For many years, I have used the same case study in a seminar to teach managers how to train their employees to improve performance. Fortunately, it has resonated with participants in the past, so I had no idea it needed to be revised.
Recently, I had a rude awakening when the class (composed of participants with similar roles and responsibilities as previous participants) pointed out that the case study needed improvement to make it meaningful to them.
These are the changes they requested:
1. current language: The employee in question is identified by name but not by title.
Recommended Review: Include the employee’s title, so participants have a clear idea of their role and responsibilities.
two. current language: The employee’s affected co-workers are identified by name.
Recommended Review: Identify those affected by the employee’s behavior as “members and members of your team” to reinforce the fact that their behavior also has an impact on customers. (Note: Participants are from credit unions whose “customers” are actually credit union members.)
3. current language: The employee’s proposed solution to check whether he is on time for work is for him to walk past the manager’s office on his way to his desk.
Recommended Review: Replace this proposed solution with a meeting to review your time sheet. Managers are often not at their desks and the time sheet will provide sufficient confirmation of the employee’s punctuality (or lack thereof).
Four. current language: The manager says, “I’d also like to meet in two weeks to discuss how things are going.”
Recommended Review: Have the manager use a more directive approach, saying “Let’s meet in two weeks to discuss how things are going.”
The case study was intended to be as close as possible to the working reality of the participants. These recommended changes may seem minor, but they have a significant effect on the case study as a learning tool:
- Providing the employee with a title helps participants place the employee in the context of the credit union’s activities and services.
- Knowing the employee’s title and role helps participants recognize that an employee’s behavior has an adverse impact on all members of his or her team, as well as members of the credit union.
- Using the time sheet to verify employee punctuality is a more objective and reliable solution that participants would likely use with their own employees.
- Ensuring that the follow-up meeting is set forth as a clear expectation and directive rather than a vague proposal supports participants’ understanding that a manager has ultimate control over the resolution of job performance issues.
I am very pleased that the participants were willing to point out the flaws in the case study and work with me to identify more appropriate language.
This is an annual seminar, so I can’t wait until next year to see how closely the case study aligns with the managerial reality of the participants. And if you need more tweaking, so be it.