Reflection – Learning Launch

Challenge

I work in the HR department of a multinational consulting firm with offices in diverse locations  including Europe, America, Africa, Middle East and Asia. We identified a problem with our profit share  program which was not driving the team collaboration that we wanted and was not linked to the  company’s strategy to drive innovation and collaboration.  We consider this a good “wicked” problem  to test because it is about human emotion, what people value and how they want to be recognised.

Based on secondary research from Deloitte Human Capital (not ethnographic tools) on the changing  nature of work and diverse and changing employee preferences, we developed a hypothesis (see  table) that we wanted to test.  Note that the business directive was that any new program could not  cost the company any more money.

From : Traditional Cash Profit Share  To: Link to strategy to drive innovation and  collaboration

Linked to profit  Linked to company strategy to drive innovation  and collaboration

Cash payments  Choice of development opportunities (eg  conferences, mentoring, team rewards)

Paid to individuals  Also focus on teams.  (As a consulting firm it is  essential that we recognise collaborating teams)

Annual payment  Recognise just in time - immediate

Formula for how distributed  Empower line managers to tailor rewards to  their team members

Selection

Our team had a prototype which had been approved by key stakeholders so we chose the learning  launch.  We thought that we had enough secondary research to proceed to this step.  We wanted to  test on a small group to mitigate risks of error.

Due to the diverse countries that we operate in, we decided to do two learning launches; the first in  New Zealand and also in Thailand (together they form about 5% of the total population).   We chose  these countries in order to ensure that we had a diverse population that would feature a range of  cultural preferences and leadership styles, that would enable us to test our assumptions and our  hypothesis that employees would value the greater choice and flexibility.

We were very conscious that remuneration and rewards can be an emotive issue for employees,  therefore we wanted to contain the sample size to only 5% of the total population in order to mitigate  risks of things going wrong.

Application

We followed the following steps:

1. Training and briefing of local HR and leadership in NZ and Thailand. We asked them to  gather their own stories about how they and others would benefit from the new approach, so  that they could tell these stories to the employees in their countries to make the idea more

real and concrete. The stories had to be “real” and come from the people in that location. The  stories included:

a. Araya in Bangkok would use her reward to engage an external mentor to help her  improve her network and therefore help her to take on tougher assignments in the  future.

b. A team of consultants in Auckland would use their reward to go to an “internet of  things” conference in Seattle.  This would help them to seed ideas for future business  growth.

c.  A team of consultants in Bangkok would use their fund to volunteer to provide water  improvement in a remote community.  This team valued creating innovative solutions  for sustainable development and the paid time off to do this.

2. We asked the HR team to work with the leadership in their country to write conversation  scripts to help them talk to their teams about what they value in rewards, so that they could  tailor the rewards to that particular individual and group.  We identified that line managers  would need support during the pilot.

3. At the end of launch we interviewed a small number of employees and line managers, using  ethnographic tools to understand and provide feedback on: the conversation they had with  their line manager/employee; how they chose their /the employee’s reward and why; describe  how it has made them/their employee cope with the changing workforce of the future; what  impact has this had on their career.

We decided to use ethnographic tools because we wanted to understand with greater detail  how people felt, what conversations took place and how individuals and teams were actually  impacted.  This would augment the secondary Deloitte research that we had used for  developing the prototype.

Insight

Based on the ethnographic interviews, we discovered the following:

•  Line managers in Thailand felt uncomfortable with the discretion and ambiguity.  They were  not used to having such conversations with their team members.  They were concerned about  lack of consistency, lack of guidelines, making poor decisions and feeling foolish with their  peers.

•  Line managers in New Zealand felt more comfortable with the greater flexibility.  They had  concerns about building expectations in team members that could not be fulfilled and that the  directive that this program not cost the business anymore funds was too restrictive.

•  Employees in Thailand were very excited by the new program and felt “liberated” to take a  more active role in their career.  However one of the interviewees said they would prefer  cash.

•  Employees in New Zealand were also very excited and felt empowered to use their funds to  propose innovative rewards that would test them professionally.  One noted that at university  they were taught to work in teams and felt that the company’s focus on rewarding teams was  essential for the company to be prepared to meet the challenges of the changing workplace of  the future.

The ethnographic testing, albeit a small sample, gave us better data on the personal and emotional  impact of this program. Our learning was that it would have been beneficial to have done this right at  the start.

However, the advantage of the learning launch is that it involved co-creation design in the gathering of  stories and visualisation cartoons and we found “champions” in the business who could help with  further development.  This co-creative energy was over and above the actual data findings from the  launch.

Approach

Based on the learning launch and findings, the team decided that there were a number of risks to  overcome before this program could be launched for all employees globally.  Our assumption that all  employees and line managers would value choice and flexibility was not universal when weighed  against the risk of losing cash and the uncertainty associated with having more discretion.  Whilst  there was strong support from employees in New Zealand, the cultural factors evident in Thailand  suggested that not all countries could be ready for this change.  Due to the program involving  remuneration, it was felt that this was too emotive to get wrong and that we should proceed  cautiously.

The following next steps were tabled:

1. Return to the design phase and include more diverse thinkers

2. Investigate if more funds could be allocated to the program (reflecting feedback from the NZ  line managers). This could make the program more impactful in application.

3. Consider how the program could be tailored to different geographies and what additional  training and support would be necessary. Would the business be prepared to have a different  program in Asia or is global consistency more strategically important?

4. Plan a third learning launch in Africa (subject to outcome of steps 1-3)

5. Share the personal stories and visualisation cartoons captured from the learning launches, on  the firm’s intranet.  Open a yammer conversation globally to build excitement and interest.   This would help to build a “cause” (as advocated by Victor Hernandez from Mars), perhaps for a  future roll out.

If we had our time again, we would have done ethnographic research right at the start and  involved more people in the design phase to co-create the prototype.  Our prototype was too well  developed before launch and employees and line managers were not involved in the co-creation.

On a personal level, I discovered that I was biased to seeing only the positive findings and I had  to be really objective to also appreciate the data that did not align to my assumptions and  hypothesis.


Reflection – Learning Launch Challenge I work in the HR department of a multinational consulting firm with offices in diverse locations including Europe , America , Africa , Middle East and Asia . We identified a problem with our profit share program which was not driving the team collaboration that we wanted and was not linked to the company ’s strategy to drive innovation and collaboration . We consider this a good “ wicked ” problem to test because it is about human emotion , what people value and how they want to be recognised . Based on secondary research from Deloitte Human Capital ( not ethnographic tools ) on the changing nature of work and diverse and changing employee preferences , we developed a hypothesis ( see table ) that we wanted to test . Note that the business directive was that any new program could not cost the company any more money . From : Traditional Cash Profit Share To : Link to strategy to drive innovation and collaboration Linked to profit Linked to company strategy to drive innovation and collaboration Cash payments Choice of development opportunities ( eg conferences , mentoring , team rewards ) Paid to individuals Also focus on teams . ( As a consulting firm it is essential that we recognise collaborating teams ) Annual payment Recognise just in time - immediate Formula for how distributed Empower line managers to tailor rewards to their team members Selection Our team had a prototype which had been approved by key stakeholders so we chose the learning launch . We thought that we had enough secondary research to proceed to this step . We wanted to test on a small group to mitigate risks of error . Due to the diverse countries that we operate in , we decided to do two learning launches ; the first in New Zealand and also in Thailand ( together they form about 5 % of the total population ) . We chose these countries in order to ensure that we had a diverse population that would feature a range of cultural preferences and leadership styles , that would enable us to test our assumptions and our hypothesis that employees would value the greater choice and flexibility . We were very conscious that remuneration and rewards can be an emotive issue for employees , therefore we wanted to contain the sample size to only 5 % of the total population in order to mitigate risks of things going wrong . Application We followed the following steps : 1 . Training and briefing of local HR and leadership in NZ and Thailand . We asked them to gather their own stories about how they and others would benefit from the new approach , so that they could tell these stories to the employees in their countries to make the idea more real and concrete . The stories had to be “ real ” and come from the people in that location . The stories included : a. Araya in Bangkok would use her reward to engage an external mentor to help her improve her network and therefore help her to take on tougher assignments in the future . b. A team of consultants in Auckland would use their reward to go to an “ internet of things ” conference in Seattle . This would help them to seed ideas for future business growth . c. A team of consultants in Bangkok would use their fund to volunteer to provide water improvement in a remote community . This team valued creating innovative solutions for sustainable development and the paid time off to do this . 2 . We asked the HR team to work with the leadership in their country to write conversation scripts to help them talk to their teams about what they value in rewards , so that they could tailor the rewards to that particular individual and group . We identified that line managers would need support during the pilot . 3 . At the end of launch we interviewed a small number of employees and line managers , using ethnographic tools to understand and provide feedback on : the conversation they had with their line manager / employee ; how they chose their /the employee ’s reward and why ; describe how it has made them / their employee cope with the changing workforce of the future ; what impact has this had on their career . We decided to use ethnographic tools because we wanted to understand with greater detail how people felt , what conversations took place and how individuals and teams were actually impacted . This would augment the secondary Deloitte research that we had used for developing the prototype . Insight Based on the ethnographic interviews , we discovered the following : • Line managers in Thailand felt uncomfortable with the discretion and ambiguity . They were not used to having such conversations with their team members . They were concerned about lack of consistency , lack of guidelines , making poor decisions and feeling foolish with their peers . • Line managers in New Zealand felt more comfortable with the greater flexibility . They had concerns about building expectations in team members that could not be fulfilled and that the directive that this program not cost the business anymore funds was too restrictive . • Employees in Thailand were very excited by the new program and felt “ liberated ” to take a more active role in their career . However one of the interviewees said they would prefer cash . • Employees in New Zealand were also very excited and felt empowered to use their funds to propose innovative rewards that would test them professionally . One noted that at university they were taught to work in teams and felt that the company ’s focus on rewarding teams was essential for the company to be prepared to meet the challenges of the changing workplace of the future . The ethnographic testing , albeit a small sample , gave us better data on the personal and emotional impact of this program . Our learning was that it would have been beneficial to have done this right at the start . However , the advantage of the learning launch is that it involved co - creation design in the gathering of stories and visualisation cartoons and we found “ champions ” in the business who could help with further development . This co - creative energy was over and above the actual data findings from the launch . Approach Based on the learning launch and findings , the team decided that there were a number of risks to overcome before this program could be launched for all employees globally . Our assumption that all employees and line managers would value choice and flexibility was not universal when weighed against the risk of losing cash and the uncertainty associated with having more discretion . Whilst there was strong support from employees in New Zealand , the cultural factors evident in Thailand suggested that not all countries could be ready for this change . Due to the program involving remuneration , it was felt that this was too emotive to get wrong and that we should proceed cautiously . The following next steps were tabled : 1 . Return to the design phase and include more diverse thinkers 2 . Investigate if more funds could be allocated to the program ( reflecting feedback from the NZ line managers ) . This could make the program more impactful in application . 3 . Consider how the program could be tailored to different geographies and what additional training and support would be necessary . Would the business be prepared to have a different program in Asia or is global consistency more strategically important ? 4 . Plan a third learning launch in Africa ( subject to outcome of steps 1 - 3 ) 5 . Share the personal stories and visualisation cartoons captured from the learning launches , on the firm ’s intranet . Open a yammer conversation globally to build excitement and interest . This would help to build a “ cause ” ( as advocated by Victor Hernandez from Mars ) , perhaps for a future roll out . If we had our time again , we would have done ethnographic research right at the start and involved more people in the design phase to co - create the prototype . Our prototype was too well developed before launch and employees and line managers were not involved in the co - creation . On a personal level , I discovered that I was biased to seeing only the positive findings and I had to be really objective to also appreciate the data that did not align to my assumptions and hypothesis .