How to get the natural forces of inertia working FOR you

1. DYNAMIC TRAINING:
A system to get natural inertia on your side
By
Dr. D.H. Groberg
"You mean to tell me it hasn't made a difference?" Verl's voice literally boomed across
the board room table. "Why'd we spend all that money? Why'd we buy all those video
machines? Why'd we put all of our people through those courses? Seems like a million
dollar fiasco to me!"
As CEO of Daniel's, a large restaurant chain, Verl knew the value of training. It was
basic to the business. If people didn't know how to do their jobs--especially at the unit
level where the customer and the restaurant staff met face to face--the business wouldn't
succeed. It was that simple. And if by spending some money--even a million dollars--we
could get them to do their jobs, it would be worth it. Customers would be more satisfied;
they'd come more often; they'd spend more money; and the business would prosper.
That's why he had gone along with--even actively supported--the waitress training
program. But now, according to customer surveys, after spending close to a million
dollars, after putting 20,000 waitresses through training sessions, after producing special
films and video equipment for each restaurant for follow-up and new-hire training, the
level of service was the same as before. It seemed that the training effort hadn't made a
bit of difference.
'We've got to hire better people," insisted Harley, the vice president of operations. "It's
not a training problem, it's an attitude problem. Our people know how to give good
service. They just don't do it. They don't care. We've got to find people who are more
service oriented in the first place."
"We hire as well as anyone," said Mark. As personnel director, he had been one of the
driving forces behind the new training effort. "Everyone you hire isn't going to be
tender-loving-care service oriented. But once we get them, if we train them, they'll do
o.k."
"You can't train attitude," Harley countered. "That's something they either have or don't
have."
That had been a basic dispute from the beginning. If the people you hired didn't really
care about giving good service, would training them make any difference? Mark
believed it would. And with the CEO's support, the training program had been approved,
developed, and implemented. At first it seemed to make a difference. People were
excited about it. There were many positive comments about it. But now, over a year
later, judging by the customer surveys, it hadn't made a difference. Things were the same
as they were before. Except for the year's time and the million dollars spent.
"I'd like to know what went wrong," Verl demanded. Why hasn't the training program
paid off? I'm going to get an outside expert to look at it."

2. That was when I was called in to look at things as an outside consultant, and to make
recommendations. For six weeks I did nothing but look. I talked with people at all
levels. I attended meetings. I interviewed cooks and waitresses, restaurant managers and
district managers, vice presidents and the CEO. At the end of six weeks I felt I knew the
company and its environment as well as anyone. And I knew why the training program
hadn't worked, and what needed to be done to "fix" it: Their approach to training was
"static." They needed a "dynamic" approach.
Among my observations, three things stood out:
1. The hands-on training by the unit and district managers had not been carried
out in at least half of the restaurants. And with the high turnover of employees,
many of those who were trained, were no longer with the company. Where the
training had been carried out, it didn't transfer back to the job.
The waitresses liked it all right--especially the time off from work with pay—but
back on the job they behaved about the same as they had before. It didn't seem to
make a difference to them whether they behaved differently as a result of the
training. And they were tired of hearing about it. It appeared that inertia, not
training, was the primary force at work.
2. The training materials provided for each restaurant--especially the videos
and the equipment to show them--were still sitting unopened in almost half of the
stores. Where they were opened and available, they were almost never used.
And it didn't seem to make a difference to anyone whether they were opened or
unopened, used or unused. They were not a part of what was happening.
3. Perhaps the most significant observation was the differences that I found in
the employees. I categorized them into three groups: The first group I identified
was the poor performers. There were 25 to 30 percent of the employees in this
category, all operating below standards.
The next group were the average performers--neither really good, nor really bad,
but just "hanging in there," giving average service. This group made up about 60
to 70 percent of the total. The last group, the one that was most significant to me,
was the excellent performers. It was the smallest in size--only about 5 to 10
percent of the total--but it was definitely there. Sometimes I found only an
individual employee. Sometimes it was a whole unit or district.
This group was significant because it showed me that giving excellent service was
possible. If some could do it, why not more? But it wasn't clear that the
training program had made the difference.
It seemed to be more the result of a vision or spirit--the "DYNAMICS"--that
existed in these people or units, or districts.

3. I concluded that the problem--and the solution--centered on one thing: Dynamics. The
company had been trying to implement a "static" program, focusing only on the core
training itself. What was needed was a "dynamic" program, one that considered what
was happening before, during and after the core training, and included activities to impact
on each phase on a continuing basis
As a result, what usually happens happened: the natural forces of inertia and time kept the
behavior where it was originally. The training didn't transfer back to the job. In the few
cases where some of it did transfer, it was quickly extinguished by peer pressure of what
everyone else was (or wasn't) doing.
I understood the need to work with rather than against these natural forces. So the
solution--the way to get improved service--was clear: use a dynamic approach to get
inertia working for us instead of against us; create a DYNAMIC TRAINING program.

4. A year later we had developed and implemented our DYNAMIC TRAINING program.
It worked. There were at least five areas of positive results:
1. Service improved significantly in the units where it was implemented.
Through customer surveys, the company measured the effect of the advanced
training with the following results:
CATEGORY BEFORE AFTER INCREASE
Hospitality: 73% 85% +12%
Service: 71% 83% +12%
Food: 76% 84% +8%
Cleanliness: 84% 88% +4%
Overall: 78% 90% +12%
2. The average guest check increased. Almost without exception, waitresses and
store managers reported that the average amount of customer purchases increased.
This was most significant to profits because there were few additional expenses
associated with the increases. Most of it went straight to the bottom line.
GUEST CHECK AVERAGES
(Same shifts, Different Waitresses)
LOW AVG. HIGH VARIANCE
2.07 2.47 2.86 .74
1.97 2.48 2.98 1.01
2.24 2.67 3.07 .93
2.48 2.83 3.18 .70
2.20 2.60 3.01 .81
2.28 2.61 2.93 .65
AVERAGE: 2.21 2.61 3.01 .81

5. 3. Morale, team spirit, and vision improved. Managers and service personnel
reported significant increases in the cooperation among the staff. Hundreds of
comments such as the following were expressed by managers and employees:
I hope this program continues non-stop, throughout the company. It motivates
people, makes us want to improve not only for ourselves, but also for the
company, our managers, but most of all for the customer. This personal growth
approach has proven to build a great deal of enthusiasm and self-esteem through
the unit. It has had far reaching positive service and professionalism effects--
even before we look at the dollars generated.
Guest check averages are increasing in the unit and teamwork is more evident
than ever in the unit. Employees are more motivated to do a better job in the
area of customer service.
Girls who once were clashing or working totally independently have joined t
together and now work as a team. Their enthusiasm has spread and lifted moral
150%. Now everyone is fighting to be a part of this positive team.
4. Waitress tips increased. Because tips are usually based on the quality of the
service and the amount of the check, it was not surprising that waitresses
consistently reported increases in tips. Comments such as the following were
common:
Tips are increasing as well as profits. Employees feel good about themselves and
the results they are achieving. This is a very good return on investment.
5. Employee turnover decreased. Unit managers reported fewer turnovers of unit
employees. They reported that because employees felt that they were growing
and progressing on their jobs, they now tended to stay longer. Several waitresses
reported that even though they made a decision to leave the company, the
DYNAMIC TRAINING program gave them reason to stay.
What had made the difference? What made the second approach successful? It was a
dynamic rather than a static training approach. To explain how it worked, I must first
give some background on the theory and thinking behind DYNAMIC TRAINING, and
compare and contrast it with the usual static training.
The dictionary says that dynamics are...
"The various forces, physical, moral, or otherwise,
operating in any field."
This isn't a bad definition for our purpose. In this sense, all training programs are
dynamic because there are various forces at work.

6. But in most training programs the dynamics work against you instead of for you. My
definition of a DYNAMIC TRAINING program is one which puts dynamics on your side
so that they help achieve the goals rather than work against them. DYNAMIC
TRAINING says:
CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS FORCES AT WORK, DESIGN
THE TRAINING PROGRAM SO THAT IT TAKES ADVANTAGE
OF THE FORCES, GETTING THEM ON YOUR SIDE, WORKING
FOR YOU INSTEAD OF AGAINST YOU AND YOUR GOALS.
And what are the forces at work? There are many. Some of them are "outer" forces--
outside the individual--and others are "inner" forces--inside the individual. Because the
only permanent changes in people are those that happen inside them, "inner" changes,
building and strengthening the "inner" person is the best and quickest--perhaps the only--
way to effect outer changes.
FIVE DYNAMIC TRAINING PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES
I have boiled many of these "inner" forces down to just five principles. Each principle
leads to a guideline for action in the DYNAMIC TRAINING approach. The five
PRINCIPLES and GUIDELINES are:
PRINCIPLE 1: PEOPLE WANT TO GROW AND DEVELOP. They want to be
contributing members of winning teams going somewhere. The very process of growing
and developing can be rewarding. As Andrew Grove, President of Intel says, people
expect more than money from their jobs: "Money is not the predominate force in the
workplace. People expect to enjoy their job and be good at it."
GUIDELINE 1: MAKE GROWING/DEVELOPING A REWARD, NOT A
PUNISHMENT.
PRINCIPLE 2: PRODUCTIVITY IS AFFECTED MOST BY INNER INTANGIBLE
FORCES. How well people perform is determined more by inner feelings, (motivation,
spirit, vision, pride, etc.), than by outer facts. The total work environment can lift up and
release potential or beat down and bottle it up.
GUIDELINE 2: CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF ANY DECISION ON THE
"INTANGIBLES."
PRINCIPLE 3: PRODUCTIVITY IS DRAINED BY CONFLICTING VECTORS.
Getting people working towards the same goals, (lining up the vectors), is a primary
source of productivity improvement. Conflicting goals, even informal ones, are among
the biggest drains on personal and organizational productivity.
GUIDELINE 3: ENROLE THE NEGATIVE DYNAMICS TO WORK FOR YOU.

7. PRINCIPLE 4: PROGRESS AND GROWTH MUST BE REINFORCED TO
CONTINUE. Natural inertia seems to be downward. In order to sustain progress and
growth, positive reinforcement (especially in the form of recognition and appreciation) is
required on a continuous basis.
GUIDELINE 4: GIVE RECOGNITION/APPRECIATION FOR GOOD
PERFORMANCE.
PRINCIPLE 5: A DEEPER AND MORE LASTING IMPACT IS MADE BY
WORKING INTENSELY WITH THE "TOP" PEOPLE THAN SUPERFICIALLY
WITH EVERYONE. They are the most receptive and motivated, they will influence the
others the most, and they will raise the vision and standard for everyone. And people
tend to move toward where the attention, excitement, and emphasis are.
GUIDELINE 5: RECOGNIZE AND BUILD PEOPLE FROM THE "BEST" ON
DOWN.
A NEW DYNAMIC MODEL FOR IMPROVING TRAINING:
THE VSR BALANCE MODEL
From the above principles and guidelines, we can derive two critical "inner" factors
which influence employees to perform more productively. They are the "want to"
(which I label vision), and the "how to" (which I label skills). For vision and skills to
be effective in promoting growth, they must also be in proper proportion to each other
(balance), and both must be translated into action and continue to grow, sustained by
constant reinforcement. These factors are the theoretical foundation of DYNAMIC
TRAINING.
Therefore, the steps that a DYNAMIC TRAINING system (and the leader implementing
that system) must take are:
• IMPLANT VISION (implant the "want to" by providing and under-
standing of the overall goals and purposes, individual roles and benefits
to those carrying them out, confidence in their ability to carry them out,
etc.)
BUILD SKILLS (build the "how to" by helping them to develop the
knowledge and skills necessary to achieve their vision.)
• REINFORCE PROGRESS (initiate and support the actual implementation
by reinforcing and rewarding progress made toward the achievement of
the vision, thereby reinforcing the growing visions and skills). And thus
the natural dynamics assist you rather than hinder you in achieving the
goals of the training.

8. This theoretical foundation is called the VSR BALANCE model. Building employee
productivity is a function of balancing the three factors of VISION, SKILLS, and
REINFORCEMENT BALANCE in an upward growth.
The VSR Balance model says that improved personal productivity is a function of both
the "want to" (Vision), the "how to"(Skills), and their balanced preservation and growth
(through Reinforcement). (See Figure 6 below).
For almost any task, someone who both wants to (has Vision) and knows how to (has
Skills), can expect to. And as the VISION and SKILLS increase (through REINFORCE-
MENT), so do personal expectations--and results.
What is critical in the VSR model is not the absolute magnitude of any of the variables
but rather the balance among them. (These variables are defined and further explained in
other articles. See "Inner Productivity", by D.H. Groberg in Productivity Through People
in the Age of Changing Technology, Asian Productivity Organization, 1987, Tokyo.)
APPLICATION OF DYNAMIC TRAINING TO THE RESTAURANT CASE
Now for the application of all of this to the restaurant case. Our DYNAMIC TRAINING
dealt with that which happens before, that which happens during, and that which happens
after training. In accordance with underlying theory and VSR Balance model, the effect
on vision, skills and reinforcement were considered in everything.
BEFORE TRAINING ACTIVITIES:
1. Understanding the dynamics. (Even though this is not one of the training steps, it is
one of the most important steps. In order to work with the dynamics, one must first
understand them and how they function in the environment.)
The goal of the consulting arrangement was to improve the level of customer service,
suggestive selling, and the overall environment of the restaurant. Daniel's had identified
excellent customer service, suggestive selling, and a warm, friendly environment as its
primary means of achieving its overall mission which was to increase corporate profits or

9. return on assets. Even though the company already had many training programs designed
to accomplish these goals, they had not been effective. First, they were not widely
implemented, and second, where they were implemented, they produced only temporary
results or affected only a small number of personnel. They were "static" programs.
The training problem was compounded by a high turnover of unit level employees (up to
250 percent per year in some unite) typical of the restaurant industry. Some personnel
stayed for many years, others worked for only a few weeks or months.
Interviews with restaurant personnel and other informal surveys indicated that only
between 5 and 10 percent of the personnel were performing excellently. A larger
number, between 25 and 30 percent were performing poorly. The remaining 60 to 70
percent were adequate. (See figure 1 on page 2.)
I first analyzed the current operations to determine possible reasons why more employees
were not giving the desired excellent service. I determined that only occasionally was it
solely the result of poor hiring or inadequate staffing on the floor. I concluded that most
of the time it was a lack of a clear expectation, lack of knowledge or skill in doing it, or
lack of desire to do it. These corresponded to the three factors in the VSR Balance
model, and fit perfectly into the DYNAMIC TRAINING approach. Armed with an
understanding of the dynamics at work, we were ready to design and implement a
program to make them work for us.
2. Announcing "advanced" training. Before we did anything, we announced what we
were going to do. And what we were going to do was key to getting the dynamics on our
side. We knew we had some poor performers, some average performers, and some
excellent performers in the company. We had to decide where to focus our effort. On
the poor performers? On poor and average? On everyone? Considering the impact on
vision made it clear what we should do: Focus only on the excellent performers initially.
At first, that might seem contradictory. The excellent performers were already doing
well. It was the poor performers who needed to change. But such thinking ignores the
dynamics. This was the mistake the company had made before. They had attempted to
train everyone at the same time. Consider how employees in each group reacted to that
(CONSIDER THE IMPACT OF ANY DECISION ON THE "INTANGIBLES"):
POOR PERFORMER: Oh, no, not another training program. Why is the company
always on my back trying to train me? I'm not changing.
AVE. PERFORMER: Big deal, another training program. I'm doing a lot better
than some people I know. Why do I have to get re-
trained?
EXCEL. PERFORMER: I've been trying real hard and I thought I was doing quite
well. But I guess not. Maybe I should find a new job?

10. Even if they had succeeded in changing the poor performers, the most they could expect
would be to move them into the "average" category, with no effect on anyone else.
We decided that one of the best ways to build vision of customer service was by giving
advanced training to those employees who were already providing excellent service. (A
DEEPER AND MORE LASTING IMPACT IS MADE BY WORKING INTENSELY
WITH THE "TOP" PEOPLE THAN SUPERFICIALLY WITH EVERYONE) This
would both reward the excellent performers (MAKE GROWING/DEVELOPING A
REWARD, NOT A PUNISHMENT), and make them even better at the same time.
(PEOPLE WANT TO GROW AND DEVELOP). As the excellent employees became
even better, and their standards (visions) raised, it was expected that other employees
would want to reach and qualify for the advanced training themselves.
This is how employees in each group reacted to the concept of advanced training:
EXCEL. PERFORMER: Great! I've been trying real hard and the company has
recognized how well I've been doing. Now I get the
advanced training which is going to make
me even better. I think I can go places here.
AVE. PERFORMER: Advanced training? How do I get into it? I'm not doing too
bad. With a little more effort I think I could make it, too.
Why not do it? I’ve got nothing to lose and lots to
gain.
POOR PERFORMER: Those good waitresses are really moving ahead. I wish it
were me. If I don't start making some progress now
I'll really get left behind. I either have to start
performing or get out.
By focusing on the excellent performers first, everyone in the organization was affected
(ASSURE THAT INDIVIDUAL AND GROUP GOALS ARE UNIFIED).
First, the excellent performers still had a lot of room to grow. And they wanted to do it.
Because they had been recognized and honored for their excellence, they were more

11. receptive to and willing to learn from the training than anyone. And as they moved
forward, it created a vacuum or suction that tended to pull everyone forward.
.