Structure | PeopleSense Consulting

Learning anything complex takes time—don’t shortchange the process

On June 17, 2011 / Graceful Leadership, Training / 7 Comments

As she gets familiar with the weave poles, my job is to guide her through with a treat but I think she's more interested in watching our wonderful photographer friend, Annie Card. Thanks to Annie for all the pictures in today's post!

One of the agility obstacles that Grace and I have not spent a lot of time with is the weave poles. When first learning this particular skill, the poles are “open” to create a channel that the dog walks through. Eventually, the goal is to have poles “closed” or set in a straight line so the dog then weaves around each pole in a zig-zag pattern. The most advanced dog will fly through as fast as they can – speed is required for winning agility dogs.

At a recent class, Grace did really well with these poles—considering how little we’ve worked with them. She readily goes in but she sometimes veers off in the middle or enters after the second pole instead of the first. There is also a standard for how you enter the poles and even I can’t remember if it’s right or left, so I’m fairly confident that Grace doesn’t remember that yet, either. We both have some learning to do.

The thing that amazes me about agility – and I believe it’s true about so many things—is how simple it can look on the surface but how complex it is to truly master it. Agility can provide a fun and non-competitive activity that has benefits of exercise along with mental stimulation. Yet it provides the opportunity for mastery of a complex craft; there is so much to know about the nuances of every move, yours and the dog. I’m starting to realize that it can take years to develop sufficient knowledge and efficient skills that encompass every single movement of your hand, the words you use, and the placement of your body. All of it (and most likely much more) determines the dog’s ability to perform.

Mastering the open weave poles -- staying inside!

In business, it seems we often don’t create this structured learning cycle. Because people have full plates and it is difficult to devote adequate time to training, employees are expected to perform at the highest level, immediately. Some managers provide the environment for risk-taking and mistakes, many do not. On-the-job training is valuable, but should be supported by strong mentoring and knowledgeable resources. If the learning process is rushed, incomplete or random, it can create so many issues, potentially ending in failure or blemishes on a person’s self-esteem.

"Look at me! I'm so GOOD at this!!" (Doesn't she look proud?)

When Grace goes through the weave poles right now, she thinks she’s a champion. She doesn’t even realize that we’ve only just begun. With each opportunity to build her confidence, we move to the next level. In agility, our instructor, Rachel works to make sure that the last experience for each dog on each piece of equipment is a positive one, so that they are excited to return for more. We need to stretch our physical and mental muscles, but we must also rest them, too, for the best learning.

How much focus do you need to get what you want?

On April 12, 2011 / Graceful Leadership, Training / Leave a comment

This is an example of a discrimination exercise, where the dog has a choice of two pieces of equipment. Your job is to ensure the dog goes to the place you intended. You will see Riley, Grace

Focus. No distractions. Having all your attention on something—it’s a good thing.

Until you lose your focus.

That’s what happened to me at agility last week. And I didn’t even realize it until a fellow classmate, Patricia, recognized it had happened to both of us. I loved our class last week. It turned out that there were only two dogs and so we had a bit more opportunity to practice some of the skills.

One of the first things we did was a front cross technique; as Grace exited the tunnel, I would cross in front of her from the left to the right, then I would ask her to jump, on the hurdle now on my left. I needed to make sure to pick up eye-contact with Grace as she came out of the tunnel, not quite that easy since Grace runs a lot faster than I do. After picking her up at the end of tunnel, I needed to guide her to the hurdle, now on my left, as opposed to her running right.

My first attempt was unsuccessful. So was my second.

Patricia was experiencing this as well, so Rachel slowed us down and showed us again. With a little practice and Rachel’s clear direction, we did it! Grace and Patricia’s adorable dog, Riley, did great—through that part of the exercise. Once we had completed that stage, we had several more jumps as part of the course Rachel had set up for us.

After we had gone through the course a few times, Patricia made the accurate observation that Riley and Grace had both made mistakes at the end of course. Once Patricia and I had successfully accomplished the task we were actively learning, we lost our focus.

I know I was assuming that the rest of course was “routine” and that Grace knew what to do. But as was so clearly evident afterwards, it was critical for me to keep my focus, helping her hit every tire and jump exactly as I knew she was capable of doing. But if I was unclear or wishy-washy about what I wanted her to do, she had a free pass to do what she wanted. She didn’t ‘miss’ intentionally—she just wasn’t clear what I wanted.

As we work with others on a project or learning a new skill, this can be the explanation why mistakes are made in places that were once mastered. Consistent focus is really necessary.

Some people crave a process — others hate it!

On March 11, 2011 / Communicating / Leave a comment

My last post about routines created some interesting dialogue so I decided to explore this further. I know that Grace is better with a consistent routine, but as was pointed out to me, many people like variety in their day. For individuals who want autonomy and independence, a rigid environment will create frustration and burnout.

This past weekend, I had a fascinating conversation with two people in the health care industry on this topic. We were talking about the pros and cons of standardized processes that are designed to ensure the highest quality of care. If a procedure is too rigid, it might have the potential to get in the way of delivering the best care. However, if there are evidence-based protocols that prove superior results over other processes, it would be detrimental not to follow them. The challenge is to create a structure that allows flexibility; two diametrically opposed concepts. It gets more complicated when we realize that some people crave a process, others hate it!

Take the surgical checklist, for example. The World Health Organization endorses a standardized checklist for all surgeries, to ensure that some fairly basic items are covered, such as making sure you have the right patient and are about to operate on the correct body part. There are impressive statistics that prove a reduction in avoidable errors when using the checklist, so it seems like a no-brainer. Yet it has not been easy to implement the use of the checklist in many surgical rooms. Why? There were lots of reasons, including a sense of lost autonomy, and feeling like a simple validation task became onerous.

It is common for people who aren’t process-oriented to think of systems as a waste of time. So when we institute processes in the workforce, we have to be clear about the time needed versus return on investment. And we have to take into consideration the personal needs of those who will be required to follow them. What’s the risk if they don’t adhere to the process? For those who don’t like the feeling of being boxed in, they need to understand the bigger picture and impact they are having by following – or not following – the process.

I’d be interested to hear examples of routines that are beneficial to your work. When do they stifle creativity? Or when does a routine, or structured process, create the best outcome? What are the underlying characteristics that make them advantageous?

The value of a routine depends on who you are — but also what you do

On March 7, 2011 / Graceful Leadership, Managing / 2 Comments

I’ve heard that dogs can’t tell time. Yet, I know that Grace is fully aware of patterns in our day. You could set the clock by when she asks for her dinner. And when we turn off the TV at night, she immediately jumps from her bed and waits by the door until I get there for our walk. Coming in from outside, she will then head directly upstairs to her crate, never deviating or diverting from her routine. I think the routines are comforting for her. She knows what to do, what is expected of her, and there are no surprises to frighten or worry her.

Like Grace, some employees love a routine and they flourish in an environment that has consistency and constancy. They like knowing what they need to do and welcome the guidance and direction. Others would consider that setting boring and limiting, preferring to have variety and are more likely to thrive when things are always changing. They like to face new situations and enjoy the challenge of constant problem-solving.

There is not a right or wrong approach here. But it needs to match the job and the culture of the organization.

When we have individuals who are not in a setting that best suits their personality, it creates stress. Because Grace is so cautious around new people, she would be a nervous wreck if her day was spent in a place where different people were constantly flowing in and out. Think about the environment your employees are in. Does the normal ebb and flow of the day suit their style? Is there a co-worker who stays focused on their task and therefore becomes frustrated with interruptions? Or perhaps there is someone else who welcomes disruptions and doesn’t want to be boxed into a rigid schedule? What things can you to ensure the environment matches their style?

Lucky for me, Grace will let me know if I missed her meal time. It’s a nice reminder to me when I’ve forgotten her routine.