Case Studies:
Beware simplistic benchmarking. Ask questions. Do your homework
Roughly 75% of the work we do is to "fix up" mistakes made by other vendors or an organization's staff. In a number of cases, the staff have read a program description in a magazine or newspaper article (written by someone who knows nothing about mentoring programs) and benchmark on mediocrity (without knowing it) or select a totally inappropriate model. The failure rate is high. Yet it doesn't need to be that way.
A good case study is invaluable – but its value is gained only through intelligent and knowledgeable interpretation by people who know the reality -- no two programs are alike. One size doesn't fit all. However, all too often the descriptions are taken at face value without understanding the context.
Our aim is to ensure members of the client's Task Force or Steering Committee understand real life decisions that need to be made, why, when, how and who is responsible for each. Here's an example taken from CMSI files along with the sort of questions that we raise (in case the client doesn't) to guide the process, especially during the Planning and Design Phase.
An Example:
CMSI helped a large, multinational start a Career Development Mentoring Program in a Mid-Atlantic region of the USA. During the Design Session, we had taken into consideration factors that typically are never mentioned in popular press articles. So we were ready for potential changes when the program was then rolled out to a location in California, then several other corners of the country. This is called "building in elasticity". Judiciously, we anticipated that each group would likely differ in at least one or more ways that we could not afford to ignore – group size, culture and occupation for example. Yet it was vital to maintain some overall program consistency where it mattered. How to get the right balance so as to get maximum results? Knowing how to do this takes experience of the sort we've gained over the decades.
Let's return to the subject of using superficial program descriptions to benchmark. What can go wrong? The description might fail to indicate there's major program inconsistencies between locations. Or the description might not bother to describe key program components. Or the description might state a component is not important.
To answer the question, for our part, we ensured consistency could be maintained through uniform and clearly understood and articulated program goals, standard materials, partner training, and criteria for selection, amongst other things. In sum, keep case studies in perspective.
Case Studies:
| Scotiabank
|
| The Challenge - Recruiting and grooming fresh MBAs to become Commercial Loan Officers was a costly program for Scotiabank. The bank needed to teach both the technical skills of the position and the "soft skills" of relationship-based selling. All too often the new hires left the bank before their training was complete.
|
| The Solution - CMSI Mentoring Solutions implemented a program building Mentoring Action Plans© around the 100+ competencies required and identified best-fit mentors who could help proteges put these competencies into practice and learn the customer-service skills necessary to succeed.
|
| The Result - Turnover of new hires was halved, while the time to develop the competencies was cut from 12 to 9 months so the intellectual capital could be put into action sooner and to a higher degree of success than had been the case in the past.
|
| Exxon |
| The Challenge - Exxon's Sales Division was not meeting its goal to recruit and retain women and minorities. Promising hires with the necessary technical and analytical skills often lacked the people skills, and the focus on new recruits meant second-year trainees were under-supervised. As a result, most of these targeted hires left the company within four to five years.
|
| The Solution - CMSI Mentoring Solutions matched veteran salespeople with second-year trainees and trained both to develop a compatible and productive mentoring relationship.
|
| The Result - Structured interviews revealed that, at the end of the mentoring program, every protege felt valued and optimistic about their future with Exxon, and both proteges and mentors asked that the program be continued.
|
| NCR
|
| The Challenge - NCR needed to change decades of practice in its sales force to move from selling equipment to selling "solutions".
|
| The Solution - CMSI matched veteran salespeople - who had made the shift to solution selling - with peers who had not. CMSI trained participants using its Mentoring Process to help each mentor identify and address his / her protege's specific skill gaps. To ensure the Program could be sustained, CMSI Mentoring Solutions developed internal trainers at NCR to guide future mentor-protege training.
|
| The Result - Proteges developed solution selling skills, leading to greatly increased sales and creating a self-sustaining "solutions culture" at NCR. Shortly thereafter, the Program was adapted to the training of new sales personnel.
|
| Sarah Lee
|
| The Challenge - Sara Lee's Hosiery Division had a large percentage of female employees. Very few worked at the higher executive levels.
|
| The Solution - CMSI Mentoring Solutions used its unique Mentoring Compatibility Indicator® to make suitable matches between prospective mentors and proteges. As a second step in CMSI's Mentoring Process©, program participants were shown how to develop Mentoring Action Plans© to develop productive partnerships.
|
| The Result - At the program's end, fully 85% of protégés achieved their stated career development and personal goals, and 100% asked that the Mentoring Program be continued.
|
| CSX Transportation
|
| The Challenge - CSX Transportation needed to improve customer service and internal recruitment, but was hindered by divisions between management and labor, departmental silos, and strict roles within departments.
|
| The Solution - CMSI Mentoring Solutions introduced a Mentoring Program that cut across positions, locations and departments. Using CMSI mentoring tools and Process, proteges were carefully matched with mentors, and individual training goals were developed following 2.5 days of training.
|
| The Result - Better internal communication resulted in better customer service. Long-standing silos were broken down. Many salaried employees became qualified for management positions. This success led CSX Transportation since 1992 to continue the program - making it one of North America's longest-running corporate mentoring programs.
|
|
