Discussion 2

Audio Transcript Auto-generated

• 00:01 - 00:03

  Hello, my name is Aaron Corbin

• 00:03 - 00:06

  and this recording is over module two discussion.

• 00:06 - 00:08

  It's case study 3.2.

• 00:09 - 00:13

  The primary organization is Spring Harbor Bank which recently purchased Westford

• 00:13 - 00:17

  Bank which is a small commercial banking institution based in Atlanta,

• 00:17 - 00:18

  Georgia.

• 00:18 - 00:20

  There are a lot of benefits to buying this company but

• 00:20 - 00:24

  overall the major issue but overall a major issue presented,

• 00:24 - 00:26

  the new branch was experiencing mass employee

• 00:26 - 00:29

  turnover due to the number of retirees.

• 00:29 - 00:33

  This has ultimately resulted in a very young and inexperienced

• 00:33 - 00:37

  sales force which is currently reflected in their low performance.

• 00:37 - 00:40

  There were also two other issues that they were looking to address.

• 00:40 - 00:45

  The first was increasing cross sale ratios of the Spring Harbor Associates.

• 00:45 - 00:49

  And the second was to decrease technology costs by eliminating

• 00:49 - 00:53

  one of the two sales systems currently being used.

• 00:55 - 00:57

  Next. They move to data collection.

• 00:59 - 01:01

  Data was collected in two forms.

• 01:01 - 01:05

  First feedback was collected in the form of an electronic survey.

• 01:05 - 01:08

  Second feedback was collected in the form of

• 01:08 - 01:12

  a small group interviews conducted through a webcast.

• 01:12 - 01:15

  They did not detail all the questions asked but they

• 01:15 - 01:19

  did note that both methods primarily focused on gathering data points

• 01:19 - 01:23

  regarding how the employees felt the approach selected to achieve the

• 01:23 - 01:28

  desired outcomes and what they believed would ensure its success.

• 01:28 - 01:30

  So when they were diagnosing,

• 01:30 - 01:35

  the problem is really all about the perception of the stakeholders involved.

• 01:37 - 01:39

  Based on this data,

• 01:39 - 01:42

  they had different interventions that they proposed.

• 01:42 - 01:46

  The interventions they implemented were very involved and included many

• 01:46 - 01:49

  layers that had both short term and long term impacts.

• 01:50 - 01:54

  The team thought it was best to pilot these interventions with a small group.

• 01:54 - 01:57

  Before a full systematic intervention took place,

• 01:57 - 01:59

  the intervention program was intended to

• 01:59 - 02:04

  meet all the educational needs identified provided

• 02:06 - 02:08

  associates with the necessary tools to perform

• 02:08 - 02:11

  their jobs and to leverage technology.

• 02:11 - 02:15

  This included many trading efforts through the form of coaching,

• 02:15 - 02:17

  webcast and email helpline

• 02:18 - 02:21

  and occasionally they did constructive critiquing along

• 02:21 - 02:23

  the way to see what was working

• 02:23 - 02:27

  and what was not working that way they could address the instant feedback.

• 02:30 - 02:31

  I think the most important thing that they

• 02:31 - 02:33

  did during this process was starting with the

• 02:33 - 02:36

  pilot group because after they were done with

• 02:36 - 02:38

  doing the implementation with the pilot group,

• 02:38 - 02:41

  they had different adjustments that they wanted to make.

• 02:41 - 02:42

  So they were actually able to make those

• 02:42 - 02:46

  adjustments before the systematic intervention took place.

• 02:50 - 02:55

  Overall, this was a successful case. Um The Westford sales

• 02:55 - 02:59

  increased by 5% over the next six quarters.

• 02:59 - 03:02

  The cross sale ratios at Spring Harbor increased by

• 03:02 - 03:05

  7% over the next six quarters as well.

• 03:05 - 03:10

  And they managed to decrease technology costs by a whopping $1.7

• 03:10 - 03:14

  million when they eliminated one of the sale prospecting systems.

• 03:14 - 03:17

  So the reason why they had two is because when they purchased the other bank,

• 03:17 - 03:19

  they were actually paying for both of them.

• 03:19 - 03:20

  So

• 03:20 - 03:23

  they actually had to make a decision as to which one was more beneficial.

• 03:23 - 03:25

  And then they did the training based on that.

• 03:25 - 03:28

  So they were able to eliminate one of the systems altogether.

• 03:30 - 03:35

  So many important lessons were learned from this highly effective case.

• 03:35 - 03:35

  Um First,

• 03:35 - 03:38

  they emphasized that it was imperative to

• 03:38 - 03:41

  understand the needs of all stakeholders involved.

• 03:41 - 03:44

  They said that this should be accomplished by documenting their goals,

• 03:44 - 03:47

  concerns and motivations.

• 03:47 - 03:49

  Second, they emphasized how important it is

• 03:50 - 03:55

  to not select interventions before a thorough analysis has been completed,

• 03:55 - 03:58

  which I believe is something that continues to be emphasized again and again.

• 03:58 - 03:59

  In this course,

• 04:00 - 04:03

  the third and final lesson learned was the importance of managing

• 04:03 - 04:07

  stakeholders expectations by being very transparent

• 04:07 - 04:09

  upfront in the planning process.

• 04:09 - 04:13

  The more clarity that they provided for the interventions equaled

• 04:13 - 04:17

  more buy-in um from all of the stakeholders involved.

• 04:20 - 04:23

  So some of the lessons I learned um

• 04:23 - 04:27

  was really the successful strategies for systematic change.

• 04:28 - 04:31

  I think many lessons are starting to repeat themselves,

• 04:31 - 04:34

  like not putting the horse before the cart.

• 04:34 - 04:37

  But one new thing I learned what that I hope to apply to

• 04:37 - 04:41

  my human performance improvement project is expectation

• 04:41 - 04:44

  setting before an intervention takes place.

• 04:44 - 04:46

  Uh As an educator,

• 04:46 - 04:49

  there are often many new interventions thrown at

• 04:49 - 04:52

  us with little clarity as to why these decisions

• 04:52 - 04:56

  were made and we tend to have no voice in the decisions being made as well.

• 04:56 - 04:58

  This tends to cause frustration on our end and

• 04:58 - 05:02

  usually results in less buy-in and therefore weaker results.

• 05:02 - 05:03

  So I want my team to really take a look,

• 05:03 - 05:08

  take this into consideration as we move into module three to

• 05:08 - 05:11

  help make sure that we are earning this buy-in from the

• 05:11 - 05:14

  stakeholders and that we're also giving them a voice in the

• 05:14 - 05:18

  process by including them in the data collection process as well.

• 05:21 - 05:22

  Now

• 05:22 - 05:25

  one burning question

• 05:25 - 05:26

  that remained

• 05:26 - 05:27

  um

• 05:28 - 05:28

  was

• 05:29 - 05:34

  how do these data collection tools actually look in practice?

• 05:34 - 05:37

  I know we've talked about many forms of data collection,

• 05:37 - 05:39

  but we've not talked about

• 05:39 - 05:41

  um specific examples.

• 05:41 - 05:44

  So what are strong questions we can ask versus

• 05:44 - 05:47

  what are weaker questions we should stay away from?

• 05:47 - 05:50

  And how can we assure that we're not leading the witness as we collect

• 05:50 - 05:54

  data to help ensure that we really aren't putting the cart before the horse.

• 05:54 - 05:56

  It would have been neat to have seen

• 05:56 - 05:59

  some of the actual data collection tools utilized

• 05:59 - 06:03

  in this to see if they were not leading their witnesses inside of the questioning.

• 06:04 - 06:07

  Um So to just to see if they were doing a good job or a poor job of this,

• 06:07 - 06:09

  it would be great to see actual examples.

• 06:09 - 06:11

  So that is my question

• 06:11 - 06:13

  and thank you for your time.