Blog

This month’s Big Question from Learning Circuits blog asks us to ponder what we’d like to do better as learning professionals.

As I look at my ever-growing task list it seems there is an endless stream of possible angles with which to begin so I’ll take the high-level road…

What I’d like to do better is more effectively get the message out about the power and application of non-traditional forms of learning and development (i.e. communities of practice, action learning, social networks…). I feel that these services are under served in the market and that organizations can benefit greatly by integrating them within their portfolio of learning tools.

As with any message it has to be palatable. So as part of what I would like to do better, I want to make sure the message(s) are in a form that get attention - this includes videos, podcasts and literature. Looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me for the foreseeable future…

We recently received the good news that the interactive graphic on our site - Orbital Paths - has been awarded an Addy through the Madison Advertising Federation.

We were honored to have worked with the fine folks at IQ Foundry to produce the graphic; one that we hope illustrates how we view learning and development in an organization.

If you keep up with tech even the slightest bit you know that Apple, Inc. overall and especially it’s Mac line of computers are red hot. I have several friends that have made the switch and have suggested for a long time that I do the same. For reasons that span from frustration with PCs to video/photo/audio editing needs to an organizational philosophy that better aligns with that of Orbital RPM, I decided to take the plunge. I converted.

Beyond just switching to a Mac I intended to jump in with both feet. I wanted to ween myself of Outlook in favor of Mail, iCal and Address Book. I would embrace iTunes for my digital entertainment needs and write these posts on a Safari bowser. While not giving up Word, Excel & Powerpoint for client work I committed to learning Numbers, Pages and Keynote for things that could live within Orbital RPM’s walls.

I misjudged how difficult a transition this would be. My computer is something that is tethered to me for the better part of everyday. Although my old PC had plenty of idiosyncrasies at least I was aware of them and usually sometimes knew what to do about them. We’d been through a lot together. The switch to Mac felt like moving into a foreign and unfamiliar new house built on green engineering after coming home to the same, outdated home in an aging subdivision for about 13 years. I liked the possibilities that were now offered to me but it was going to take some getting used to.

This is where the comprehensiveness of Apple’s strategy shone through. Apple asked the question, “Who do we count on for success?” Engineers, programmers and sales people are all obviously contained in there as they are for Apple’s competition. Apple applied the question to their entire value-chain, though, and concluded that customers were also an important part of this strategy working. Seems silly I know but stay with me here. Since Apple counts on its customers for success, they decided to include them in their learning strategy. They invested in my learning.

For $99 I chose to become a member of the One-to-One program. This program allowed me to take one hour of individual training per week for a year. That means I can get 52 [edit] hours of custom, just-in-time education for $99. This is clearly not a profit center for Apple. But is it a wise investment?

For their part of the deal Apple gets customers that are well versed in the unique features and benefits of their product. A product that is different from the one that all of their competitors offer and one that is different from what about 93% of their marketshare uses. To me it seems like a worthwhile expenditure to subsidize a learning strategy that will ensure newly converted customers will stay with their new product and of course buy more in the future.

The One-to-One program has been instrumental in my satisfaction with the new computer. Having to re-learn so many new things comes with a long list of questions. Knowing that I can have them answered weekly by a person that I’m sitting down with face-to-face instills a sense of calm in a situation that would normally produce high levels of anxiety. Oh…I forgot to mention that each time I’ve been in the retail store for my lessons I’ve bought peripherals that probably average $250 per trip; that will (hopefully) go down since I’ve only been to three classes but it definitely influences buying behavior to know that I’ll be in their store often

An important lesson is contained within Apple’s strategy. If they only focused on making great products but not ensuring people were able to use them I highly doubt they would be enjoying the success they are…I know that I would not be a Mac owner. By determining who an organization counts on for their success and considering those groups for inclusion in their overall learning strategy it serves to benefit the sponsoring organization.

Who all do you count on for success in your organization? Are any of them outside of your organization’s walls? What could they know more of, better or different that would increase your success? How can they be incorporated into your learning strategy?

Way back in my undergrad psychology classes we read much about the classic debate over nature vs. nurture in regard to human development. The ‘nature’ camp believed that we are who we are from birth - our genes (nature) determines how we wind up. The ‘nurture’ camp felt that who we become is solely dependent on how we were raised (nurtured) - we are born a blank slate upon which our defining moments sketch out our eventual selves.

Then someone came along and proposed that perhaps nature and nurture each had a part in developing the whole person. This argument was of course called ‘nature/nurture.’

My reaction to this revelation? Duh.

Of course our genes shape who we are. Of course our experiences do too. The warring camps seemed too extreme and too black and white for me. It was clear that some interaction of how we are nurtured built upon how we are naturally resulted in what we become when we grow up.

I felt the same when reading the recent article in Fast Company, Is the Tipping Point Toast?

The author profiles Duncan Watts and his research that theorizes that the Influentials from Malcolm Gladwell’s The Tipping Point are a misnomer. Watts suggests that trends ebb and flow more as a factor of the population’s readiness for them as opposed to the people that started them.

I think Watts makes interesting points and that they’re right some of the time. Am I to believe, though, that a popular blogger with a solid reputation for cogent insight is just as likely to stir up interest about something as someone that’s a known spammer? Tough to swallow…

In our work with clients we often start projects with a social network analysis. This dandy piece of software spits out network maps that provide us an x-ray into how information flows through an organization. We can clearly see the people within organizations that are sought out the most often. And they’re not random.

Individuals can become go-to/influential people due to their personality, insight, access or any number of other variables. It’s helpful to identify these individuals and utilize them in a new twist on change management [where influentials are selected to help with communication rather than the shotgun approach of most change initiatives] or knowledge transfer [where knowledge is downloaded from influentials prior to them being transfered or retiring and leaving a knowledge void in the network]. And it’s always been a foundational element in building a thriving learning community/community of practice [CoP].

So while there are elements of a given population having to be ready to accept a trend, there are also certainly factors emanating from different people that will affect the reach and rate of a trend that they [willingly or otherwise] attempt to start. Similar to the nature/nurture debate, there are elements from both sides that come into play when looking at the final outcome.

I’ve been absent from the monthly Big Questions over at the Learning Circuits blog - mainly due to us getting our own new site up and populated. I almost rang in on February but couldn’t pull it together…even with the extra day for Leap Year! I couldn’t resist March’s Big Question though…

“What is the scope of our responsibility as learning professionals?”

More compelling than the question, though, was some of the fodder and follow-up questions that Tony Karrer shared in the post.

• …a Chief Learning Officer panel discussion where it seemed that supporting informal learning or communities of practice was not something they were considering. 
• Do educational institutions and corporate learning and development departments have responsibility for supporting Long Tail Learning? 
• Do they have responsibility for learning beyond what can be delivered through instruction?

It shocked me to hear about the CLO panel discussion. With the overwhelming research out there confirming that today’s workforce is getting more and more of the information they need to do their job through informal means it’s difficult to understand why CLOs would resist supporting communities of practice or broader informal learning.

I feel that learning professionals should support learning. Period. Whatever form(s) of learning that are most beneficial to the workforce (as well as appropriate members of the value-chain) are the ones that should be pursued. There may be some organizations where communities of practice and/or informal learning don’t make sense as part of the learning portfolio but they should at least be considered.

As we move further away from our industrial society and further into our information society it’s my belief that a big part of learning initiatives will be providing easy access to information rather than supplying more information. The advent of Web 2.0 tools arrived at a great time for the renewed interest in communities of practice and I’m sure there is a symbiotic relationship between the two. It’s not about the technology though…it’s about the possibilities that now exist for what knowledge workers can do with the information they need. Now they can be part of creating and shaping the information they need rather than just recipients of content they are prescribed.

This combined with social network analyses and careful crafting of learning communities results in a sophisticated and dynamic learning strategy that happens to mesh well with the dynamic roles of many people in organizations today. It’s becoming increasingly difficult (if not impossible) to fit everything that someone needs to know into a course of any kind. Execution of strategy is or should be changing rather frequently as markets, customers, etc. fluctuate and the traditional forms of training won’t work as the sole solution for the workforce in these organizations. To ignore this is dangerous.

In an age where formal content is often ‘obsolete upon receipt’ it’s my belief that learning professionals will need to widen their scope in terms of what they will consider using as part of their learning portfolio. As with other investments in complex markets, it often pays to be diversified and to focus on areas where you’ll get the greatest return. Discounting new methods for supporting knowledge workers is akin to keeping all of your savings in CDs, bonds or treasury bills…you’re sure to get a little return but you’re not leveraging all of the opportunities out there; some of which may be better suited to your situation and therefore more likely to get you a better return.