The pandemic has undoubtedly played a role in the increase of conflict resolution solutions. As we shifted to remote working, experienced technology troubles with virtual learning, navigated new shared workspaces, and redefined many of our roles, we learned that with every conflict comes some form of resolution. Whether resolved by supervisors, an ombudsperson, grievances, or legal action, conflicts can be costly. Conflict resolution programs are aimed at reducing, minimizing, and ultimately trying to avoid conflicts. So how can you prove the investment in conflict resolution programs is worth it?
This session will describe and show how conflict resolution programs are evaluated at five levels of outcome (reaction, learning, application, impact, and ROI). Following the 12-step ROI Methodology®, this session will show you how to align the program to a business measure in the beginning—and design for success throughout the program, how to collect data, how to isolate the conflict resolution program’s effects from other influences, how to convert the impact to money, and how to calculate the ROI. Using examples, case studies, and exercises, this session will be practical and relevant.
Jack J. Phillips, Ph.D., chairman of ROI Institute, Inc., is a world-renowned expert on accountability, measurement, and evaluation. He provides consulting services for Fortune 500 companies, nonprofit entities, and government and non-governmental organizations globally. He is the author or editor of more than 100 books, conducts workshops, and presents at conferences worldwide.
Jack has received several awards for his books and work. The American Society for Training and Development gave him its highest honor, Distinguished Contribution to Workplace Learning and Development. The International Society for Performance Improvement presented Jack with its highest award, the Thomas F. Gilbert Award, for his contribution to human performance technology. On three occasions, Meeting News named him one of the 25 Most Powerful People in the Meetings and Events Industry, based on his work on ROI. The Society for Human Resource Management presented him with an award for one of his books and honored a Phillips ROI study with its highest award for creativity. In 2019, Jack, along with his wife Patti P. Phillips, received the Distinguished Contributor Award by the Center for Talent Reporting for their contribution to the measurement and management of human capital. His work has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, BusinessWeek, and Fortune. He has been interviewed by several television programs, including CNN.
Jack regularly consults with clients in manufacturing, service, and government organizations in 70 countries around the world. Connect with Jack on Facebook, Twitter, and at www.roiinstitute.net. He can also be reached at email@example.com.
Training Tools for Developing Great People Skills
This event is sponsored by HRDQ. For 45 years HRDQ has provided research-based, off-the-shelf soft-skills training resources for classroom, virtual, and online training. From assessments and workshops to experiential hands-on games, HRDQ helps organizations improve performance, increase job satisfaction, and more.
Learn more at HRDQstore.com
Measuring the Impact and ROI in Conflict Resolution
Hi, everyone, and welcome to today’s webinar, Measuring the Impact and ROI in Conflict Resolution, hosted by HRDQ-U, and presented by Doctor Jack Phillips.
My name is Sarah, and I will moderate today’s webinar. The webinar will last around one hour. If you have any questions, please type them into the question area on your GoToWebinar control panel, and we’ll answer as many as we can during today’s session.
Today’s webinar is sponsored by HRDQstore, training professionals everywhere are feeling pressure to prove the value and impact in which their training initiatives can bring to the organization.
Without a proven return on investment or ROI of learning, management buy ins and training budgets might be in jeopardy.
HRDQstore provides a range of tools for calculating the ROI for your learning initiatives. Don’t let your initiatives get asked before you prove their bottom line of value. Learn more at www.hrdqstore.com/roi-of-learning.
I’m excited to introduce our presenter today, Doctor Jack Phillips. Jack is a world-renowned expert on accountability, measurement, and evaluation.
He is the Chairman of ROI Institute, which provides consulting services for Fortune 500 companies and major global organizations.
He is the author or editor of more than 100 bucks, including the business case for learning, but you can find it hard to store and proving the value of soft skills. He conducts workshops and present at conferences throughout the world. Thank you for joining us today.
Yes. My pleasure.
Now, we have up the business case for learning.
Fetch it say that you just mentioned this is probably one of our best books, it’s, again, published by…, it shows you how we need to show the value of learning these days.
Make that business case to support, I’m learning in the future, so that’s a great reference, and we’d be happy to give you a chapter out of that book as well.
We do have some resources we want to talk about this week.
Get into there, presentation. We have these simple objectives shared set.
As you, as you look at your conflict resolution programs and they come in different, come in different designs here.
We’re going to show you how to connect it to the business and actually look at success of it.
Conflict resolution program in five levels.
And how do you make sure that your program delivers the value, and you will design for the results that you need?
And what’s your next steps in doing this?
So far, your takeaways.
We want to give you a chapter out of our book here, Value for Money.
This is A major reference that we use in our Roy certification program.
It’s very detail, we’ve got to send new chapter four out of that, which is an overview of this methodology that we’re describing today.
And then, we’ll give you the application guy, which is the short version of this, too. This is a 500-page book.
You probably wouldn’t want that.
But maybe a short version it’s like CliffsNotes, if you remember that, and at the university, it’s a 32-page application guide showing the steps that we’re following today to evaluate your projects and your programs all the way to Ottawa.
And of course, the book that I just mentioned, and Sarah just mentioned the business case for our learning, we’d like to give you chapter one there.
It really points out the importance of designing, well, the results that we want.
See, we, we, we won’t have the results, necessarily, unless we plan for it, and design for it, and that’s our point. We’re making here, as well today.
And, of course, you’ll get a copy of the slides, and this is recorded, so that’s for your use later on, so I would like to get some information from you first.
It’s like, why are you here?
As you look at ROI and Roi and your projects and your programs.
What’s your issue?
two top executives require it do you have pressure to justify your budget? You maybe need to do it now.
You need to demonstrate more of value in the future than you’re doing now.
You want to just increase the accountability around expenditures. People give us budget for what we do, and we want to show something in return for that.
Then, I want to maybe explore new technologies, new techniques, new processes.
And that’s why I’m here.
So if you would check any or all that apply here, and let’s see how we’re doing on the poll here.
So, take a few seconds here, I’ll give you about 15 more seconds. If you haven’t submitted your answer yet, you can do so now, and then we will share those results up on top of that.
So, Jack, can you see those results on your side?
All right, so we have Saying top executives require impact and ROI.
I must pursue this, we have 23% saying, I know I will need to demonstrate more value in the future.
8% saying, I want to show increased accountability for our expenditures. And 92% of people today are saying, I want to explore new techniques to measure program success.
So this is great, What we see is a very proactive group here.
So if you look at these same issues at what we in the past, we would get this kind of profile that most of it is the top area and only small numbers in the bottom.
This is from very reactive at the first one.
We’re reacting to requests.
two I want to I want to drive this ourselves and that’s important because if you’ve got a request for Roi for a program now three things happen to you.
First, you have a short timeline to get something done.
When someone asks that, they don’t want to wait a few months up to you get your ducks in a row, and you get to figure out how do you do this, they want something now.
So you’ve got a short timeline, it’s very hard to do that.
Second, you’re bid defensive.
See, someone has suggested maybe what you’re doing, or your particular project or your program.
Maybe it doesn’t deliver value, and they ask us for it.
So you’re having to defend your program: You really want to be only offensive, and that’s the key issue.
And third, you got ROI on someone else’s agenda, which suggests keep it on your agenda.
You drive the ROI bus here, don’t let someone else drive it for you.
So it looks like we’ve got a group here that’s large, so here for the Proactive.
They just looking at something different here.
That’s a great way to be for those of you who have got pressure, if you need a side conversation, some strategies to deal with that.
We’ll give you some tips today, of course, but if you need some one-on-one conversation on that would be happy to do that so you can make sure you don’t get in a jam with that request.
So let’s turn to conflict fermented conflict resolution of this focus here.
Lots of conflicts, and here’s the causes of conflict. A lot of issues in the workplace. Some of these have been exacerbated with a pandemic.
And a lot of focus on inequities.
Causing conflicts between people, conflicts with the organization.
So lot of reasons for conflict, but they occur, and we gotta deal with them.
Some conflict is OK.
It’s just when it gets access.
It’s negative when it gets too much.
And this is what it, what it looks like.
If you have, you would not want an organization with no conflicts.
You don’t, there’s too much harmony. You wouldn’t really get much done.
There’s always will be some differences. difference of opinion differences between individuals, different ways to approach things.
That’s healthy, it’s when conflicts get too much.
So, productivity goes down with many other consequences as well.
So, again, some conflict is OK, excessive conflict does not, here’s the consequence of conflict.
We’ve, we’ve worked with these kinds of measures from all kinds of conflict resolution programs, that, just, uh, what we’re talking about here is it, you’ve got formal systems like grievances, art, not for union organizations.
Non-union grievance processes for non-union organizations are just employee complaint systems, where you make a complaint and it’s resolved.
Hopefully, if so, you’ve got formal things, and that moves on to things like mediation, arbitration, sometimes.
Or sometimes we have people in the organization who deal with that, and that’s like Ombuds. We work a lot with own buds.
Maybe organization has that, maybe you’ve got some Ombuds and the audience here, but sometimes, the resolution has to be done by their manager.
Individuals and so, we teach them no conflict resolution, how to resolve conflicts to workplace, keep them at a minimum, and resolve them when you have them.
But, here’s the key thing.
It’s often perceived to be a mystery is how do you get to impact and ROI?
Well, this is the impacts.
We’re, we’re trying to avoid these things from formal complaints, two escalations of grievances that gets expensive. Sometimes legal actions, super expensive, even launching investigations.
Then we have withdrawal mechanisms where people leave, or they absent. They transfer.
They leave, because their careers block maybe, maybe some mental health issues, which is a huge issue.
These days are just, productivity can get so much worked on. The quality of my work suffers.
It takes me too long to do things that waste too much time on this and even bodily harm.
We’re dealing with one organization.
I won’t give you their name because they prefer not to do that, but they’ve had nine suicides among their team members this year alone.
And they suspect those suicides are connected with conflicts at work or at least the majority of them.
So that’s a worst-case scenario, some bodily harm, their naming, could be even death.
A personal safety resource is not being utilized.
Bonds, misuse, fraud in way. sometimes.
T, See that gets, that’s the kind of measures that we often convert to money.
So all of those on the left side, you can get the money, even down to here.
Maybe as we talk about that, getting it to money, which is necessary for Roy.
But then you’ve got a whole host of something, what we call intangibles. that’s the measures not converted to money.
Intangibles, teamwork, collaborations, psychological safety, trust communications, poi, satisfaction, stress, burnout, relationships, employee engagement.
See, in most organizations, those have not been converted to money. They are still important.
In fact, you’d want to implement programs to work on any of those.
The point is: impacts are critical.
Impacts are many, and that can cost a lot of money.
We’ve seen these kinds of documents before. This one just came in the mail one day.
Show us the value of the R The cost of conflict.
they’re putting a cost of conflict based on the time it takes to deal with the conflict.
Well, that’s one cost, and that’s a component of many of the cost issue, are many of them outcomes that we just talked about; however, it could be even more than that because conflicts can lead to lots of other impacts that we just pointed out beyond just the time it takes to deal with it.
So, it’s a big issue.
It’s costing a lot of money, and this is why we have these programs to resolve conflicts.
And so, how do we get to the value of a conflict resolution program? We’ve got to think about the value chain.
So, a person is involved in our program.
Let’s take some training you might use for conflict resolution.
You’ve got people involved.
That’s volume, the time they involve and maybe the convenience of their involvement and the cost of having them involved.
We call that level zero. That’s input to the process.
Then you’ve got five levels of outcomes.
And that’s route a reaction first.
Is this something that is relevant to what I need, my work that I’m doing, my situation, our department, our function?
Is it something that’s important to me, And our group, my success, and our success?
Is it something that I would use, I’ll work on our take action, it’s something I’d recommend to others?
So those are powerful reactions, but that’s what we want.
We know, if they don’t see it that way, they don’t take it very serious, and they don’t probably learn so much, and they probably won’t do anything with it.
So, it can break down with an adverse reaction.
So, we gotta work on that, you do that now, with all of your training and learning programs, I would imagine. Then learning.
We’re learning some concepts; we’re learning some skills that we need in this conflict resolution program.
So, we have knowledge and skills normally, learning what to do and why we’re doing it.
Then we do something.
We’re going to use that knowledge. And we’re going to use those skills. And we’re going to take some actions, use of behaviors, followers, follow some procedures, do some things.
That’s application applying, what we’ve learned.
Here are, our key thing is, get people to use it, Use of content, frequency of use, maybe, and maybe the success with use. That’s three important there, is using it frequently and being successful.
But we know that there’s barriers, things that get in the way from me doing something, they’re always there, and then enablers that things have helped me.
So what we’re trying to do is look ahead and remove those barriers, minimize the barriers, or at least go around the barriers.
But we also want to put in the neighborhoods.
Put things in place. That’s helping you use what you’ve learned.
So we’ll be coming back to this.
But that’s application doing something that’s the big, a challenge for us to get people to use. What they’re learning.
I’m a conflict resolution program.
Then there’s impact, you’ve got all of those impacts that we just looked at.
The big list of just showed you are the impacts.
And there, here’s a tangible and intangible the tangible as the ones that we can get the money credibly with a reasonable amount of time and the intangible or those.
it we cannot convert to money reasonably with the I’m incredibly with a reasonable amount of time Let’s get that seat impact.
And you notice we’re gonna always take a step to sort out the effects of our program from those, from other factors.
What else is out there? So, many other things could be working on it, as well.
So, we want to know how much goes to our program that we’re evaluating.
Then, there’s ROI. You take the impacts of work them. The money we just talked about.
Compared to the cost of the program will calculate ROI through different ways.
one is benefit cost ratio, and the other one is the ROI expressed as a percent.
The different I mean, same data goes is just a little different way of saying it and in calculating it, but they have two different origins: the BCR benefit costs, ratio comes out of government’s, been there for centuries, we trace it back to the second Century AD.
And ROI’s a business term, we traced back about 300 years, first, first use in the Netherlands.
But now it’s a common method. It is that 100 years ago it became the dominant method for measure results in businesses.
According to Harvard Business Review, 90 Business Review, and I’m in 19 25, been around a long time.
It was designed for capital expenditures, like a building or two or equipment.
Now it’s being used, or non-capital and our conflict resolution program is going to be a non-capital expenditure.
So there you have it.
You can see six types of data generated here: Reaction learning, application impact, ROI, and intangibles.
What’s been your experience with Roy? Let’s see. ROI, sometimes frightened people.
What about if you give us your input here? never tried it. Tried it, but it was not successful.
We have conducted one or more studies.
We do this routinely, or maybe I wish Roy would go away.
So let’s see your results.
So, again, take about a minute here to submit your answer, and we will get those results up on the screen.
10 more seconds here, if you haven’t yet voted, you can do so now, OK.
OK, great, so we’ll share the results now. So we have 74% saying that they never tried it.
We have 16% Tried it, but was not successful, and another 16% saying we’ve conducted one or more ROI studies.
All right, no one does it routinely.
No one wishes it would go away.
Well, that’s a surprise. I thought we might have someone there.
So, we, so, we’ve got some people have conducted one or more studies. That’s great.
If you feel up to it, why don’t you put that in the chat and you might have some new best friends here who can now connect with you. And, certainly, we want your comments as you, as we go through the process.
So, the process we’re delivering you today is we call it the ROI methodology.
It is now become the most used Evaluation System in the world.
The key word is used.
It’s been endorsed by a lot of organizations.
The United Nation was a huge endorsement in 2008, as a recommended system for the UN agencies, and so far, we’ve had 17 of the UN agencies out of about 25 are using this, governments around the world, use it 26, the 27th government. There’s going to be Tunisia.
They were getting ready for full implementation and the government system there until some huge issues evolved around their leadership and the pandemic, and so forth.
But the point is a lot of governments around the world are using it, uh, over 300 healthcare, 150 universities, three fourths of the Fortune 500 companies and major foundations like the Gates Foundation which is the largest.
So let’s talk about this.
When I mentioned ROI, now we’re thinking, suppose my program doesn’t deliver ROI positive, maybe it’s negative, if it’s negative, does that mean my program is going to be killed?
Does that mean that I’ll be killed, our team’s kill or be killed? Is this a weapon of mass destruction?
Well, no fact, ROI methodologies probably your best way to keep your program from being …
That’s what we want to do. But we can help. There’s a couple of things we can do here.
We can try to prevent the negative Roy by designing for art.
Designing for the positive ROI.
That almost makes it go away.
But even if you do have it, we were trying to see if it works.
If it doesn’t work, we’ve got to make it better.
It is rare for our program to be discontinued because of a negative ROI. It would only be discontinued if it’s a wrong solution. But if it’s negative, it’s probably not because it’s a wrong solution. It’s because someone didn’t use it. Didn’t support it.
Hey, and we’re going to find that out in the session, in the evaluation, as we can correct it, make it better next time.
So we don’t kill things because they’re negative, we’d like it better.
So we’re going to break out a design thinking principle here.
You probably have heard of that.
It’s, it’s, it’s had its origins in the innovation field, and innovation is one of the fields that we work in.
For example, one of our books is The Value of Innovation.
But if you go back in the Innovation …, you’ll find that they’ve been using concept of design thinking for a long time.
Effect of her first book on design, thinking was written in 19 87, But we probably didn’t know much about it because we’re not in that field.
This is our favorite reference since 20 13, it’s design thinking for strategic innovation. But when you ask, what is design thinking?
Well, it’s using a lot of common-sense processes at different points in the process by different stakeholders. And here’s what we do. We got a lot of things that we do here, but it’s all supporting the basic concept.
The basic premise here, is it, we design for the results that we want.
We define why we’re doing this, and we’re working toward it.
Think of it that way, if you think about Uber, for example, that we all know, we’d love or hate maybe, but Uber was designed with three metrics in Mind, three impacts.
They wanted a quicker ride, then the classic taxiing and they wanted it cheaper ride than the closer taxi.
And they wanted a better experience than the classic taxi.
I’ve just experienced this yesterday.
I was in Orlando, and I took it over the day before, or two days before when I arrived at the taxi. And I could see the difference in those three things very clearly.
see, Uber got to where I wanted to be by working on those three metrics.
The whole system was designed around that. Everyone worked on that.
So, you’re defining your success at the impact level, So, that’s a cost impact.
That’s a quality impact.
That’s a time impact.
Output, quality, cost the time we’re going, do they.
four categories of hard data, data that we can easily convert the money.
So, we need to design our conflict resolution program to deliver that impact, The impact is we’re avoiding those bad things from occurring.
All those things that we listed already, we’re going to do these skill sets, so let’s look a little deeper at this. It all comes down to the ROI calculation that we’ve just talked about.
We’re going to, to avoid a negative ROI. We go into design to get a positive ROI.
We do that by designing for the impact, and then that gets to the positive ROI.
Here’s those two calculations that we talked the VCR from the cost benefit analysis, out of Governments is monetary benefits divided by cost.
The ROI is the same.
monetary benefits minus cos reviver because you see all of those impacts that I’ve mentioned some so many of those are easily converted to money.
It’s money there and that’s what goes into this. We’re preventing that. Avoiding it.
Times 100 there gets you per cent.
Now let’s look at the process.
It looks like this.
We put structure around it now.
We’re going to also put some standards around it.
Structure, we start with why, why are we doing conflict resolution?
one is to reduce conflicts, are the consequences are conflict, impacts all of those impacts.
That’s the business measure we start with.
We don’t do it, too so, that you have some new skills that you can use to resolve conflicts, we do it to actually get the conflicts resolved or prevented.
So, so, we’re thinking impact, and that’s the business alignment.
We start with, why, why are we doing this?
We make it feasible, but making sure that this project, that we have this program, whether it’s training for calm conflict resolution or some system we put in place as a mechanism for resolving complaints like an ombuds program.
We want to make sure that, that it’s so the right solution to get there.
And then we expect success. We expect success by reminding everyone involved, what does success look like?
It’s not success doesn’t occur when you’re doing something.
Success occurs when you avoid the consequence of what you’re doing. That’s the impact.
Impact is a success that we need, and we’ll give we have objectives for reaction learning application impact and yes, even Roi forgot to go to ROI.
Uh, and we give those to all of our stakeholders to make sure they’re designing, to make it.
They do their part with tools and templates, And processes, and encouragement and support.
What can they do to make sure that you reached the end game?
And it’s those consequences of conflicts, trying to prevent a transfer, a turnover. Lot of people leave because of the conflicts.
We’re trying to prevent that.
With this, we have vojta turnover, that’s expensive when we have, then, with that in mind, we put the program in place. So, this is a setup for our program.
We do these three things, and then we start collecting data, making sure that matters to the people involved, that’s reaction and learning.
Make sure it sticks, it’s a habit. This is what I’m doing each time.
This is how I’m working with the process, each time.
Make it stick. That’s application in impact.
Now, impact is that we’ve avoided those consequences, but we want to sort out how much of that goes to what we’ve done versus other influences, how much is related to what we’re doing.
We’ve got to isolate to what we’re doing That’s Credible.
Notice all of these five blotches here.
Start with, Make it Credible.
And that’s important because, imagine, when you get to impact, you get attention from executives, and maybe you’re a chief financial officer, you’ve got impact now that we’re talking about.
They’d like to see this.
So we first make it credible by sorting out the effects of our program.
Then we make it credible by having conservative data, when we convert it to money, what’s it costs when there’s a turnover, if we were avoided one, or transfer, or an absence, Are a formal complaint or a grievance or a lawsuit?
You know, what, are there some?
There are some losses that are, that we see, taking place, some time wasted.
What’s it costing for that?
So you’ve got lots of ways to get there.
Then you’ve got the cost of our program that revalue it.
Whether it’s your conflict resolution training or some process you’ve put into to resolve complaints.
That’s the cost of that.
Those two come together: Monetary benefits, compared to cost, Calculate ROI just as we’ve looked at, but there’s our intangibles that we or not converting to money.
Now, we’ve got a story to tell.
Story the tale is the.
data, the stories that we have along the way, when you get reaction data, you get stories, you get learning stories, you get applications stories, you’d get impact stories. You’re going to find good stories there that make it interesting and keeping people engaged. Then, you’ve got Data, Data for Reaction, and Learning, and Application and Impact ROI and Intangible six types of data. Now, we use that to make things better next time for the next group. We’re optimizing our results. And when we do that, make a great case for funding.
The number one reason people come to the Rowett Institute is to help with funding, getting more money for their projects, The processes, continuing the process, or preventing it from being cut.
That’s, that’s a key issue these days, but not every project goes there. We want to make sure.
It’s a program that makes sense.
If you look at all of your programs you have in thinking about what percent goes to Roy, here’s a small number, does our conflict resolution fit that?
It could be, see, we’re going to talk about that in just a minute.
You’d say, we’re suggesting about 30% of the programs that you’re involved in would probably be evaluated Level three.
A third of them, up to Level four, half of them, now, Level five.
What we show you here is actual benchmarking.
This is benchmarking last year from the actual users, and they’re telling us what percent they’re evaluating. It’s more than our best practice, And that’s OK, because best product.
The best practice here is the minimum that’s benchmarking from our users.
It’s more than the best practice, which is a good thing to have happen here.
Cost of the program, it’s an expensive program.
We need to show the value. When you put on many people, you’ve got an Ombuds Team, that’s expensive. I’ve gotta show the value of that.
If I got to administer a grievance process, a non-union grievance procedure is going to cost me something.
Maybe that gets an attention.
Or does it link to operational goals? Issues?
We have some people say, we want, are our organization not to have excessive conflicts?
And this program is one to make sure we don’t have that, maybe it’s connected to strategy.
We want people to feel comfortable with their work, have so many pressures unnecessarily, that comes out of the conflicts.
The top executives might be interested, know, when you’ve got a wide-scale participation in the program on conflict resolution, it’s a common question for executives say. You know, is that working? How do you know that’s working?
Do you have any data to show that?
And the answer would be, yes, yes, we can do that.
We want, we want to decide to do it and not have them ask for it.
Visibility, this program becomes quite visible sometimes, maybe even controversial.
If you’ve got a lot of people involved, you get the point here, We, we have some decision making here to decide.
If we’re going to measure this at the impact and ROI, and, if, again, if it fits some of the criteria, yes, we’re going to do it. Let’s now start through some key issues here.
We’ve got to look at some of the, the points that we’re going to buy as we work through the process.
You’ve got this, by the way, in the documents that we’re sending you.
This is a lot of, you’ve got some detail about this methodology there in those 12 steps.
Start with why?
Here, we want to have a problem-solving approach to handle problems on the system level as one of the design thinking principles.
That means we’ve got to have some conversation or have some processes that we follow to make sure that we connect this to the business.
We’re trying to understand, why are we doing this, what is it that’s happening that causes us to want to do this?
That couldn’t be, we got a problem.
Or it could be, it’s an opportunity.
And they work both ways.
Your problem is we got too many complaints, too many conflicts and it’s destroying us killing us.
We got all of those consequences with turnover and charges and lawsuits.
Things that are costing us a lot of money. So we’re trying to correct the problem.
Or it could be said we don’t have any complaints, like maybe sexual harassment issues.
We don’t have any, but we’re trying to prevent them.
So we have to been in this program to commit to prevent that, even though we didn’t have that.
That’s OK, because you can still show the ROI, because you’re going to set an objective and a few minutes ago to set objective, where we think would be, if we don’t put this program in place, even though we don’t have any of those complaints now.
We put that in place, and we put it would say, it’s going to be here if we don’t do something. Let’s all agree on that.
With this program, we still want it to be zero.
And now the difference and where we thought it would be, and the actual, which is still zero is going to be our payoff.
So yeah, you can do it, whether you got a problem or an opportunity.
It’s much better when you have an opportunity that is, we’re putting this program in place to prevent things from occur.
And not wait, do we have a problem that we have to correct?
The key is that we need very specific business measures coming here.
You can see this as an alignment. This is one way to look at this. T This is a chain of value we just looked at.
And the data that we collect here to show the value along this chain comes from objectives at each level.
You know that when you want to measure learning from a learning program, for example, you go look at the learning objectives. We’ve been doing that a long time. We need those objectives. They tell us what to measure. Often when the measure it, maybe even where it’s located.
Objectives, if they’re detail, very specific.
Now, where does that come from?
Upfront needs assessment.
It starts here.
It goes down to here where we design, develop, and implement the program.
And then we measure success here in the end here.
So the first parts are start with why connect to the business need.
And it really has these two components of payoff knave means, is it worth it?
You think it’s worth it.
Another way to put that into a need conversation is, say to the requester, the funder, or such someone who wants this.
We’re asking, do you want this to generate more benefits than where you’re paying for it? You want more out of it than we’re putting into it.
Most executives would say, yes, who would not?
Some are OK, so, you know, we need to do this for other reasons, I don’t, I don’t care if, if we saving the money, I want it gone, OK?
Then you really don’t need positive ROI, that’s OK.
But if someone says, yes, we want more out of it, that we can get that release, becomes an ROI objective, but that that’s calculated based on the business name. We’re trying to prevent these things from occurring.
And so, these two go together here, the business need, which turns into an impact objective.
Now, that starts with why?
Then the second step on our model.
Make it feasible.
Here, we’re trying to explore some things using a mindset for curiosity and inquiry.
What do we need to do?
Will this work?
We have, conflicts are the consequences of conflicts.
Maybe we need some conflict resolution and training so our managers can resolve those before they turn into these bad things that occur, OK.
Other people have done that, maybe we can do it.
So, what we’re doing?
If you think about the, the lime model year, we’re trying to say, what should we be doing differently now?
How should we perform differently to affect the business need?
And that’s the results, are the conflicts the business need.
So, what are we doing differently? That becomes our solution now.
And the learning need is learning that solution.
Preference need is they.
There’s ever everyone’s preference for that solution.
so you can see these come together to make up our solution.
And we could include input here saying, and here’s who’s involved in.
So, together, we put all of that for our solution.
So we’ve got our, we check to make it so right solution, we ask some questions here.
We could be.
Looking at records, we can have a discussion with the sponsor for this project, or the person who needs to fund it.
We may be referencing some case studies, hey, XYZ Company, putting conflict resolution conflicts, the consequences of those conflicts dramatically change, improved, maybe some benchmarking and tell us.
Easing evaluation is a hook like say.
How would, how would you want to measure success? At the end of this?
Where, along the value chain, do you want to take the evaluation and this sponsor, this requester would probably say impact Roi, and we say, well, then we need the M when need the business need, help me get there.
So, we’re trying to get to both the business need and the solution through these kinds of discussions. And sometimes we may have to bring in some tools, diagnostic tools, to sign it, figure out what’s causing the problem.
Why are we having this?
And how can we correct it?
And these are some very common tools, probably you’ve used.
When you’ve got a problem, we try this sorted out.
We’ve got too many conflicts. Why?
It’s a good question to ask, well, these kinds of tools, you can begin to uncover. what’s the root cause of this process?
And that’s, that was step two. And step three is expected success.
This is important because we get three things, you can see them on the slide there.
Want to go to the middle one first? Redefine success. We say.
The success of this program is one way of avoided, they consequences of the conflicts.
That’s they success, not when we’ve learned something, not when we’ve done something, but when we’ve accomplished that.
And then we set objectives for reaction, learning, application, and impact.
Then we give those objectives to all the stakeholders who are responsible for this program, we’re expanding their responsibilities to help us get to that. You see, we’re designing for the results. We want. We’re minimizing maybe my lemonade.
The possibility of a negative ROI by doing it this way.
Object is at multiple levels.
All the way to level four, maybe a level five is going to go to ROI.
We know if you’re in classic learning and development, as many of you are, you’ve got learning objectives. We want to push it out the application and impact, and Arawak.
Here’s some rules, very common-sense rules for setting your objectives. This remembers our objectives of minimum acceptable performance.
Fewer is better than many using subject matter experts to get to the specificity here.
But they make it very specific.
Take the current level of conflicts at this level. We’re going to reduce it by 30% in six months.
That’s the kind of specificity we need.
We might make sure it’s relevant and try to stretch the people involved in the program to do more, then the minimum.
But just remember a year-old number eight.
The objectives are twofold for progress.
They’re not They’re not weapons of performance review.
Say, for evaluating, they profit.
Conflict resolution program.
We’re not evaluating the people. We’re evaluating the program, so let’s keep that in mind.
It’s not the individuals involved that we’re evaluating.
Also, we have flexibility to make changes as conditions occur.
A, process improvement is a key, failure is OK. Most objectives should be time bound. And the critical thing is number 10.
Give them to the people, involved the stakeholders and help them designed for the results that we want. We get this data from those three references. The first two is ours.
And the third one, there’s a book called Measure, What Matters?
Very critical, important book.
Bye John Dork.
Let’s see how this works.
I want your involvement here.
You might, just stuck, just see if we can do it may not be enough time for you to.
I want you to just mentally make off to the side here, put a number for each of these, and then I’m going to show you the results and let’s check that. That might be the quickest way to get through this. So, we are setting objectives for, for our program like this.
We have objectives set at different levels, Reaction, Learning, application impact, ROI, five levers you see at the bottom of the screen there.
So, let’s take the first one.
Together, after completing this program, participants should decrease employee complaints by 20% in one year.
So, imagine managers in our program, and so, that manager is a participant, and they’re decreasing employee complaints by 20% in one year. At what level are we evaluating? If we collect data, to see if we’ve met that objective.
In other words, what level is that objective?
Is it reaction learning application impact? Roi?
What do you think?
Someone writes something in the chat.
And a cherry, you see something, they don’t have any comments coming through. Yes, they can. You can type your answer, their questions. Just put a number, 1, 2, 3, 4.
1 for reaction two for learning three, for application, for, for impact, five for ROI, we have a theory, OK.
Aren’t we gotta get you involved here? We have a line. We have another three.
Now there’s three, OK, so it looks like we have lots of three, is we also have a line, OK, that’s going to actually be four.
Say a three is means I’m doing something as an activity.
I’m listening to my team members, make good suggestions. I’m using counseling skills; I’m using problem solving skills. That’s what I’m doing.
And consequently, they’re not complaining.
See, the complaints are the consequence, that’s the impact. I’m trying to avoid.
Complaints, conflicts. See, that list that we showed you at the beginning, at the very top, was formal complaints.
Formal complaints, that people file, that’s an impact.
We’re trying to avoid that.
So, this is not us doing something, an activity. This is a consequence of that, that’s why it’s for How about the next one?
After completing this program, this much, we use problem solving skills to understand, to uncover conflict causes.
Now, let’s type in Number. Is it Reaction?
Learning application impact Roi 1 2, 3, 4.
Yeah, three coming through.
Yep. We’ll go with three.
Say I’m doing something.
Let’s go to the next one. Participants should be able to demonstrate the five steps to call an upset QALY.
Be able to demonstrate is that Level 1, 2, 3, 4, or five?
We have some mixed results. We have fives and we also have tears.
Today, we’ll go with to see, be able to demonstrate that’s showing them that you know how to do this. That’s validating learning level two.
Level five is going to be the ROI we’re not there yet.
How about this one, right? The facilitator 4 to 5 on presentation skills.
We have to have a mix born again.
We’ll go with one reaction.
But we’re going to reduce turnover by 30% in six months. What numbers that quickly?
We have a 4.
4 will go with four, and so we’ll get for there.
Next one is 20% ROI, you can imagine what that is.
And that’s Roy.
Content, per se. The content to be irrelevant. That’s a perception, that’s a reaction, is going to be one.
transfers, it’s like a turnover or an absence, it’s an impact, that’s going to be four.
Conduct a proper investigation that’s doing something, that’s a 3. 20, score, 20 or better on a conflict resolution quiz. That’s knowledge, now it’s going to be two.
Productivity increased by 10%.
Productivity is like output divided by time, or by people.
It’s going to be four, then using 10 negotiation skills in at least 50% of negotiation situations doing something, level three. So here’s your responses.
So you may wonder, Well, who cares what level it is your funder does. Your funder knows whether it’s an impact. They know when it’s ROI, and they know when behavior has been involved.
Actions are being involved. That’s Level three.
They got it sorted out, we just got to make sure we sorted it out for them.
So this is an important part of the process. We put that in place. We have, but the implement, the program, we make it matter to the people involved.
That’s going to be level one and 2, 0, 1, and two. All right, the right people, whether get reaction we need.
And the learning often affects that reaction, then we make it stick, transfer it to the workplace, now, we’re looking for application and impact.
And here’s the methods that we use. Probably no surprise. This is from our users.
Surveys and questionnaires are still our big method here.
And then, there are others, like finding the data in the data database already.
Then, we have observation, and test and interviews, lots of ways to get there.
Now, here’s the big bear in the, our elephant in the room and that’s the that had to make it credible.
Those five steps and here they are isolating the effects of the program, converting data to money and the identifying intangible benefits.
Tabulating the cost of the program calculating Roi.
I’m going to show you a few things. If you need a case study on this, be happy to send it to you.
You just let us know, I want a case study, showing the actual ROI on a program we can show you and then here’s a Here’s isolation method, we might attract comparison groups, little simple trend analysis, or some modeling or estimates. The point is we always do this.
We’re going to some, sought out the effects of what we’d done from other processes that are out there, and then we convert data to money.
The good thing is a lot of these items have money already connected to them. It’s that list that we showed you in the beginning.
Getting to money. It could be a standard value, which means it’s already been calculated for us, or it could be, there’s an internal expert, or we’d look at external databases.
If I’m looking for the cost of turnover, if the company doesn’t have it, I’m going to use a database called Eric.
In fact, we’ve got a chart that we developed from that database that, that we use in our own analysis, And, if accepted, it’s accepted by a lot of organizations. And we’re happy to send you that chart. Just to show you that example, if you’re interested.
The point is this, someone’s already done this, whether it’s internally or externally.
Well, they’re likely.
Did we have those great intangibles that we talked about?
They’re, they’re great. We’re just not going to convert the money because they haven’t been converted to money yet.
Then we bring all the costs together compared to the monetary benefits, and you get a calculation, and it looks like this.
If we’re trying to reduce the complaints, we’d say, we’re trying to reduce complaints, what’s it cost?
We go to the people or resolve the complaints or get an estimate from them. Once it costs one is a complaint.
It’s time involved, and we have to do something, sometimes, to make it up to this person.
And some of those complaints turned into more aggressive actions, like lawsuits.
So, we’ve got an average cost of 21,000. That’s coming for the people. The Department of the function that deals with it.
Now, if we can tie three per month to our program, isolated to our program, we’ve got an annual value. Now, we’re going to look at one-year value 36. You’ve got one of our standards isn’t going to use it.
At least one-year of value, if it’s a short-term solution, this is a short-term solution.
And that gives us this much money.
Now, if, if our blended learning program to get this is 339,000, again, this is a conflict resolution training program. What’s the ROI? We plug it in our calculation, just like we looked at before.
And this is what we have.
And you get it this way.
To 2.2 benefit cost ratio, that means, for every $1, we invest, we get 2.2 benefits and then we’d get, oh!
That says forever, $1 we invest, we get are dollars back plus another dollar, 22%.
Pretty big ROI there.
We can, we can tell a story now, but go into different audiences, and now we’re going to use this to make our programs better and influence some funding some way in the future.
So now, just quickly, another poll, last poll.
What’s your concerns about what I’ve just given you the methodology?
About a minute here, submit your answer, and then we can chat about it afterwards with them and share those results off.
Just take a few moments here, submit your answer.
OK, great, well that those results up on the Board, so we have 64% of people saying that they do not have any concerns. 18% are saying it’s too complicated!
9% are saying it takes too long, nobody said, it’s too expensive, and then we have 18% saying no one is asking for this, OK, let’s take the last one first. As we pointed out, in the very beginning, if you wait till someone asked for it, it’s too late because they want something quickly, and you’re on the defensive and relies on their agenda.
Don’t ever wait for someone to ask for this, because it’s, it just does nothing but get your hamburger trouble. Up to complicate, we try to work on that by saying it’s logic model. It’s like a drop-down menu.
You’ve got all of the techniques that you need to use there. So matter of selecting which ones you want to. Does it take you too long?
Not necessarily maybe for our program.
Oh, if you’ve got a major conflict resolution program, let’s suppose it’s a two-day program that you’re teaching, you can evaluate that.
And it takes your total time of someone’s time from planning the study, collecting the data, doing the analysis, reporting results, and making the changes, all of that.
So, I’ll take you about 30 to 40 hours total, but that’s just not it’s not you, It’s other everyone’s time.
But you’d only do this very selectively only if you need to.
Unless that waiver pointed out in the beginning, be very selective there.
When you follow it, the key is, it’s really not that difficult.
Logic flow of data that’s already logic model is there, whether we like it or not.
And it’s deciding to measure along that value chain.
And that’s what we’re doing here.
Mike, and when you do, it’s the best way to keep your budget, defend your budget, but let others know that you make a difference. You earn more respect for your programs, you get letters, better support, better partners, and you make the program better.
Those are the kinds of benefits you’re getting.
We just need to be proactive there. When it comes to delivering results from our conflict resolution programs, hope is not a strategy. Luck is not a factor and doing nothing is not an option.
Things have changed, particularly in accountability of what we need, progress, that we make, to shift to this, it’s optional. It’s up to us to do it.
Again, here’s the tools. Here’s a QR code for these tools that we’ve got, a chapter we want to send. You got the application guide.
And, of course, you’ll get the SlideShare if you want, a chapter out of the.
Business Case for Learning Book.
Just drop us a note and lead us.
Let us send you something. If you want a copy of a case study, we can do it, as well, and We’ll give you my address in just a minute, but I want to remind you of this.
We have it, a session that we’ve organized together here with HRDQ-U, get a discount by going here, and in this session, it’s not only doing that, do we do all of these things to get you certified, you’ll get the training, and you’ll get the support of coaching to get your project done.
We stay with you to you’ve completed that, then you become certified, but you’ve got lots of tools, a lot of lifetime access to a lot of tools and templates, and you get the right to use this in your materials and teach others.
And so, we’ll have some materials that will be offered published by HRDQ-U.
You get a facilitator’s guide, bottom line, ROI?
Um, people want to teach this to their own team, participant guide, and yes, that book that goes with that.
And the book is bottom line on ROI.
Again, all of these published by HRDQ. So, not only do you learn how to do it, you become a certified ROI professional, but you could teach others this kind of methodology to get 10% discount by going to this session.
It’s a live, virtual session. It takes two weeks, three hours a day to complete that heuristic.
Here’s our contact here.
If you have questions, we want to talk, that’s fine. If you want a case study, let us know.
If you want a chapter out of the business case for learning published by HRDQ, to let us know.
And we may have time for one question, maybe, I’m just a one minute over, apologize for that.
But if you have a question or two, we’ll certainly do it now.
Yes. So, one question here before we wrap up the session today, and that question will be, is it appropriate to calculate the ROI for every program?
Know, if you remember, we said 5% of your programs typically are targets. That’s our best practice.
Although our users a little higher than it. So you want to be very selective. It’s got to be a program that tracks executive attention.
It’s very expensive.
Maybe, connected to our strategy, is trying to solve some operational problem.
Be careful. Be selective. You don’t need this for everything. It would. It would kill you, and your team, if you did.
It would be paralysis by analysis. You’ve been very selected. The key is that we can do it.
We can address that issue. So, what’s the ROI on this? So, many people hear that, and they don’t know what to do.
We teach you what to do with them.
Great, and that’s bring us here, up to the top of the hour, Jack.
As Jack mentioned, about the ROI certification Program, and we will be following up via e-mail with all the information that Jack just shared, along with that coupon code, and a quick link to access, so that you can register for that session coming up in February 2022, And I last year. Lastly here, we’d also like to introduce HRDQ-U memberships, which offers hundreds of human resource webinars like this session from today to trainers, consultants, and coaches, which keeps you in the industry, trends, as well as workforce virtual seminars on key training topics for your employees. So, whether you’re a professional learner or learning professional, we’ve got you covered. You can learn more at www.hrdqu.com/memberships. And that does bring us here to the end of the session. Thank you very much for joining us today!
Thank you. My pleasure. And thank you. Thank you for coming here, that all of you. We appreciate you, taking time out of your busy schedule to be with us. Remember, if you need any information, just don’t, don’t hesitate to call it all.
Or drop us a note, and we’ll be happy to respond like it.
Yes, thank you all for participating in today’s webinar, happy training.
© 2021 HRDQ-U. All rights reserved.