TRAINING - ATD Chi Archive/TTSpring2005.pdfus stories and fairy tales—stories with characters as diverse as the tooth fairy, the three little pigs and the fiery dragon. While these

Chicagoland ChapterAmerican Society for Training and Development

SPRING 2005

T H E M A G A Z I N E O F T H E C H I C A G O L A N D C H A P T E R O F T H E

A M E R I C A N S O C I E T Y F O R T R A I N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

T O D A YTRAINING

Archetypes and GenderDiversity in Business

by Barbara Hancock Annin .............. 3

Insights in CorporateTraining

Interview with Carole Widmer ........ 6

OD and the DiversityChallenge: AppreciatingGender

by Therese F. Yaeger, Ph.D.and Peter F. Sorensen, Ph.D. ........... 7

Diversity Training“Gen Why”

by Eric Chester .................................... 9

Team PerformanceConsulting –Supporting Diversityat Work

by Lee S. Johnsen ............................ 10

Diversity Training:The Iceberg Analogy

by Matthew Valle, Ph.D. ..................12

2 Chicagoland Chapter • American Society for Training & Development

TRAINING SPRING2005

©2005, CC•ASTD

Training Today, the magazineof the Chicagoland Chapterof ASTD, is published fourtimes a year as a serviceto its membership.T O D A Y

EditorKaren Bolek Communication [email protected]

Graphic DesignJan Graves c/o In [email protected]

Printing and MailingInfoComm Print, Chicago, IL

CC-ASTD Officers and Directors

PresidentPhil Orlandi, [email protected]

President ElectMicki Lewis, [email protected]

Past PresidentDonna Steffey, [email protected]

SecretaryDeborah L. Colky, [email protected]

TreasurerThomas H. West, [email protected]

Co-VP MarketingKaren Kroczek, [email protected]

Co-VP MarketingJulie M. Jacques, [email protected]

VP MembershipKarolus Smejda, [email protected]

VP ProgrammingOPEN

Director of VolunteersJill Koerperick, [email protected]

Director of CommunicationJoyce Wietrecki, [email protected]

Director Corporate PartnershipOPEN

Director of TechnologyOPEN

Director of Community ServicesOPEN

Director of Government RelationsPaul Neal, [email protected]

Co-Director HRD InstituteMichelle Filicicchia, [email protected]

Co-Director HRD InstituteLee Johnsen, [email protected]

Director of PDNsStephen Harap, PhD, [email protected]

Director Sales Consultancy& Training ForumOPEN

Director Special ProjectsKen Phillips, [email protected]

Director of University RelationsDaniel Moser, PhD, [email protected]

Co-Director of Build Your Business ForumJim Accetta, [email protected]

Co-Director of Build Your Business ForumMargot Weinstein, PhD, [email protected]

Alliance RepresentativeJohn Nawn, [email protected]

Presidential AdvisorVeronica Bruhl PhD, [email protected]

Presidential AdvisorHoward Prager, [email protected]

Director of Training TodayKaren Field Bolek, [email protected]

National ASTD Area ManagerDave Jennings, [email protected]

CC-ASTD AssociationManagement OfficeEric A. McCool, [email protected]

As a relatively recent focus in business,diversity offers great material to addto the repertoire of trainers. Perhapsthe most exciting aspect of diversity

is that it has so many dimensions, fromdemographic to highly personal dimen-sions, around which to develop trainingmodels that genuinely can enhance pro-ductivity.

What are the most important aspects ofdiversity for trainers to approach? This

issue reveals several views of diversity,from gender and generational diversity tothe diverse interactions of teams, and evendiverse forms of training. It also offersreaders “The Iceberg Analogy,” which sug-gests that we have only scratched the sur-face of this fascinating subject.

As you read, you’ll see that each articleblends theory and ideas with practical ap-plication. Many thanks to each and everyauthor for their excellent contributions.

NOTE: The listings of CC-ASTDBoard members and officers printedin the Winter 2005 issue beneathmy editorial column was outdated.My apologies to all concerned! Thecorrect listing is shown below, aswell as at CCASTD.org.

—Karen Bolek

Letter from the Editor

Views of Diversity

Training Today • Spring 2005 3

From the time we are small children,our parents and elders tell and retellus stories and fairy tales—stories withcharacters as diverse as the tooth fairy,

the three little pigs and the fiery dragon.While these tales may seem rather whimsi-cal, the stories, characters, and archetypalimages within them not only play an im-portant role in our development as hu-mans, but impact our career expectationsand behavior as well. According to theSwiss psychiatrist and scholar Carl Jung,these stories are passed on from generationto generation and from culture to culture.

Archetypes, according to Jung (1956),“are...structural elements of the psyche andpossess a certain autonomy and specificenergy which enables them to attract, outof the conscious mind, those contentswhich are best suited to themselves; thesymbols act as transformers.” The knightin shining armor, the rain-maker, the fool,the nurturing earth-mother, the princess,the hand-maiden...archetypes exist rightbeneath the surface of our consciousness.Attention to them can empower people tonavigate more effectively through the chal-lenges presented by life and work. Arche-types serve a broad array of purposes, in-cluding providing role models, helpingindividuals overcome adversity throughmeaning making, providing a differentpoint of view, providing structure, andwhat Pearson (1998) describes as findingthe hero within.

Jung (1959) believed that the uncon-scious consists of two components: thatwhich is personal and that which is collec-tive. The collective unconscious serves as arepository of information, including thearchetypes (Jung, 1964), that is shared byall human beings and cultures (Corlett &Pearson, 2003). The collective unconsciousis constrained neither by time nor space,and works in tandem with the human con-scious, communicating through ourdreams (Singer, 2002) and intuitions. “Thecollective unconscious provides a basic

link between the individual and humanityas a whole” (Corlett & Pearson, 2003, p.7). In the case of business leaders, the col-lective unconscious can serve as a robustsource of guidance for decisions andactions.

Characteristics of ArchetypesArchetypes are characterized by repetitionand seemingly bipolar forces (Enns, 1994).For example, the Infant archetype pos-sesses the opposing characteristics of com-plete innocence and self-indulgence(Edinger, 1992). It may be the tension be-tween these bipolar forces that creates theopportunity for increased growth and un-derstanding. Research suggests that recog-nizing this tension allows individuals tocome to terms with the opposing charac-teristics within.

Pearson (1998) contends that, whetherworking with others or on your own, youcan awaken the archetypes within by:1. identifying the positive qualities of a

desirable archetype,2. thinking consciously like the archetype

you want to emulate,3. identifying and eliminating the cause of

the inner block to expressing this ar-chetype,

4. talking the talk and walking the walk,and

5. fine-tuning your skills.

Gender-based ArchetypalStructuresWhile understanding archetypes is perti-nent to the business world regardless of

gender, it can be particularly helpful towomen, and to men concerned withwomen’s equality, because archetypes “pro-vide insights that allow [women] to tran-scend constricting roles and persist in[women’s] struggle to achieve equality”(Enns, 1994, p. 3).

There are several structural schemasthat have been developed regarding arche-types. On the one hand, many structuresthat have been developed are based onmale role models—King, Warrior, States-man. These male role models can some-times be difficult for women to emulate.On the other hand, feminine archetypalstructures such as Nurturer, Princess, orQueen may be easier for women to relateto but may have limited application in themale-dominated corporate work environ-ment.

Maccoby (1976) developed the male-dominated schema that he outlined in hisbook The Gamesman (as cited in Carr,2002). According to Maccoby’s construct,there are four archetypal figures withinorganizations: Craftsman, Jungle Fighter,Company Man, and Gamesman. Maccobycontended that the ideal archetype withinthe organizational structure was theGamesman—those individuals who per-ceived work as a game; who were competi-tive and controlling; and who used deci-sion-making skills pertaining to systemstheory (as cited in Carr, 2002).

Mitroff (1983) presents another male-dominated archetypal structure that wasdeveloped by Thompson (1971) and pre-sented in the book At the Edge of History.Thompson (1971) maintains that therewere four basic archetypes through ourculture: Hunter/Warrior, associated withmilitary figures; the Shaman—medical pro-fessionals; the Fool—artists and entertain-ers; and the Chief—managers (as cited inMitroff, 1986). According to Mitroff(1986), “Thompson shows how over timethese four basic archetypal characters havebecome progressively refined and elabo-

Archetypes and Gender Diversity in Businessby BARBARA HANCOCK ANNIN

…stories, characters, andarchetypal images…impact our career expec-tations and behavior.


rated into the impersonal institutionalizedforms” (p. 395). While these archetypes doseem to be prevalent within organizations,evidence suggests that they alienatewomen because they exclude the femaleperspective.

Scholars such as Woogler and Woogler(1989) have examined the female arche-typal perspective through research (as citedin Enns, 1994). They developed an arche-typal structure based on the following sixgoddess types: “Athena: intellectual life,wisdom and achievement; Aphrodite: loveand intimacy; Persephone: spirit world andmystical experiences; Artemis: adventureand physical world; Demeter: nurturingand motherhood; and Hera: power andleadership” (as cited in Enns, 1994, p.131). While for some women, these gen-der-specific archetypes may be too limitingand difficult to apply within an organiza-tional setting, for others they may provideinspiration or a sense of self-validation(Frymer-Kenskey, 1992, 219).

Archetypal Journey ModelPearson and Marr (2002) developed a gen-der-neutral archetypal model based on thenotion that archetypes can facilitate humandevelopment in an individual regardless ofgender. Pearson has written extensively onthe subject of archetypes, myths and he-roes, and her writings are heavily influ-enced by the work of Carl Jung and JosephCampbell. Pearson (1998) also contendsthat there are three stages of the archetypaljourney: “preparation, the journey and thereturn” (p. 5). Furthermore, there are spe-cific archetypes that we call upon duringthe stages of the journey (Pearson, 1998).One can argue that it is through this pro-cess of calling upon these archetypes atdifferent points throughout our life jour-ney that we are able to foster the growthand development of our psyche.

Pearson (1998) maintains that the ben-efits of an archetypal journey include help-ing individuals become more aware oftheir own consciousness and their reac-tions to people with whom they come incontact. She believes the outcomes of theprocess include the ability to: 1) anticipateproblems and prevent overload; 2) developone’s own self-expression; 3) set andachieve goals; 4) be generous to others; 5)have a sense of faith and tranquility; and6) achieve balance in life.

In Introduction to Archetypes Pearsonand Marr (2002) outline the twelve arche-types of the Archetypal Journey Model.The archetypes within this model, basedon research conducted by Pearson andMarr, have evolved since they were firstdeveloped by Pearson and published in herbook The Hero Within. Listed below inTable 1 are their twelve archetypes andassociated characteristics.

Training ImplicationsIf archetypal thinking is embedded in ourcollective unconscious, then it makes sensethat trainers who help learners becomeaware of the archetypes through whichthey are already functioning can stimulategrowth. According to Mitroff (1983), “ar-chetypes afford a unique way of under-standing organizations and their impact onindividuals” (p. 394). One could argue thatduring periods of tumultuous change suchas reorganizations, mergers and acquisi-tions, individuals are seeking anchors andguides. Often the structures, practices andleaders they have known are no longerpresent. Morgan (1986) concurs with thecontention that archetypes and archetypalstructures play an important role in organi-zations. He cites the work of Mitroff who

maintains: “organizational life can be un-derstood in terms of fools, magicians, war-riors, high priests, lovers and other sym-bolic characters” (as cited by Morgan,1986, p. 227).

Archetypes for Women inOrganizationsIt may be that men have long enjoyed atremendous advantage in the businessworld largely because the male archetypeswe learned as children are much easier toadapt to that arena. With all due respect tomen and no intent to put them down, butsimply to help women adapt the ancientfemale archetypes to the world of businessmore effectively, we look now at two posi-tive applications of the Mother/Nurturerarchetype to business leadership.

One of the potential applications of theNurturer archetype for female leaders inorganizations is for women to serve asmentors to other women (Eagly, 2003).The combination of mentoring and arche-types can be particularly helpful for aspir-ing women leaders in organizations be-cause they are often lacking establishedrole models within the organization. Amentor can help fill this void and an arche-type can provide women with a construct

TABLE 1

Archetype Characteristic or Gift

Innocent Optimism, trust, hope, faith, simple virtue

Orphan Realism, resilience, interdependence

Warrior Discipline, courage, determination, skill

Caregiver Community, nurturance, compassion, generosity

Seeker Autonomy, ambition, identity, expanded possibilities

Lover Passion, commitment, enthusiasm, sensual pleasure

Destroyer Metamorphosis, revolution, capacity to let go

Creator Creativity, vision, skill, aesthetics, imagination

Ruler Responsibility, sovereignty, control, system savvy

Magician Transformative, catalytic, or healing power

Sage Wisdom, nonattachment, knowledge, skepticism

Jester Humor, life lived in the moment, exuberant joy

Source: Pearson, C.S. and Marr, H. K. (2002). Introduction to archetypes: the guide to interpreting re-sults from the Pearson-Marr archetype indicator instrument. Gainesville, FL: Center, p. 9.


that offers tangible suggestions for how todeal with the issues that arise through theirdevelopment as leaders. This is in contrastto their male counterparts who tend tohave more established venues for develop-ing relationships with role models andmentors.

According to Eagly (2003), womenleaders exhibit the characteristics that aremore supportive of mentoring their subor-dinates. Eagly (2003) contends that whencompared to their male counter parts, fe-male leaders are: “less hierarchical; morecooperative and collaborative; and moreoriented to enhancing others’ self worth”(p. 579). This research suggests thatwomen leaders possess the skills that arenecessary for serving as a mentor. Womenleaders serving as role models for otherwomen may also help to “revalue women’swork of all kinds” (Enns, 1994, p. 130). Amentoring relationship may “help indi-viduals to create new and more completemodels of what it means to be a woman”(Enns, 1994, p. 3). Wehr (1987) allegesthat a female mentor may also serve thebenefit of “defin[ing] receptivity and femi-nine instincts” (as cited in Enns, 1994, p.130). Archetypal patterns can also providewomen with a source of strength (Wyatt,2003, p. 3).

On a similar note, Eagly (2003) con-ducted an extensive analysis of existingresearch regarding leaders in organizations.Specifically, Eagly examined “research thatcompared women and men on transforma-tional, transactional and laissez-faire lead-ership styles” (p. 569). The purpose ofEagly’s study was to determine if therewere differences between male and femaleleaders. The results of the study were pro-found. Based on an extensive review of theexisting literature and research on the sub-ject, Eagly (2003) found evidence to showsupport for the notion that women leadersappeared to be more transformational innature than their male counterparts. Infact, “female leaders scored higher thanmale leaders on overall transformationalleadership” (Eagly, 2003, p. 579).

According to Eagly (2003), transforma-tional leadership “involves establishingoneself as a role model by gaining trustand confidence of followers” (p. 572).Transformational leaders are innovative,futuristic and goal oriented. In addition,through empowerment and mentoring,

“transformational leaders encourage [theirsubordinates] to develop their full poten-tial and thereby contribute more capably totheir organization (Eagly, 2003, p. 572).Another way of looking at these findings isto compare Eagly’s work to the concept ofpersonification and the work of Moureau(1997) who contends that: “the most com-mon way of experiencing an archetype isthrough personification” (as cited in Wyatt,2003, p. 4). Furthermore, Wyatt (2003)explains that personification occurs througha “particular type of image in which a char-acter embodies and expresses the patternof energy that is the archetype” (p. 4). Theresearch suggests that female leaderswithin organizations can use archetypalstructures and personification to help men-tor other women within the organization.

ConclusionAccording to Pearson (1998), “the point ofarchetypal awareness is to be more com-plete, to be more whole, to have a widerrepertoire of choices – not to be higherupon the developmental ladder” (223).Archetypes provide us a rich context toview the world, as well as a structure toguide our own development as individualsand as professionals.

In her book Boundaries of the Soul, JuneSinger (2002) likens the process of work-ing with archetypes to that of navigatingthe wind currents when learning to sail aboat. According to Singer, “by understand-ing them, you become one with them andin doing so you are able to find your owndirection” (p. 13).

Barbara Hancock Annin is an executive coachwith 20 years of progressive organizational

communication and change experience withFortune 500 companies. She is an affiliate withthe Chatfield Group, an independent networkof OD, communications and coaching consult-ants. A resident of Lake Bluff, Illinois, she holdsan MBA from DePaul University and is cur-rently completing her Ph.D. in Human andOrganizational Systems at the Fielding Gradu-ate Institute in Santa Barbara, California. Shecan be reached by e-mail at [email protected], or by phone at 847-234-9829.

REFERENCESCarr, A. (2002). Jung, archetypes and mirroring

in organizational change management: les-sons from a longitudinal case study. Journalof Organizational Change Management, (15)2, p. 477-489.

Eagly, A. H., Johannesen-Schmidt, M.C., vanEngen, M.L, and Marlos, L. (July, 2003).Transformational, transactional, and laissez-faire leadership styles: a meta-analysis com-paring women and men, Psychological Bulle-tin, (129) 4, p. 569-591.

Edinger, E. (1992). Ego and archetype. Boston,MA: Shambhala.

Enns, C.Z. (November 1994). Archetypes andgender: Goddesses, warriors, and psycho-logical health. Journal of Counseling and De-velopment, (73)2, 127-133.

Frymer-Kensky, T. (1992). In the wake of god-desses. New York: The Free Press.

Jung, C.G. (1956). Symbols of transformation.New York: Pantheon Books.

Jung, C. G. (1959). The archetypes and the col-lective unconscious. New York: PantheonBooks.

Jung, C. G. (1964). Man and his symbols. Gar-den City, NY: Doubleday.

Morgan, G. (1986). Images of organization.Newbury Park, CA: SAGE publications.

Mitroff, I. (1983). Archetypal social systemsanalysis: on the deeper structure of humansystems, Academy of Management Review, (8)3, p. 387-397.

Pearson, C.S. (1998). The hero within: six arche-types we live by. New York: HarperCollinsPublishers.

Pearson, C.S. and Corlett, J.G. (2003). Mappingthe organizational psyche: a Jungian theory oforganizational dynamics and change.Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications ofPsychological Type.

Pearson, C.S. and Marr, H. K. (2002). Introduc-tion to archetypes: the guide to interpretingresults from the Pearson-Marr archetype indi-cator instrument. Gainesville, FL: Center forApplications of Psychological Type.

Wyatt, S. J. (2003). Inquiry and the medialwoman: an intuitive hermeneutic of encoun-ters with archetypal images, Proquest Infor-mation and Learning Company. (UMIDissertaition Number 3080222).

The research suggeststhat female leaders withinorganizations can usearchetypal structures andpersonification to helpmentor other womenwithin the organization.


Insights in Corporate Training

Interview with Carole Widmer

Training Today: Carole, what is the basicdifference between technical training andsoft skills training?

Carole: Technical training involves the“what.” What do learners need to do?What steps do they need to take into theprocesses of the system? For example, ifyou’re training people to use a computerprogram, there is a set pattern to teach.

By contrast, training people in softskills involves both the “what” and the“how.” Learners have to know the process,but they also need to apply the processaccording to the situation. For instance,salespeople first learn a model call. But ona real sales call, the customer may asksomething specific right away that doesn’tfollow the model. The salesperson has to

jump over steps to respond to the ques-tion, and then work back through themodel to complete all the steps. Whenlearners work with people rather than ma-chines, they need to learn to build the pro-cess out of disorder.

Training Today: What are some of thecorporate trends in technical and soft skillstraining?

Carole: In technical training, the trendis increasingly self-directed learning. Insoft-skills training, the focus remains onclassroom learning and/or blended learn-ing.

Training Today: What advice would yougive a new person starting out in the fieldof corporate training?

Carole: Both technical and soft-skills

trainers need to get onboard with the latesttechnology, because technology is going tocontinue to change our field drasticallywithin the next ten years. The major chal-lenges facing companies are revenue gen-eration and productivity, so training mustfocus on these two drivers to be relevant.Neither technical nor soft-skills trainingwill go out of style, but whichever type oftraining best supports the corporate strat-egy will predominate. Be prepared to beflexible, as the emphasis may changeyearly, monthly, or even daily according tothe needs of the business.

Carole Widmer can be reached by e-mail [email protected] or by phone at847-520-6409.

In this issue, CC-ASTD member Carole Widmer, Vice President of Harris eChannelServices, shares her corporate perspective on the topic of two diverse types of training:technical training and soft-skills training.


Diversity involves a range of differencesthat includes demographics: gender,race, ethnicity, and age—characteris-tics that are usually apparent from

looking at someone. As an organizationbecomes more diverse, differences amonggroups often become more pronounced,creating new management challenges(Francesco & Gold, 2005).

Several profound trends are shapingthe labor markets of modern organizations.Women now represent nearly 50% of thepaid workforce, compared to just 20% afew decades ago. As a result of this trend,gender difference is a primary componentof workforce diversity.

The following case describes how Ap-preciative Inquiry (AI) was used to addressa need for gender equity at Avon, an inter-national direct-sales organization.

CaseAvon’s vision is “To be the company thatbest understands and satisfies the product,service and self-fulfillment needs ofwomen globally.” Their “dedication to sup-porting women touches not only beauty—but health, fitness, self-empowerment andfinancial independence.” (see www.avoncompany.com)

Although Avon is generally known asone of the best places for women to work,the parent division, Avon International inNew York City, noted the preponderance ofmales in Avon management. To avoid pos-sible legal action from the female workforce, they decided to increase the numberof women in both senior management andexecutive positions across the company.

Avon Mexico, one of the most success-ful Avon companies, was to serve as a pilotand model for the rest of the company. Atthe time of this project, Avon Mexico hadabout 3,000 employees with a sales forceof 250,000 independent distributors, yet

there were no women on the executivecommittee and few female executives ingeneral. As Pedro Cervantes, Vice Presidentof Human Resources, Legal Affairs andPublic Relations at Avon Mexico stated,“[In Mexico] we are a macho society, sothis sense of diversity was a new concept.We had to convince men that the mix ofmen and women in meeting and decision-making forums was positive.”

The Appreciative Inquiry 4-D modelformed the framework for the project:Definition, Discovery, Dream, and Destina-tion.

AI consultants built the foundation forsuccess by creating a deeper understandingof Appreciative Inquiry with the clients,and then working with a planning team—an internal/external team made up of inter-nal opinion leaders who would help co-define the topics to be studied and be theguides for the external consulting team.Consultants gained a shared understandingof the readiness for change and the meth-ods that would be most appropriate for thesite’s culture.

They then planned a series of two-dayworkshops to introduce AI theory, prac-tices and philosophy to people selected tobe part of the learning team who wouldconduct the Discovery interviews. Mem-bers of the learning team—20 formal andinformal opinion leaders from across func-tions and organizational levels—wereknown as the “Pioneers.”

The Discovery phase began with a two-day workshop for the Pioneers where theylearned about AI, developed the first set ofquestions to be used in the interviews,practiced interviewing, and planned all thelogistics for collecting the data (stories andexamples).

Several challenges emerged in translat-ing Appreciative Inquiry to the appropriateterminology in Spanish. There was concern

about the word “inquiry” and some of themultiple meanings it suggested. There was,however, absolute clarity on what theywere doing. The Pioneers group sooncalled AI the “philosophia”: not merely amethod or technique, but a way of livingand doing business. As Pedro Cervantesstated, “Our people understood and appre-ciated this term, and it works to the long-term benefit of the company’s sales forceand the country.”

The final interview protocol focused onidentifying instances of men and womenworking together effectively. Over thecourse of about 2,000 interviews, manybest practices and compelling storiesemerged that illuminated what diversitylooks like and what it takes for men andwomen to work well together at AvonMexico. Out of the most illustrative stories,the planning team was able to constructmodels of excellence so that the idealcould come alive in people’s imaginations.

Sometimes change was instantaneous.At a planning committee meeting, the ideathat men and women should be repre-sented at all levels of decision making wasbrought into question, since no womenwere sitting on the executive committee.The President of the company, FernandoLe Zama said, on the spot, that womenwould be invited to attend all future ex-ecutive committee meetings. The two mostsenior women began attending those meet-ings and, within six months, Lucia Laradowas named Director of Sales and given apermanent seat on the Avon Mexico Ex-ecutive Committee. Ms. Larado has sincebeen named President of Avon Ecuador.

The Dream phase found the team writ-ing a report that summarized the keylearnings, reinforced them with stories,and presented a range of possibilities forachieving gender equity as an effective wayof working. The report showed that the

The OD Perspective

OD and the Diversity Challenge:Appreciating Gender

by THERESE F. YAEGER, Ph.D. and PETER F. SORENSEN, Ph.D.


ideal was already happening and suggestedhow it might be possible to foster more ofthose extraordinary examples. It was usedas input to the Future Conference summitthat occurred next.

Over 100 learning team members wereinvited to the summit to validate and fleshout a collective vision and strategies to getthere. The planning team also invited agroup of Mexican university students toparticipate in conversations about thechanging role of women in Mexico. Thegroup arrived at a joyous conclusion aboutthe possibility of men and women workingtogether in teams. Clear and compellingsteps forward came out of the summit,such as ensuring male and female co-chairsfor project teams. These conclusions wereput into a second report for the Destina-tion phase, and an internal advisory com-mittee was formed to move the recommen-dations into action.

OutcomesWithin six months, outcomes were signifi-cant: the first female executive was ap-pointed to the Executive Committee, andprofits increased dramatically. The division

and this project won The Catalyst award,which is given each year to a company thathas policies and practices that significantlybenefit women in the company.

ConclusionAvon Mexico has long been a classic caseof how AI was applied to a difficult situa-tion and rendered wonderful, inspiringresults. With the winning of the Catalystaward and increased profits in six months,along with the first female executive ap-pointed within six months of the project,AI fueled the positive core of Avon Mexico,which has continued and is sustained.

But this case also has implications forthe workforce outside of Avon, or Mexico,or women only. This case shows how AIprovides a positive, supportive approach tochanging what could be a harmful workenvironment.

Many thanks to the AI consultants—our colleagues Marge Schiller, DavidCooperrider, Jane Watkins and RustyRennick—for their great work andtheir contribution to this topic!

Peter F. Sorensen Jr., PhD is Professor and Di-rector of the PhD-OD program and the MS-MOB program at Benedictine University. He isChair of the OD&C Division of the Academy ofManagement, and received the “OutstandingOD Consultant of the Year Award” from the ODInstitute in 2003.

Therese F. Yaeger is Associate Director of theOrganizational Development Doctoral programat Benedictine University, where she alsoteaches OD and OB courses. Her recent publi-cations include Global and International Organi-zation Development with Sorensen, Head, andCooperrider, and Appreciative Inquiry: AnEmerging Direction for OD with Cooperrider,Sorensen, and Whitney.

REFERENCESA version of this case is available at: http://

appreciativeinquiry.cwru.edu/intro/bestcasesDetail.cfm?coid=3218

Cummings, T. & Worley, C. (2005). Organiza-tion Development and Change. (8th ed.). Cin-cinnati, OH: South Western College Pub-lishing.

Francesco, A., & Gold, B. A. (2005). Interna-tional organization behavior. Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Pearson-Prentice Hall.

Watkins, J. M., & Mohr, B. (2001). Appreciativeinquiry: Change at the speed of imagination.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer.


by ERIC CHESTER

“I’ll have a hot apple pie and a vanillashake,” I said. The young teen who tookmy order replied, “Fine, sir. Would youlike any dessert with that?”

While amusing, this story illustrateshow young employees who are trained inhow to reply still need help in learninghow to relate.

Should we blame managers? Not really.As a society, we’ve demanded that our

schools prepare stu-dents with all the rightanswers for standard-ized tests. But in theprocess, we’ve failed toteach them how torespond when the“right answers” don’tfit the situation. Thus,

entry-level employees can often pass skillstests, but cannot necessarily solve problemsor think on their feet.

The Solution?To avoid robotic responses and reducemindless mistakes, managers must maketime to teach the reason instead of merelytraining the task. When “Gen Whys” com-prehend the purpose and are plugged intothe mission, they’ll unleash boundless tal-ents to benefit their organizations as wellas themselves.1. Clarify the end result. Let them know

the why behind the what. When theyunderstand why, they can extend thethinking to handle new situations moreeffectively.

2. Provide practice through roll playing.

Giving them an opportunity to thinktheir way through a series of possiblescenarios will increase their confidencein handling any situation.

3. Empower them. Give them the free-dom to put their personality or flairinto the task. Otherwise, you’ll turnthem into robots.

4. Reward excellence. Make a bigger dealout of their successes than out of theirmistakes.

Eric Chester is the founder of Generation Why,Inc., a training and consulting firm helpingleading organizations manage and motivate 16-to-24-year-old employees. He’s an award-win-ning speaker and the author of 10 books, in-cluding Getting Them to Give a Damn—How toGet your Front Line to Care About Your BottomLine (Dearborn Trade Publishing, May 2005).For more info, visit GenerationWhy.com.

Best Practices

Diversity Training “Gen Why”

Introducing to ASTD Chapters!

We’ve combined the BESTof e-learning with instructorled training for more appliedlearning in less time.

CALL TODAY FOR AFREE DEMONSTRATION!Every vendor has simulations; role plays, board games or videos. But only PCI offers Computer Simulations ofa business, operation, factory, project or team which compresses 4-6 months of experience into 2-3 real timedays! They even simulate people!• Brings technology into the classroom• New team learning model with tools to ensure more learning in less time!• Proven over 14 years at 55 Forturne 500 firms• Special incentives for ASTD Chapter supported classes• Reduce days in class and total cost

For more information call us at 201-489-9200or log onto our website at www.pciglobal.com

e-learning instructor led computer simulations

PCI’s Computer Simulation Classes


How many teams do you belong to?During your lifetime, you probablyhave been a member of severalteams—at work, in your community,

church, or school. And if you’re like mostof us, you’ve struggled with team-relatedissues more than once. We hear so muchtoday about the benefits of diversity inwork environments, and yet the fact re-mains that diversity among team memberscreates both opportunities and uniquechallenges that, without outside interven-tion, sometimes reduce or even derail ateam’s output.

Teams are increasingly viewed as criti-cal to an organization’s success. Today it iscommonplace to hear about project teams,cross-functional teams, process improve-ment teams, committees, councils, and thelist goes on. In 2001, 80% of surveyedworkers reported they are members of atleast one team (Fiore, Salas & Cannon-Bowers, 2001), and the numbers are esti-mated to be even higher today. The use ofteams has expanded dramatically in re-sponse to competitive challenges—andwith good reason. Studies show that effec-tive teams are the most powerful resourceavailable to boost group performance.(Katzenbach & Smith, 2001)

So how can we, as T&D professionals,help teams become more successful?

Team Performance ConsultingA performance consultant (PC) who

specializes in team effectiveness has exper-tise in a set of skills and interventions toidentify and resolve team issues, and as-sists team leaders in building more effec-tive teams that achieve superior results.When a Team PC is present at the start of ateam project, he or she proactively ensuresan effective launch and guides the team instaying on course as the project progresses.

Team Performance Consulting –Supporting Diversity at Workby LEE S. JOHNSEN

When a Team PC is called into a team en-vironment where the project is already un-derway and the team is stuck, he or sheserves as a “reactive” resource, assessingthe problem (often a crisis) and providinginterventions to move the team forward.

Proactive vs. Reactive InterventionsPCs experienced in team disciplines edu-cate team leaders and members about thestages of team development, and clarify thetype of work group or team the membersshould form: an effective work group, asingle-leader team, or a shared-leadershipteam. (Katzenbach and Smith, 2001) Typi-cally, the Team PC stays in touch with thegroup or team as the project progresses toensure that they remain on-track. If theteam gets stuck (and they commonly do),the Team PC assists members in identifyingkey issues and actions to get back oncourse. Because each team is a unique,complex organism, having a Team PC whois familiar with the team from the begin-ning of a project saves precious time whensomething goes wrong.

While the proactive approach to TeamPC work makes more sense from a consult-ing standpoint, many organizations stilloperate according to the old adage, “If itain’t broke, don’t fix it.” As long as a teamappears to be functioning, why invest inthe services of a consultant? Yet when ateam is stuck, a Team PC at that juncturecan help a floundering team to get back ontrack and reach its goals.

Helping the Stuck TeamAt some point along the way, most teamsget stuck. The most common reasons forthis are:1. Unclear goals—even when goals start

out clearly defined, priorities canchange as work progresses.

2. Mistaken attitudes—confusion aboutroles, unclear accountability, waveringcommitment.

3. Missing skills—a lack of particular skillsets necessary to accomplish goals.

4. Membership changes—new membersneed to be integrated into the workgroup or team.

5. Time pressures—while deadlines loom,achieving high performance takes time.

6. Lack of discipline and commitment—key elements to exceptional team per-formance.

The Performance ConsultingProcessAs any performance consultant would, theTeam PC applies a disciplined approach toidentifying and solving performance prob-lems. Often referred to as the performanceconsulting process, it consists of five steps:1. Probe to assess performance gaps and

their causes2. Report findings and make recommen-

dations3. Identify appropriate interventions4. Deliver interventions5. Evaluate interventions and their impact

on performanceApplied to the practices unique to each

performance unit—Effective Work Group,Single-Leader Team, or Shared-LeadershipTeam—this process stands in stark contrastto the creation of “teambuilding” eventsthat do not necessarily lead to outstandingteamwork results. According toKatzenbach and Smith, “far too manypeople, including experts, speak, act, man-age, lead and advise as though gettingalong, or improving group dynamics, is thesame thing as teaming. It is not.” (2001)

To be truly effective, a Team PC mustbe able to analyze the group’s or team’s per-formance and work with them to deliver


solutions that leverage members’ effective-ness. Without some form of diagnosis(steps 1 – 3 in the performance consultingprocess), we too often respond to themanager’s request by delivering ateambuilding activity that only makespeople feel better in the short term. Ulti-mately, we do a disservice to the team andto ourselves by not addressing the trueperformance problems.

Selecting or Becoming a Team PCWith more and more teams in the work-place, how can we find—or position our-selves to become—Team PCs? Where dowe gain the understanding and expertisethat goes beyond group dynamics and sur-face issues? If you’re looking for someone,try using this list of 10 interview questions(at right) to assess the candidates’ qualifi-cations. If you’re looking to develop yourown skills as a Team PC, read as many cur-rent resources on teams and team consult-ing as you can, and then use the list atright to assess your own strengths andpoints of growth.

Ask:

1. What is your experience

working with teams to boost

their performance?

2. What is your process for

identifying team performance

issues and recommending

solutions?

3. If you were to work with us,

what information would you

want to have access to?

4. How do you typically report

the findings of your analysis

and recommendations?

5. Once interventions are se-

lected, which ones would you

personally create and deliver

and for which ones might you

use other resources?

6. What are some examples of

team problems you’ve dealt

with and interventions you’ve

used to address them?

7. How did you and the team

evaluate the effectiveness of

these interventions? What

were the results?

8. What’s been one of the most

challenging team issues

you’ve addressed? How did

you handle it?

9. Would you share an example

of a team you worked with

that wasn’t successful and

describe what happened?

10. What types of resistance

have you encountered when

working with teams? Who

was the source of the resis-

tance, and how did you ad-

dress it?

Portions of this article are taken from RealWorld Teambuilding Strategies That Work, co-authored by Lee Johnsen; Insight Publishing,2004. For information on obtaining a copy ofthis book, please contact Lee Johnsen (see be-low).

Lee Johnsen is a Performance Consultant, au-thor, and President of Partners in Development,a company that partners with organizations toassess employee development needs and deliversolutions to achieve excellent results. He is Co-Director of the Human Resource DevelopmentInstitute (HRDI) and as such, serves as a CC-ASTD board member. Lee can be reached by e-mail at [email protected] or by phone at773-282-8985.

RESOURCESFiore, Salas & Cannon-Bowers (2001) Group

Dynamics and Shared Mental Model Develop-ment. Naval Air Warfare Center, TrainingSystems Division, Orlando, Florida. Con-tact: [email protected]

Katzenbach, Jon R. and Smith, Douglas K.(2001) The Discipline of Teams. New York,NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Salas, Eduardo, Stagl, K.C. & Burke, C.S.(2003) 25 Years of Team Effectiveness in Orga-nizations: Research Themes & Emerging Needs.Institute for Simulation & Training, Univer-sity of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.Contact: [email protected]

Armed with this kind of information, you can find (or become!) a skilled Team PC—who will guide your diverse team members to produce superior results.

Listen for:

examples of either the PC’s leadership or involvement in

the consulting process as well as his or her role in deliv-

ering interventions focused on improving team results.

a clear list of each of the steps of the performance con-

sulting process. Note methods to analyzing and identify-

ing performance gaps. Be wary of people who jump to

conclusions or suggest one-size-fits-all interventions.

requests for documents that describe the team’s purpose,

goals, and work approach; feedback from team sponsor,

leader, and members; factors outside the team’s control.

descriptions of written summaries of findings and a col-

laborative discussion with team sponsor, leader, and

members to interpret findings and develop solutions.

key strengths the PC brings to interventions he or she

would deliver and what other expertise would be drawn

on such as coaching, training design, and facilitation to

ensure quality interventions are delivered.

specific examples of problems, interventions, why those

interventions were chosen, and performance results fol-

lowing interventions. The PC should also describe his or

her role in delivering these.

examples of how the PC gathered evaluation feedback

and how the feedback was linked to the interventions.

Evaluation could include reactions to the interventions

applied, results individuals achieved from applying the

interventions, and cost-effectiveness of the interventions.

a description of a problem, analysis, intervention and

results. Examples might include dealing with team prob-

lem symptoms and issues outside team control.

a description of the problem, analysis, solution, and re-

sults. Focus on what the PC learned and what he or she

would do differently.

techniques used as the PC identified the resistance and

took steps to mitigate or resolve it. (Note: resistance is

normal and to be expected when dealing with teams.)

Ten Q and A’s For Finding A Team PC


How do you define an abstract conceptlike diversity so that learners can ap-ply it effectively in their organizations? Although many people claim

to understand what diversity is, they areless sure about what it does for an organi-zation. Why is it that such an importantconcept is so widely misunderstood? Man-agers and employees seem to be confusedabout how to think about diversity, under-stand it in-depth, and employ it as an orga-nizational resource.

This article describes a method thathelps individuals understand and applydiversity in their organizations: a quickteam exercise followed by a discussion us-ing an iceberg analogy.

The Team ExerciseThe aim of this training exercise is to rein-force the notion that organizations are col-lections of individuals who need to workin teams to accomplish organizational ob-jectives. This exercise prepares the traineesto understand the nature of diverse teammember input and group interactions thatoccur in the context of organizationalwork. The total time required for this exer-cise is 20-30 minutes (5 minutes for set-up, 5-10 minutes to complete the exercise,and 10-15 minutes for the guided discus-sion).

To begin the exercise, randomly assignindividuals to teams (5-7 individuals perteam) using a round-robin, count-off pro-cedure (the random assignment shouldmix the individuals in terms of gender,age, race, etc. fairly well). Give the indi-viduals a few moments to gather with theirnew team members and get acquainted.Once the teams have settled down, distrib-ute—face-down, one copy per indi-vidual—the worksheet included here asAppendix 2. Instruct the individuals toleave the worksheets face down on theirtables until instructed to turn their sheetsover.

Once the individuals have theirworksheets in front of them, read the story

included here as Appendix 1. Read thestory quickly, but clearly and loudlyenough so that everyone can hear you.When you have finished reading the story,instruct the individuals to turn theirworksheets over and answer the ten ques-tions as quickly as they can. Instruct themto remain silent. They may not ask ques-tions. Instruct them to turn theirworksheets face down again to signal thatthey are done.

After everyone has answered the tenquestions individually, instruct them to gettogether with their teammates and comeup with team answers. Instruct one mem-ber of each team to record the team an-swers, and ask the teams to keep their dis-cussions as quiet as possible so as not totip off the other teams. Once the teamshave completed their task, instruct them toput the materials aside.

The Iceberg AnalogyAt this point, begin a discussion of theconcept of diversity and introduce the di-versity iceberg. Diversity in its broadestsense means differences among people.1

The diversity iceberg is composed of twoparts: the part above water (the part yousee—readily detectable attributes), and thepart below the surface (the part you do notsee—underlying attributes). Many indi-

viduals remember that the majority of theiceberg’s mass lies below the waterline, soit is important to draw the iceberg asshown in Figure 1.

Label the portion of the iceberg abovethe waterline “Readily Detectable At-tributes,” since that is what people seewhen they think “diversity” or “differ-ences.” Make reference to the visible demo-graphic make-up (e.g., age, gender, race)of the trainees to highlight these readilydetectable differences. Label the portion ofthe iceberg below the waterline “Underly-ing Attributes.” You could engage in a dis-cussion/callout of all the possible ways inwhich people may differ (e.g., personalitydifferences; knowledge, skills and abilities(KSA) differences; decision-making style;conflict management style) based on thethings we cannot see. The list, if written ona blackboard or flipchart, may grow to bequite large. The important point to make isthat these differences reside below the sur-face. The purpose of this discussion is toget the trainees to think beyond observabledifferences to some of the many possibleways in which individuals might differ.The diversity iceberg includes not only thatwhich you see, but, more importantly, agreat deal more that you do not see. Justask the Captain of the Titanic!

We are often told that diversity is good,but individuals are often unsure as to whydiversity is good and how it actually addsvalue for an organization. Initially, whenasked about the value of diversity, indi-viduals may suggest that increasing diver-sity is good because it is a matter of fair-ness (and law). This type of reaction canbe described as the “Discrimination andFairness Paradigm”2. Organizations operat-ing with this frame of reference measuresuccess by gauging their progress towardrecruitment and retention goals, not byhow effectively the company allows theworkers to contribute their unique abilitiesand attributes to the effective conduct ofwork.

Diversity Training: The Iceberg Analogyby MATTHEW VALLE, Ph.D.

FIGURE 1: THE DIVERSITY ICEBERG

THE DIVERSITY ICEBERG

ReadilyDetectableAttributes

UnderlyingAttributes


Another approach is the “Access andLegitimacy Paradigm”3. Within this frame-work, access to diverse markets requiressimilar diverse elements within the organi-zation, so similarity to the target marketgives the firm legitimacy within that mar-ket. For instance, in order to tap into theHispanic market for snack foods, it mightbe necessary to construct a marketinggroup within the firm made up of Hispanicindividuals. This is a better business case,but it still fails to make use of the fullrange of diverse elements within theworkforce.

On another, more subtle level, theseframeworks may reinforce counterproduc-tive cultural and/or organizational norms.While the discrimination and fairnessparadigm pressures employees to thinkalike (“We are all one firm”), the accessand legitimacy paradigm forces employeesinto pigeon-holes (“We’re here to go afterthe Hispanic market”). The formerdownplays differences, while the latter ef-fectively relegates the impact of culturaldifferences to seemingly well-defined mar-ket niches. In either case, the impact ofdiversity is muted within the organization,and may have only a minimal effect on themainstream workforce. This discussiongets us a bit closer, but not quite where weneed to be in our understanding of thevalue of diversity in organizations.

The important distinction in measuringthe performance-related impact (e.g., thevalue-added for the organization) of diver-sity is in how job-related the diversity at-tributes are4. Diversity attributes that arehighly job-related, encompassing experi-ence and knowledge of the task at hand,are necessary for effective performance5. Inshort, diversity as a resource can be mea-sured by how much individual differencesimpact the task at hand, and ultimately,how much the resource impacts overallorganizational effectiveness.

Some organizations view diversity as anend in itself, while others view diversity asa means to an end. Diversity as an organi-zational resource is more consistent withthe latter perspective. An organization ap-proaching diversity as a means to an endhas to look at a broader range of readilydetectable and underlying differences anddetermine how they relate to the work ofthe organization. This is referred to as the“Learning and Effectiveness Paradigm.”6

This approach asks the organization to in-

tegrate the differing perspectives of theemployees into the main work of the orga-nization. As tasks, markets, strategies, andprocesses are refined through the input ofmultiple perspectives, the total work prod-uct of the organization is improved.

Scoring the Answer SheetsFollowing this discussion, return to thecompleted answer sheets. Proceed throughthe questions asking for responses, andprovide the correct answers to the tenquestions. Instruct participants to scoretheir individual answers. Answers must becompletely correct to receive credit—nopartial credit is allowed. Instruct the teammember who kept the team answer sheetto score that sheet as well, totaling thenumber of correct responses.

Have participants calculate the averagenumber of individual correct answerswithin their team (a quick estimate is allthat is needed). Display these numbers onthe board/flipchart. Then, ask each teamfor the number correct as a team. In mostcases, the team score will be higher thanthe team’s individual average.

How does this exercise relate to thediscussion? The teams are accessing someof their underlying individually distinctattributes (memory skills, decision-makingskills, interpersonal skills, team task andmaintenance skills) in order to achieve abetter group performance (i.e., a betterscore for the team vs. the average indi-vidual score). As a result, the teams cometo understand that they made use of morethan just observable differences (gender orrace) in order to achieve an improved orga-nizational outcome (a better team score).In fact, overt differences such as genderand race had nothing to do with the con-duct of this particular task.

The question is not whether diversity isor is not important. It is. But more to thepoint, diversity is important in a work en-vironment as it relates directly to the tasksat hand. This kind of diversity allows somegroups (or organizations) to outperformtheir peer groups who do not possess thesame rare, inimitable and value-addedcharacteristics. The context of the tasks iscritically important. One must recognizethat readily detectable attributes at the tipof the diversity iceberg usually have little,if any, effect on the exercise outcomes—it’sthe submerged portion that holds thegreatest value.

The essence of the business case fordiversity is this: because organizationstoday have access to the same technology,financial resources, markets, etc., the onlyunique source of sustainable competitiveadvantage lies in the use of human re-sources, which are rare, hard to imitate,and capable of creating lasting value forthe organization. Given that much of ourwork is knowledge work, organizationsmust depend on the creativity of teams todevelop and sustain a competitiveadvantage.

Organizations that understand the di-versity iceberg are in a position to usemore of the underlying qualities that makeus different to achieve better organizationaloutcomes in terms of productivity and per-formance. Diverse teams consistently pro-duce composite work substantially supe-rior to work produced by morehomogeneous workforce populations. Di-versity at the bottom of the iceberg be-comes a significant organizational resourcethat can boost the business’ bottom line.Such a diversity orientation represents anintegration of human resource policies andpractices, which directs the organizationtoward both diversity management andincreased success.

A strong diversity management pro-gram can create an environment wheresub-surface diversity emerges and peoplefeel free to engage in coordinated and cre-ative action. Employees of this type of or-ganization, seeing diversity as a fundamen-tal part of the organizational culture, aremore apt to embrace their differences anduse them to enhance organizational effec-tiveness through creativity and innovation.And finally, as further evidence of thevalue-added nature of diversity, organiza-tions find that, while initially difficult tocoordinate, diverse work groups are oftenmore cost-effective than homogeneouswork groups7. All it takes is to look be-neath the surface to uncover the broadrange and depth of underlying knowledge,skills and abilities of organizational mem-bers and embrace the creative process ofengaging it all in the work of the organiza-tion.

Dr. Matthew Valle is Chairman of the Depart-ment of Business Administration at the Marthaand Spencer Love School of Business at ElonUniversity in Elon, North Carolina. He can bereached by e-mail at [email protected] or byphone at 336-278-5958.


*This story based on the “How’s Your Memory” exercise in G. Kroehnert(1991), 100 Training Games, McGraw-Hill.

REFERENCES1Gentile, M. C. (1996). Differences That Work: Organizational Excellence

Through Diversity. Harvard Business School Press, Boston.2Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. “Making differences matter: A new paradigm

for managing diversity.” Harvard Business Review, 74 (1996), 79-90.;Thomas, R. R. Redefining Diversity. (1996). AMACOM, New York.

3Ibid.4Webber, S. S. & Donahue, L. M. “Impact of highly and less job-related

diversity on work group cohesion and performance: a meta-analysis.”Journal of Management, 27 (2001), 141-162.

5Pelled, L. H. “Demographic diversity, conflict, and work group out-comes: An intervening process theory.” Organization Science, 7 (No. 6,1996), 615-631.

6Thomas, D. A., & Ely, R. J. “Making differences matter: A new paradigmfor managing diversity.” Harvard Business Review, 74 (1996), 79-90.

7Pooley, J. M., & Bump, E. A. “The learning performance and cost effec-tiveness of mentally disabled workers.” Group and Organization Man-agement, 18 (1993), 88-102.

APPENDIX 2

The Questions1. What is the witness’s name?

2. Where was the witness when the witness saw thisevent?

3. What time did this happen?

4. How many people were there, and what gender werethey?

5. Can you describe the people?

6. Who was robbed? (Include their position anddescription if possible).

7. Did this person run out of the office?

8. Can you describe the vehicle they drove away in?

9. Describe exactly what was stolen?

10. Who had a weapon?

APPENDIX 1

The Story*John was driving along Joseph Street early one evening whenhe heard a loud noise and saw two people walking quicklyout of the corner store. As he cautiously approached, theygot into a small European sports car. It was blue and had alicense plate with “7-11” on it. They drove off down JohnsonStreet. He could not believe what he was seeing. Then a mancame out of the store screaming that he had just beenrobbed. They took $200 in cash, twelve cartons of cigarettes,and the man’s wallet. Thinking quickly, he dialed 911 on hiscar phone and the police showed up five minutes later. Theyasked him ten questions. Please help him respond.

The Answers1. John. 2. Driving along Joseph Street. 3. Early oneevening. 4. Three people; 1 man (from the corner store) andtwo people (gender unspecified). 5. No, no descriptionswere given. 6. The man was robbed of his wallet. The storydoes not say that he was a store employee. 7. No, the manran out of the corner store. 8. A small, European sports car,blue in color and with “7-11” on the license plate. 9. $200in cash, 12 cartons of cigarettes, and the man’s wallet. 10.The story did not say that someone had a weapon. The loudnoise in the beginning of the story could have been a gun-shot, but the story did not say. Also, the man did not sayanything about a weapon.


Chicagoland ChapterAmerican Society for Training and Development

Chicagoland Chapter • American Society for Training & Development

5443 N. Broadway, Suite 101, Chicago, IL 60640 • 773-561-0907

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

ACPIAssociation of Career Professionals International:www.acpinternational.org

CCASTDChicago Chapter of the American Society forTraining & Development: www.ccastd.org

CISPIChicago Chapter of the International Society forPerformance Improvement: www.cispi.com

CODICChicago Organizational Development InstituteChapter: users.anet.com/~jeffb/codic/codic.htm

ICFCInternational Coaching Federation of Chicago:www.chicagocoaches.com

NSA-ILNational Speakers Association-Illinois: www.nsa-il.org

ODNCOrganization Development Network-Chicago:www.odnetwork.org/odnc

SHRPSociety for Human Resource Professionals (ChicagoChapter of SHRM): www.shrp.org

SITESociety of Insurance Trainers & Educators:www.insurancetrainers.org

CC•ASTDAlliance Organizations

Documents

TRAINING - ATD Chi Archive/TTSpring2005.pdfus stories and fairy tales—stories with characters as diverse as the tooth fairy, the three little pigs and the fiery dragon. While these