by the elimination of organizational layers, such as “assistant to” and “deputy” positions, that provided excellent orientation opportunities in the past.

Shared participant feedback is an important learning element in higher-level programs. Broadening organizational knowledge and making contacts throughout the organization are major “bonus” outcomes. Until recently, internal strategic-level programs were rare, but now more and more organizations seem to be recognizing that many individuals entering senior management need an orientation to the roles they must play. Organizations are conducting programs to meet these needs.

A good example of an executive-level transition program that focuses on roles is DDI’s Strategic Leadership Experience^SM (SLE), which teaches the nine strategic leadership roles shown in Figure 12-4. The SLE uses a highly involving, computerized management game that allows participants to try the roles while running a simulated organization for “three years.” Participants realize the importance of the roles and gain insight into the effective behavior associated with each. They can compare their success at the game to that of their peers, which keeps them highly motivated. At the end of each business cycle (i.e., “year”) as well as at the end of the game, participants share insights and strategies.

Colleges and universities offer a cornucopia of learning opportunities to fit specific developmental needs. The challenge is finding the right course or series of courses that meets quality standards and pool members’ time constraints. When choosing university courses, remember that:

Despite the ubiquity and high quality of some academic courses, we have not seen much use for them in filling the specific development needs of Acceleration Pool members. These courses just aren’t flexible enough nor have enough bottom-line impact. An organization might be better to consider self-directed learning options, such as courses on “accounting for non-accountants” instead of conventional academic accounting courses.

Thousands of training programs specifically designed for managers and executives are available from colleges and universities throughout the world. These range from one- or two-day events to programs lasting eight weeks or more. The programs are offered on campus, at executive conference centers, or via the Internet. Because the choice of offerings is so varied, making smart buying decisions is difficult. A few words of advice:

In general longer executive education programs (8 to 15 weeks) are being discarded for shorter, more targeted programs. Companies want programs with “take-home value”—that is, programs that are topical and based on organizational issues. Shorter, open-enrollment courses sponsored by universities remain popular around the world, but there’s been little growth in their use except in Asian and developing countries. Instead, universities have noted much more interest in courses developed especially for organizations (Bassi, Cheney, & Lewis, 1998).

Organizations are beginning to recognize that getting executives into formal training programs is extremely difficult, and getting them to do web-based training, no matter how web savvy they are, is virtually impossible. An alternative is one-on-one training, in which an instructor delivers the same material covered in classroom training, but in a greatly abbreviated version that meets the executive’s specific business and personal needs.

One-on-one training is not the same as executive coaching, which usually involves helping the executive discover solutions to his or her problem situations—although there can be some elements of training in a coaching situation. A common application of one-on-one training occurs when an organization adopts a new companywide selection interviewing system. All supervisors and managers go through a two-day interviewer training program that provides them with opportunities to practice interviewing real-life job applicants and then receive feedback. Recognizing that the new system’s success hinges on modeling, support, and reinforcement by senior management, while also realizing the difficulty of getting senior managers into training, the organization arranges for each executive to receive a two-hour, condensed version of the training. This is followed by feedback on the executive’s use of the skills when the instructor observes the interviews with the people whom the executives would have had to interview anyway. The same instructor conducts both the two-day and the two-hour versions of the program. There usually is no follow-up for executives.

The best approach we have seen for building executives’ performance management skills (i.e., developing their own performance plans, critiquing and aligning the plans of others, discussing with their boss and their direct reports their achievement or failure to achieve goals) was built totally around one-on-one training. After one hour of teaching the basic principles, the instructor helped each executive complete a performance plan and also review the plans submitted by direct reports (tasks that the executives would have had to do anyway). Then the instructor and executive discussed how the executive should work with direct reports to improve the quality of their performance plans.

When it was time for them to review their direct reports’ success relative to the goals, the executives received another hour of one-on-one training, followed by a planning session on how they would handle each direct report’s performance discussion. If a problem was anticipated, the trainer and the executive role-played the discussion. The executive and the instructor sometimes met to debrief particularly difficult performance discussions. The instructor returned each year to provide help and insight. After three years all members of the senior management team were successfully using the performance management system—to the best of our knowledge, a first in North American industry. Implementing the system was expensive, but the results were well worth the investment. All executives felt that the increased clarity of purpose, from the specific strategy-related goals that were developed, paid for the cost of the instructor many times over.

As in the previous example, one-on-one executive training works very well when developing behavioral skills, such as interviewing, conducting performance management (appraisal) discussions, holding 360° or other feedback discussions, negotiating, coaching, and developing leadership talent. Both the cognitive material and the behavioral models can be presented, and the executive can role-play situations with the instructor. The instruction is timed so that it immediately precedes an opportunity for the executive to use the skills on the job. Then, in the ideal situation the instructor observes the real-life application and provides feedback.

One-on-one instruction does not work as well in the development of cognitive and management skills, such as analysis, judgment, and visionary leadership. The value of the classroom discussion is difficult to replicate in a one-on-one situation. Executive coaching is a better alternative (see Chapter 13).

When there are enough eligible participants, some organizations sponsor a half-day orientation program for the people entering the Acceleration Pool. This is not meant to build skills but to acquaint members with their responsibilities in the pool, the roles of the mentor and the coach, and the advantages of being in the pool. These orientations also provide information about the process for diagnosing development needs, preparing Development Action Plans, and building a Career Development Portfolio to document development. Representatives of the organization’s Human Resource department typically conduct these orientation sessions.

Organizations that have Acceleration Pools typically provide at least one development program specifically designed for pool members. These programs:

The content and timing of such events vary greatly. Programs can be held on- or off-site and typically last one to two weeks. Often the CEO attends portions of the program and sometimes leads sessions that stress major issues facing the organization. General Electric CEO Jack Welch, for example, is a strong proponent of involving top executives in management training. “I would never want to run this company without Crotonville (GE’s management training center in New York),” Welch told The Wall Street Journal. “About 5,000 people go through there each year. I will see 1,000 myself for four hours” (Hymowitz & Murray, 1999, pp. B1, B4).

Often such programs emphasize the unique strategic challenges facing top management. Organization-specific management games and case studies can be used to start discussions and spark insights. Outside speakers, such as investment analysts or management gurus, might be brought in to contribute as well.

Although the specifics of such programs vary, some general rules of thumb should be considered in determining activities. Typically, effective programs designed for Acceleration Pool members:

Many training experiences designed specifically for Acceleration Pool members use a variation of action learning, whereby teams of 6 to 16 people tackle real-life business problems or challenges outside their usual areas of expertise. The purpose of such assignments is to prepare participants to deal with strategic issues and develop decision-making tools and methods. Depending on the program’s design, participants also can learn the importance of networking, understand the different styles and methods represented by other members of their action learning team, practice leadership skills, and learn how to solve problems collaboratively in small groups.

For example, action learning assignments might involve tackling issues such as:

The action learning activity, which usually lasts from one to six months, is almost always preceded and followed by an off-site experience of three to five days. The first off-site experience prepares participants to tackle the action learning assignment by helping them understand its importance and its ramifications, and it gets them started by developing team spirit and formulating a plan for approaching their task. Teams then go off to work on their assignments. In the later classroom event, all the participants present their team’s recommendation to the other teams and the CEO or other senior managers. The before-and-after off-site experience, where several teams are in attendance, also provides the opportunity for other development activities, such as speeches by senior officers of the company. Some organizations also provide training in team leadership and other skills that can immediately be applied.

We have found that the key to effective action learning is ensuring that the task is meaningful to the organization. The best topics cut across organizational unit functions and deal with issues that are popularly accepted as in need of repair or that obviously fit with the organization’s strategic objectives. Having meaningful assignments instills in participants the sense that they are being trusted with an important issue. Most action learning teams are assigned a single topic, but some organizations provide a short list of topics from which teams can choose. Entire action learning teams are usually not involved in implementing their recommendations, but one or two team members might be. Because of the intense interest and “ownership” generated by team members’ participation, we advise that organizations keep the teams informed about what is happening with their recommendations. Even if their ideas are not implemented, understanding the reasons why will help their development.

Action learning teams should be diverse and include people from throughout the organization and around the world, with appropriate race and gender representation. Teams often are virtual, but some have periodic face-to-face meetings. Also, an action learning experience might involve considerable travel while the team collects basic data.

Some organizations take members of an action learning team away from their jobs for the duration of their project. Most, however, make participation an extra assignment, thereby adding to the stress of already-busy executive candidates. The managers of Acceleration Pool members who are on action learning teams should understand that their charges’ participation will consume a significant amount of time.

Many organizations assign executives to advise (or sponsor) each project team. These advisors are well versed in the issues being researched and can provide background information and answer questions as they crop up. An advisor’s most important duty is to ensure the team doesn’t get too far off track. In most settings advisors should be careful not to make recommendations to the team—their job is to provide support and open doors. The idea behind action learning is to get a fresh perspective from the team, and thus, the advisor should not become an expert who dominates the process.

In addition, organizations often provide coaches who are experts in group dynamics and personal development. These professional coaches are typically involved as the team is forming, especially if there is some kind of team-building activity designed to get the team off to a good start. Also, coaches help each team member set specific learning objectives for the action learning experience. This is important because pool members will benefit most from a program if they have targeted personal development needs beforehand. The professional coaches periodically check in with the team during the action learning experience and provide feedback based on their observations and the results of team member surveys.

It is extremely important for action learning team members to recognize that there are two purposes for their participation: to come up with a good plan or recommendation and to develop decision-making and interpersonal skills. This is where the professional coaches can really add value. Some teams begin each meeting with a discussion of what they have learned individually since the last meeting; others use some sort of journal to document what they’ve learned as individuals and as a team. It’s crucial that in the final team meeting after presenting their recommendations, team members have a chance to focus on the quality of their recommendations, their individual learning, and how the learning can be applied to their jobs. Again, coaches are very helpful in this process.

Action learning programs are effective because they get people heavily involved in the activity. If a program is designed correctly, team members are totally committed and enthusiastic and are truly at a teachable moment—a time when they are open to trying and learning new things. In our experience it is amazing to see how quickly people become experts in areas totally outside of their normal work. They are highly motivated because the projects are typically more strategic and more challenging than any initiatives they have ever had to deal with before.

While traditional action learning teams are built around group projects, it is becoming more common to have each team member take on an individual project. Team members then coach their teammates and support one another’s efforts. Often, the project involves applying a concept learned during a previous skills-training segment. For example, each team member might decide to introduce empowerment into their work units and document the results.

We know of a midsize, high-tech organization that decided its teams would tackle “change.” The organization had become less nimble than it once was, and the management team thought the organization was becoming bureaucratic and not as willing to accept new initiatives. To tackle these issues, the management team divided their 12 Acceleration Pool members into two teams of 6. Each mid-management participant on each team chose an area in which he or she would make some significant changes. Team members discussed their goals and their plans for implementing each change. Then they began the implementation, checking their progress with one another every other week. At the end of the allotted time (six months), they met again to compare notes and make a presentation to the senior management team that summarized their individual accomplishments and discussed their combined learning.

A few companies, mostly in the United Kingdom, are experimenting with individual action learning projects in which the participants are from different companies. They report considerable success, especially at higher organizational levels where it is difficult for one company to come up with a sufficient number of high-level people to form a team.

A good place to start is by comparing your organization’s training efforts against a list of essential components of effective training programs, making sure you are using the most effective strategies and training delivery options. Each of your organization’s training opportunities should be weighed against these 11 components of effective training:

Are you using the most cost-effective and efficient mode of training delivery, including self-directed learning via CD-ROM, the Internet, company intranets, and distance learning via videoconferencing?

We discuss the strengths and weaknesses of various categories of training that are popular in executive development, including:

Some development needs covered are business strategy, ethics, judgment, planning and organization, negotiation, interaction skills, attitudes, knowledge, values, and technical skills.

It’s easy to get fooled when purchasing training. Vendors often make claims with no documented evidence. Purchases often are based on the prestige of the organization or one of its speakers. In this section on the web site, we discuss training program evaluation and answer questions such as, “How is training effectiveness evaluated?” and “When should a research study be required?”

By providing this information on training, we are not attempting to make the executive reader a training expert. Rather, we are trying to make the executive a more educated consumer of training. A lot of money is wasted by putting the wrong person in the wrong training program that’s delivered in the wrong way and at the wrong time in the person’s career.