Blog

A recent report in Chief Learning Officer magazine stated that 90% of all sales training programs resulted in only moderate increases in sales and those increases lasted for just a very brief period of time (90-120 days). 

The report was compiled by ES Research (ESR) Group and it lists some specific findings; the main message, though, is that most sales training doesn’t stick.

For organizations looking for sales training, ESR’s report confirms that many vendors can fill the need of a training event that will boost sales for a brief period.  I encourage people to look at how a training vendor will sustain the momentum created in training. 

Can the vendor cultivate a community of practice for the sales positions?  Will they seed a knowledge management repository to capture the best practices of participants as they take the foundational concepts and make them their own?  How about action learning assignments for sales managers that have them optimize the sales function within the operation of the rest of the company?  How can the networks of informal learning be supported around the initial sales training?

There are countless things that could be done that would extend the effectiveness of a sales training initiative.  I believe that the selection of a training supplier takes a back seat to exploring some of the options that can be implemented that would complement the content that is delivered.

P.S. Sales training certainly has a high profile due to its direct link to organizational performance but the lessons learned from this report could be applied to any area of learning.

I was born and raised in St. Petersburg, FL and now I call Denver, CO home.

I actually just returned from FL last night; just ahead of the impending Tropical Storm Ernesto.  During my years in FL I saw my fair share of heavy rain storms.  They typically came in quickly and often resulted in flash floods through the streets in my neighborhood.  As a child it was always fun to ride your bike through flooded streets and look for the high water marks on homes and trees. 

As an adult I learned that these downpours were little fun and little benefit for much of anything, though.  Sewers couldn’t handle the volume of water, hence the flooding and runoff.  Plants weren’t able to do much with it either; many of them wound up washed away or damaged as a result of the current or the sheer volume of water. 

We don’t typically experience that kind of rain in CO.  Prior to my latest FL trip we enjoyed some (unusual) days of drizzling rain here in Denver.  Although not enough to quench the thirst of many plants in Denver’s arid climate, it got me thinking about the contrast of these two approaches of nature and how it relates to organizational learning.

Many organizations provide their employees with a downpour of learning.  Coming down in sheets, these learning downpours cause the drainage systems of participants to overflow and the majority of the learning ends up as run off.  It does little to provide the knowledge needed to grow; rather it typically floods people with too much information and can be an intimidating current.  Have you ever been prepped for a session by the words ‘firehose’ or ’slingshot’?  You probably experienced a downpour.

Just like rain, the best method for learning to be absorbed and utilized is when it is delivered as a drizzle.  Falling lightly, in small drops and over a longer period of time, a drizzle of learning ensures that participants have ample time to absorb one drop before having to consume another. 

Organizations can transition from a downpour to a drizzle of learning by investing their training dollars in things that support people’s natural tendency to learn.  Communities of Practice, informal learning, nano-learning, action learning, JIT learning, podcasting, rapid e-learning and mobile learning are just a few examples of different approaches that can be blended to create the ideal mix that can be absorbed by participants. 

Inc. magazine recently published the article “Worried that employees are wasting time on the Web?  Here’s why you shouldn’t crack down” in which the author suggests that web surfing isn’t all that bad.  He makes several good points.

One is that people are often able to get many of their errands done while online.  Wouldn’t you rather have someone do their banking in 15 minutes at their desk rather than have to leave early one day to take care of it?  Another is that web surfing is a mental break for knowledge workers.  Just as manual laborers need a break to rest their bodies, people working with information all day need to give their brain a break.  Web surfing is a great way to achieve that.

On Inc.’s site today there was a feature titled ‘Price Tag for Lost Productivity: $544 Billion‘ in which they estimate that U.S. employers lose about $544 billion because of employee’s downtime.  52% of that downtime goes to surfing the internet and 26% of it goes to socializing with co-workers.

I hope that managers reading these statistics take into account how beneficial web surfing and socializing can be for their employees.  All of the research is out there to say that the vast majority of organizational learning takes place through the networks that people form with each other.  What part of the 26% for socializing is actually helping to strengthen the networks at these companies?  How much time does the 52% for web surfing actually save the company in gained productivity since the person didn’t have to leave to complete their errand?  How many brains are refreshed and ready to work again after a few minutes of mindless surfing or joke emails?

Before the next round of time and motion studies is ordered and before a repeat of the infamous Cerner email, I hope that readers look deeper than the statictics on the surface to realize that these ‘losses in productivity’ may actually cause a much greater gain in producitivty for employers in the long run.

I am officially registered to be part of the first-ever class to attend the CLO Academy. 

The CLO Academy begins with a Colloquium from September 10-12 in Virginia.  They have announced the faculty and I’m intrigued:

Colloquium I: September 10–12, 2006
Frank Anderson, President, Defense Acquisition University
Ted Hoff, Vice President, Learning, IBM
Bob Mosher, Director, Learning & Strategy Evangelism, Microsoft
Chris Hardy, Strategic Planner, Defense Acquisition University
Thomas Clancy, Chief Learning Officer, EMC
Bill Kline, former CLO, Delta Airlines
Kevin Wilde, Vice President/CLO, General Mills
Keith Bridges, Chief Learning Architect/Global Workforce Management/Technical Development, EDS

I’ll be blogging from the event so check back here on those dates if you cannot join us.

We recently added a feature to the Orbital RPM site that allows visitors to get an at-a-glance look at what events are happening in the world of learning and development for any given month.

It’s the Learning and Development Events Calendar.  It’s somewhat of a beta feature at the moment as we work through the ideal formatting, information, etc. but we envision a resource where people can quickly survey their options, get details and register for events from the different players in the learning and development field.

If you know of any events that should be added, please contact us at: info@orbitalrpm.com and we’ll get them loaded into the system.  Thank you!

According to a 2000 study by the Society of Human Resources Management:

“77% of employees go home early on their first day because the organization was not prepared for them – either because a new-hire training program wasn’t offered or because the organization didn’t have the necessary tools (i.e. computer, phone, etc.) ready.”

The first day(s) of a new-hires time are crucial for retention.  When someone walks in the door for the first day, they are constantly assessing if they made the right choice to join the company.  This Fortune article talks about how a well-planned new-hire integration strategy will impact the bottom line.

Considering how much people communicate these days outside of their local circles, making a good impression is even more valuable.  I just visited DoctorJob, where graduates and those new into the workforce share experiences, pose questions and offer warnings. 

A few years ago an employer could mess up someone’s first day and that person would probably complain to their network of friends through conversation or email.  Now if an employer makes a member of DoctorJob’s first day a nightmare, a lot of people are going to know about it.  Beyond just impacting the company from the perspective of the new-hire, this will certainly have a ripple effect for that company’s ability to attract new-hires in the future.  Think that will impact the bottom line?

The same is of course true for the reverse.  If a new-hire is impressed by how they’re received on Day 1, people are going to know about that as well.

There are tons of reasons to have a well planned on-boarding process for new-hires.  Now that people’s ability to communicate globally is expanding, the stakes are higher than ever.

A dollar today is worth more than a dollar tomorrow.

This is the basic underpinning to the concept of Net Present Value (NPV) in finance.  Given the option, businesses are going to want their money in their own hands until the last possible second.  The more time a company can hold on to their money, the more of a return the money can generate for the company. 

This is the reason for some magazines offering subcriptions that steadily reduce as the years go on if you pay for them today.  They want that money now!  Even if it’s less than the full subscription you would have paid in three years, they would rather have it today to improve cashflow, invest, etc.

We discussed NPV in the Level 6: Beyond ROI class while I was at the CLO Institute in January.  Ever since then I’ve been playing with the idea of NPV and how it relates to methods of learning that don’t fall under the category of ‘traditional.’ 

I decided to write after reading the July edition of Education Signals.  One section of the report was about the ’Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry’ that is compiled by TrainingOutsourcing.com.  In it, the authors share the following data points:

“The largest percentage of revenue from the leading players came from content development (35%) and training delivery (30%) services.”

Content design/development obviously comes at or near the beginning of a training outsourcing initiative.  That means that over 1/3 of the money of contracts is in the hands of the training supplier soon after the project begins.    

If I were in a position to be hiring a training outsourcing firm, I would look for a deal where the fees weren’t so front-loaded.  I would want to keep my money as long as I could and let it make more money for me. 

Enter informal learning (i.e. communities of practice, blogs, wikis, podcasts, etc.).  As illustrated in this post from Jay Cross, and as others have been preaching, much of learning doesn’t come from ‘content.’  It comes through the informal and unscheduled channels of an organization.

Informal learning may have an additional advantage.  Since there isn’t near the level of design/development required for informal methods as there is for more formal events such as workshops and e-learning modules, a company that was buying these services from an outsourcing company would pay less up front.  This allows them to keep their money longer and let it make more money for them.

Although I’ve only cited one report that I’m basing this post on, I came from the instructional design world.  We charged crazy fees (usually way more than 35% of the total contract) for design/development at my old firm and that was the first thing the client paid for.  I also realize that there is a need for some structured content in a company’s learning and development plans - I just think it should be provided in minimal chunks.

I’m suggesting services that would be a double win for companies purchasing training outsourcing.  With more informal elements in the mix to create a more diverse learning portfolio the client would not only receive more effective learning and development, they would pay less up front and get to make money from the money that they would have spent on instructional design and development fees.

Note:  I’m consciously not addressing the area where training outsourcing firms make the second most amount of money - the 30% from delivery of training services.  Informal learning, by nature, requires less delivery than its traditional counterpart.  For this post, though, I wanted to emphasize the benefits of not paying design/development fees up front.