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…

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.

94% of human resources professionals do not feel their personnel are adequately prepared to meet their companies’ future goals according to the State of the Global Talent Nation.  That number was 86% in 2007 and 64% in 2006…so it’s moving in the wrong direction.  The study was conducted by Softscape and discussed in CLO (Chief Learning Officer) Magazine.  A copy of the report is available by request through Softscape’s site.

The report looks at a variety of areas relating to human capital management.  I grabbed the following notable quotes that IMO reinforce the sense of urgency for reform in how learning and development is executed by most organizations:

1. Many HR professionals (35%) indicate that the majority of their employees have complex multi-function roles. This is also driving the need for more real-time employee development.
2. Most HR professionals (81%) say the lack of regular employee development opportunities is impacting overall employee retention.
3. Strategic HR functions are becoming more integrated and increasingly outsourced (41%). This includes functions for performance, compensation, succession, learning, and recruiting.

My thoughts…

#1  In an age of “complex multi-function roles” things change fast and formal training can’t carry the entire load.  With the pace that many organizations run and adapt, content is often obsolete upon receipt if it’s produced and distributed within the traditional timeline. 

This supports my belief that a change in how we define learning and development is needed before we can make significant strides in improving them.  First and foremost I see the two (learning and development) as two separate strategies with different definitions and distinct methodologies for executing successfully.

In the age of the knowledge worker, learning is more about providing easy access to necessary information than it is presenting content and hoping that it sticks around until the time it’s needed.  This is accomplished through incorporating social network analyses, communities of practice, a learning supply chain that can quickly distribute content on-demand (i.e. rapid elearning + SME), etc. into a diversified learning portfolio.  These more informal approaches better mimic how today’s workforce gets what they need - through their network and at the moment they need it. 

Development defined below…

#2  Development is long-term changes in mindset and/or behavior.  Many companies fall short of acheiving true development in their workforce because their tools consist of workshops and not much else.  Some companies tack on a personality assessment (i.e. DiSC, MBTI) but usually without any direct connection to how that information can be applied.  For true development to occur people must be given the opportunity to play with concepts, make decisions according to their new learning…they have to see the impact of their decisions and actions in order to drive new behavior.

Development programs rooted in action learning contain the elements needed for lasting change but they’re rare.  For the organizations that do leverage the power of action learning, they are not only exposing their teams to the best type of development possible, they’re also grooming leaders to perform at their best within the unique conditions of that organization and none other.

It’s these types of projects where participants feel real value and development - and therefore are more inclined to stick around.  If they feel the development they’re getting at your organization is better than what they would get elsewhere, you have a powerful retention tool.

#3  Another item mentioned in the report was the rise in learning outsourcing.  I take this as a sign that organizations are more and more seeing learning and development as strategic imperatives for success.  Expectations of learning and development have changed to the degree that traditional, formal training programs are no longer adequate on their own. 

Of course I’m biased but I do believe deeply that partnering with an external organization that is an expert in a service that isn’t your core function is a good idea in many scenarios.  This includes payroll, benefits, IT and of course…learning and development.  Outsourcing allows an organization to focus on their strengths while leveraging the core strengths of experts in fields that support their operation. 

Finally… 

The great news is that we’re watching an industry evolve.  Learning and development programs will look drastically different in just 10 years.  As workers that grew up on Facebook and MySpace enter the workforce they’ll have unique demands as we transition even further into becoming a knowledge workforce.     But we’re not there yet.

When I read that 94% of HR professionals felt they’re workforce wasn’t prepared to meet the company’s goals I was shocked at how high the number truly had gotten but, ultimately, wasn’t phased for too long.  We’re addressing 21st century challenges with a 20th century method and it’s not a fair fight.  The pace of business isn’t predicted to slow or revert anytime soon so guess who gets to adapt?

I remember hearing about a new CLO magazine and then receiving the first edition - it’s difficult to believe that they’ll be celebrating their 5-year anniversary next month.  What they’ve done and are continuing to do for the field of learning and development (in my opinion) cannot be overstated. 

I certainly think this magazine has played a big role in elevating positions in learning and development to ones that are or can be viewed as providing significant strategic impact.  Kudos to the team behind the site and publication that continue in this effort.

Professionally my circles encompass both the competencies traditionally linked with a CLO (i.e. strategy, outsourcing, etc.) and the world of progressive learning & development (i.e. communities of practice, action learning, etc.). 

Given all of the research and data out there showing the impact of the more informal approach to learning it’s ironic to me that these two worlds rarely overlap…but they don’t.

That was reinforced yesterday when Trainingoutsourcing.com announced the “2007 - Top 20 Companies in the Training Outsourcing Industry.”  When you look down the list they are mainly software-based training content providers.  This is no fault of trainingoutsourcing.com - they are clear on the metrics that it takes to make the list.  I’m wondering about the buyers.  If 80% of learning comes from the informal side of the house, where are the outsourcing purchases associated with it?

Granted, it is the ‘training’ outsourcing industry and not ‘learning’ outsourcing but that should just be semantics in 2007.  It seems that, regardless of the data that shows what’s effective, people want something tangible.  The components of informal learning are a little grayer, a little messier, tougher to predict and certainly more difficult to price appropriately.  It is possible though.  I know because I’ve done it. 

Oh well - forgive the rant because this is actually one of the things that I enjoy about being in the field that offers the more progressive approaches to something.  It’s not an easy sell and I like that.  I feel like we are the little guy (looking at the list linked above I’d say that’s an appropriate feeling) and there’re many mindsets to be changed before our wares are in the mainstream…and I wouldn’t have it any other way.

Corporate University Xchange has released a video interview of two OD practitioners from Health Net talking about their experience implementing a talent management system and process. 

The video is brief and high-level but shows an inside look at some of the discoveries, challenges and successes of such an approach.  If you are a fellow practitioner you will probably be modding your head in agreement with many of the messages - if you’re new to the field you may learn a few nuggets without having to endure the pain normally associated with those lessons.

I’m a day late on April’s Big Question from LCB but here are my thoughts to the following question:

ILT and Off-the-Shelf Vendors - What Should they Do?

In the age of Google, informal learning, mobile learning, social networking and the countless other areas that are being explored as avenues for learning, what does the future hold for those in the business of instructor-led training (ILT) and off-the-shelf courseware?

The diversifying portfolio being utilized at progressive organizations presents a wealth of options and an infinite number of combinations that can be used by a learning professional. 

If I were the owner of a company that solely provided instructor-led training and/or off-the-shelf coursework the quick answer would be to diversify my offerings to match what learning professionals are using in the market.  But - there is still risk associated in diversification, namely in lack of focus for my internal organization as well as brand confusion in the marketplace.  Plus it’s too easy to write…

There will always be a market for face-to-face training and mass produced content and I would make it my goal to determine the right business model for these services to be successful. 

The first step in doing so would be to determine which scenarios in the quickly changing field of learning would continue to sustain ILT and off-the-shelf material.  What unique features or benefits do ILT and off-the-shelf coursework provide?

ILT:  real-time access to an expert; face-to-face collaboration with peers; etc.

Off-the-shelf coursework: can provide superior delivery for content that won’t change often; can be used to provide content to large populations; etc.

What situations would benefit from these unique characteristics?

How about new-hire orientation programs where you want to impress new-hires with content that won’t change often and establish connections with their new peers?  ILT and off-the-shelf material may be a fit.  How about certification courses that leverage the same or similar information year after year?  The off-the-shelf model could be the answer.

After completing this analysis I would look for opportunities to re-brand my company as one that excelled in these niches (i.e. new-hire orientation, certification, etc.)

Additionally, I would seek out strategic partnerships with other organizations that offered complementary services (i.e. communities of practice) and present that package to the market. 

Although ILT and off-the-shelf are known not to contribute to the majority of how people learn in the corporate world, they are still viable modes of instruction and therefore will remain as something that organizations will seek to purchase.  Therefore there will continue to be a market for these services - it will just take savvy strategic planning to position a company to win in the new market.

This month’s Big Question on Learning Circuits Blog is

What questions should we be asking? 

In a former life I worked for a company whose business model was structured around a two-day workshop.  Although in the time since I’ve been there I have learned that a two-day workshop can usually be just a cog in a larger wheel (if it’s to be effective) that two-day workshop was excellent.

One of the most popular modules was one called ‘Effective Questions.’  In it, the facilitator had participants experience the difference between two different questions that could be asked in the same scenario (i.e. Why are we so behind schedule? vs. What can we do to get back to our projected timeline?)

An effective question can leave a person to stew on it for hours or days only to have an answer pop-in unexpectedly.  I feel this is what the learning and development field should strive for in their communication to business executives.

Some examples would be:

•  What knowledge, skills and attitudes are necessary to execute on your strategy? 
• How can we more effectively diversify your learning ‘portfoilio’ so that the maximum return is realized?
•  What are the various futures that may be in store for this organization?  What are the common denominators between those potential futures that we can align learning and development with now?
• How can your incentive programs be better aligned with the behaviors required for success?  What can learning and development then do to make it easier for people to receive those incentives?
• How can your current training expenditures be adjusted in order to maximize the net present value of these allocations?

I feel that learning and development needs to continue to show that we think like business executives in order to get the ear of business executives.  Through well targeted questions, executives will convince themselves of the value of their workforce having the skills, attitude and knowledge needed to succeed.  At that point, we in the learning and development field can banter as to the specific methodology to use - won’t that be a good problem to have?

My father used to say that you could always tell where a company was struggling by watching their commercials.  Many years later that still rings true as I watch companies try to shape their public percpetion with carefully crafted ads that seem targeted from focus groups and customer surveys. 

With that in mind, what perception do you think Kodak is trying to overcome with this internal commercial?

To me it looks, feels and sounds like an internal PR campaign from a company that has grossly missed the turning point in their industry.  Instead of spotting the trend many years ago, now they’re forced to announce their entrance into the digital world via a mea culpa that would have you think that they’ve been developing some of the best digital technology the world will ever see during their absence from the field.  I’m not convinced.

I saw a brief blurb on the news that Kodak’s workforce is half of what is was three years ago.  Here is what a local Rochester station said last month.

I will not claim that a learning culture at Kodak would have prevented this - but hey…I’m biased and I do think that instilling the elements of a learning organization would have strongly contributed to a different story for Kodak’s recent years. 

A learning organization is one that learns from its mistakes and successes, spots trends in the market and acts on them by being nimble enough to do so.  A culture of learning rewards knowledge sharing which reduces the chances that you’ll be blindsided by something like digital in 2007.

Kodak could have presented themselves as a picture company many years ago - whether those pictures are on film or in a file it shouldn’t matter.  Part of making that transition would require a company that is ready to learn and develop.  For those in Rochester that are now getting their close-up as a result of the press attributed to their drastically late entrance into the market.  Say…cheese?

Interestingly enough I am rushing to respond to January’s Big Question on Learning Circuits Blog relating to speed or quality:

What are the trade-offs between quality learning programs and rapid elearning and how do you decide?

Will the quality of my post suffer as a result of the speed at which I’m trying to get it in while it’s still January?  Or will my tight deadline keep me focused, lean and providing just the necessary information?

The same questions can be applied to organizational learning.  Is it worth it for companies to offer training programs that have been piloted, tested, tweaked, etc. or is it better to provide information in a more raw, unrefined mode.  The answer?  What else…it depends.

There are elements of a learning solution that should be well-designed and refined.  These elements should be used for information that isn’t likely to change.  For the ‘informational’ parts of a new-hire orientation, for example, it may be a worthwhile investment of time and money to strive for a module that looks and runs like a well-oiled machine.  It could provide newcomers with a sense of organization and structure in the fragile interaction with their new employer. 

As these newbies progress in their positions, though, they will come to know most of the static information they need to do their jobs.  It’s the complex, constantly changing environment about which they need up-to-date knowledge. 

For knowledge workers it’s nearly impossible to impart all of the information they need to do their jobs.  It’s vast, tacit and always evolving.  A well-oiled ‘quality learning program’ for people that are well entrenched in their role is many times obsolete by the time it is rolled out.  Rapid elearning allows organizations to put information that will change often into a format that lends itself to extremely fast design time.

So to answer the Big Question I’m taking the Consultant’s Amendment (It depends).  You must assess the content to be delivered:  how likely is it to change, can it be used enough times to justify the costs, what effect will the quality of the module have on the audience, etc.

I’ve written this post quickly.  There are many more examples I could have used and my writing could probably be a little better but this is time-sensitive information.  I have to get it posted in January so I’ve chosen to convey the thoughts that come to me as I sit and write.  Could I have made it better ‘quality’ by spending all month on it?  Sure.  Would that have been worth my time?  Probably not. 

I was able to express myself just by sitting down and quickly writing.  Other topics will not lend themselves to that speed - I will have to do some due diligence before publishing.

I recommend using the same criteria for learning solutions.