Decision: Option 3A: “Training Workshops”
Stakeholder Leader Adoption Levels:
Leader Rate
Leader State of Mind
Lena (R&D): 4
Adoption – contributes actively to the training content
Sarah (Sales): 3
Evaluation – some parts are useful, but much is too generic for her team’s specific client-facing needs.
Markus (Ops): 2
Interest – attends, but his team finds it hard to connect the generic info to their specific operational realities.
David (Finance): 2
Interest – gains a general understanding but still lacks specific data for his financial models.
Maria (HR): 3
Evaluation – helps deliver, but recognizes the limitations of a generic approach post-session from feedback
Impact on Stakeholder Teams:
R&D Team: Acts as SMEs during the training, reinforcing their own knowledge.
Sales Team: Some find the strategic overview helpful, but lack practical sales tools or specific product benefit narratives. “Okay, I get the big picture, but how do I sell it?”
OPS Team: Feels it’s “another day off the floor for training that doesn’t tell us how to do our jobs differently.” Some technical aspects are too high-level, others irrelevant. (Still in Neutral Zone, some cynicism).
Finance Team: Similar to David, gets the overview but not the detailed inputs needed for their analysis.
HR Team: Manages the logistics and co-facilitates. They receive mixed feedback: appreciation for the effort, but many comments about the lack of role-specificity and information overload on less relevant topics.
Feedback (from Leaders & Teams): While some baseline knowledge is imparted, the one-size-fits-all approach means much of the content is irrelevant for specific roles, leading to disengagement. Teams acknowledge the effort but don’t feel truly “equipped” with the knowledge they personally need. The “Neutral Zone” is addressed with information, but not always the right information for each group.
