Blog

I recently returned from my honeymoon in New Zealand.  Everywhere we went the toilets I encountered had two buttons on the top of them to instigate flushing instead of the one lever I am accustomed to seeing in the USA.  The two buttons were always distinct by way of some type of unique drawing or design on them - I didn’t know what they meant but someone was trying to tell me something.

Having ample opportunities for experimentation on a three week trip I tried them both on various occasions.  Sometimes the left one and sometimes the right.  Both flushed the toilet and without a noticeable difference.  My new wife and I had a couple quick conversations about the differences but, not being the ideal honeymoon conversation, I didn’t pursue it in much depth.  I did intend to ask natives about the differences, though, and never remembered at an appropriate time.

After three weeks you can imagine that I returned to a substantial mail pile.  After sorting through the requisite bills and junkmail, I was able to relax with my coveted arrivals…my magazines.  One of these was the Dec/Jan issue of Fast Company.

In an article titled “Feeding the Beast:  Sustainability is about more than eco-friendly burger boxes” John Ehrenfeld writes the following:

Such products exist today. My favorite example is the two-button toilet, still a rarity in the United States but increasingly popular in Northern Europe and New Zealand. In place of the usual single lever or button, the toilet offers two buttons or levers, one small and one large, actuating a smaller or larger flush volume. Beyond its obvious “green” credentials, this toilet actually forces users to engage with it on more than a utilitarian level, and to make a choice. It creates presence in place of mindlessness.

The timing was unbelievable.  After I got over the shock of coincidence, I was able to fully absorb John’s message.  Companies that simply give us ‘green’, although well intentioned, may not be having the impact they appear to be having.  Take cars that are more fuel-efficient - they’ve been shown to promote more consumption.  In order to make real progress we must involve people in the process.

Providing products that themselves are more efficient is only addressing one part of the problem - we must create points for interaction that force people to participate, allow them to make decisions and show them the impact of their choice.  This is a systems issue, where addressing one part of the problem won’t make it go away - the entire system that it operates in must be addressed.

This is the value of including elements of systems thinking and action learning in leadership/employee development programs.  In many development courses participants are just given tools - tools that have been successful with their peers or with other companies as ‘best practices.’

Programs that provide tools and then force participants to analyze the situation, scrutinize the tools, predict their impact and monitor results (a la action learning) are proven to make sustainable changes in people’s behavior and mindsets.  Including pieces on systems thinking forces participants to think through the potential results of a variety of actions.

It is only through these comprehensive methods that companies will enjoy lasting development.  So whether you’re trying to save the world or just improve the abilities of your workforce keep in mind that giving people the tools to do it isn’t enough - they need the chance to interact, make choices and see the impact of their choice - whether it’s a flush or a change in strategy.

I am honored to have been in the inaugural class of the CLO (Chief Learning Officer) Academy.  They have designed the program to kick-off with a face-to-face colloquium and then have different tracks of on-line courses through Capella University.

I completed the Colloquium in September but because of my wedding and honeymoon I wasn’t able to participate in the first round of on-line classes.  Therefore…I start tomorrow.  I’ve never taken a university course on-line.  Distance courses in my college days meant checking out a bunch of VHS tapes of recorded lectures.  I’ve heard a lot of good things about Capella’s instructional model so I’m looking forward to experiencing it.

My first course is titled “Strategic Planning and the New World of Work.”  Sounds exciting - I will write more about my experience as it unfolds so check back for updates.

Note:  if you would like to see reviews of the CLO Academy Colloquium or the inaugural CLO Institute please read here.

TrainingOutsourcing.com and Expertus have released the results of the the second part in their Training Challenges Survey Series.

In it the authors list the following highlights:

• While a vast majority of companies (82%) are now involved in global training, most training dollars are still spent on training delivered within home countries. Almost half of responding companies spend less than 10% of their annual training budgets on training delivered outside of home countries. In 37% of responding companies, employees outside of home countries receive less training than those employees located within home countries.

• 62% of companies managed global training through a centralized learning organization. However, 42% of respondents had training staff located in
U.S. and non-U.S. countries.

• English is by far the most commonly used language for training (95%). Almost 40% of companies use Spanish, 30% use French, 25% use Chinese, and 25% use German.

• In 58% of companies, all employees have access to e-learning.

• The top challenges identified by respondents are budget constraints (48%), content localization and translation (40%), effective learning delivery (39%), and maximization of e-learning (34%).

• Training delivery (36%), content development (35%), and technical services (26%) are the most frequently outsourced services.

The first bullet was a surprise - that 82% of those surveyed are involved in global training  but almost half of those spend less than 10% of their training budget on those outside the home country.  I’ve taken enough statistics in my life to not read too much into numbers - I’m just curious what lay behind that data.

The rest is good baseline data for the learning and development field - I look forward to the rest of the series.

I recently spent a weekend in Washington D.C. to make a vacation out of the inaugural CLO Academy that was being held in Lansdowne, VA.

It was a quick trip in D.C. so we were rushed to see the major sites. We started at the National Archives building where they have on display the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence along with access to countless other historical documents.

While up close and personal with these very elaborate and elegant documents, I wondered what the process would have been had our country been formed when the Founding Fathers had access to some of today’s Web 2.0 tools that we’re now using for learning and collaboration.

Imagine Benjamin Franklin and John Adams developing their ideas for the Constitution on a wiki, Thomas Paine keeping citizens informed about the American Revolution via his blog rather than the pamphlet ‘Common Sense’ or all of the Founding Fathers forming a community of practice that keeps in touch about their progress via an online portal.

What they would have gained in efficiencies back then is perhaps what we would have lost in enjoyment today. It’s tough to imagine throngs of people gathered around and craning their necks to sneak a peek of the final wiki page of the Constitution. Would John Hancock’s digital signature have the same impact as the pen and ink version does?  Probably not.

Don’t mistake my tone, though.  I’m all for these Web 2.0 tools and enjoy the efficiency they bring to offices and homes each day.  It just seems that the more efficient we get, the less that opportunity for nostalgia exists. 

On the other hand, perhaps these advacements will serve to make the historic documents all the more rare as times go by so that in several decades our societies will just appreciate the fact that they’re on paper - let alone written by hand.  If this serves to create more awareness and interest in our history, I say that’s one more benefit of the progress we’re making.

I just realized that I tend to favor topics around learning in my posts when in my role I focus just as much on development.  For us at Orbital RPM we see learning and development as related but distinct.  Development is about changing mindsets and behaviors while learning is giving people access to the information they need to perform.

Years ago I was a ‘Leadership Development Consultant’ with a national consulting firm.  Our services offered to clients were basically workshops on various topics and our flagship ‘Leadership Institute.’ 

Once a month, the Leadership Institute hosted approximately 35 leaders for a 5-day retreat in the mountains of Colorado.  The participants that attended were usually very high-level and accomplished in their roles.  It was not uncommon for their expressions and body-language on Day 1 to be screaming, “You can’t change me.”

By the end of Day 5 it was often these initial nay-sayers that were crying in the closing circle about how powerful the week was for them.  After conducting countless follow-ups with participants when they returned to their role, though, it was apparent to me that their first reaction was accurate - we didn’t change them.

This is not a reflection on the design of the Leadership Institute.  I really do believe it was a powerful event for participants.  The problem was that it was just an event.  Without a process to sustain the learning, most new concepts will dissipate within a few days or maybe even weeks if the person was really moved.

Enter the concept of action learning.  Developed by Reg Revans back in the 1940’s, Action Learning begins with exposing participants to some fundamental concepts (as the Leadership Institute did) but that is just the beginning of a process.  Small groups of cross-functional participants are then charged with solving issues in their own organization.  As the workgroups go through the process of their assigned issue, a coach is present to ask questions and guide them back to the concepts they learned in the initial workshop or event.  It is through this process of application and reflection that the concepts in the intial workshop are embedded in participants.

General Electric uses action learning extensively at it’s famed Crotonville but why hasn’t it caught on to the masses?  I still see companies that take people on rafts, ropes and racecars in an attempt at leadership development.  I advise clients to see these activities as what they are…fun.  Nothing wrong with that but don’t expect people to come back a better leader. 

Where I believe there is value in these fun activities is as the kick-off to an action learning project.  It congeals participants and lets them get to know each other before embarking on their problem-solving and personal growth journey.

Don’t have the money for this much fun?  No problem.  Any group activity will do.  A conservation expert in Leadville, CO I met over the weekend told me that companies are starting to send groups to him that tackle a restoration project for a couple days.  It’s win-win because CO is that much more beautiful, the participants get the feeling of accomplishment and they’re tighter as a group.  The perfect ingredients to tackle a project back at the office.

If you’re in the market for a development program, do your homework.  The term ‘action learning’ has become diluted in much of the marketing literature that makes its way to my desk.  It seems that if an activity involves physical movement of any kind, someone will label it action learning.  Know what you’re buying - if it’s conducted all in a classroom and is over in a few days, there may be lots of action but expect little learning.

I am part of the inaugural class of both the CLO Academy and the CLO Institute and am summarizing my experiences to date through a comparison and contrast of the two programs for anyone that is considering attending either or both.

As I’ve said before, kudos to the founding members of both for elevating the status and visibility of the Chief Learning Officer role in organizations.  I am of the opinion that we are amidst a transformation in the way that organizations can use learning and development to enhance the performance of their company.  This isn’t done by putting people through more content and more training sessions - it’s done by giving people access to the information they need to succeed or helping develop new skills or mindsets for success.  Chief Learning Officers are the people to make that happen.

I’ll start the review with a bit of background.  The CLO Institute was the first to market.  I received word of it in November of 2005 and attended classes in January of 2006.  I heard of the CLO Academy in May of 2006 and attended the first class in September of 2006.

The CLO Institute was started and is heavily led by Doug Harward - the founder of TrainingOutsourcing.com.  This is an important detail as some of the content is influenced and benefits from his expertise.  The CLO Academy was started by the team at MediaTec Publishing; also the creators of Chief Learning Officer Magazine. 

Format - How the two programs approach the development of learning leaders

• CLO Institute:  The CLO Institute has different Learning Programs for participants to choose from.  They include a Certified Chief Learning Officer (CCLO), a Certified Learning Strategist (CLS) and a Certified Learning Architect (CLA).  Participants take classes according to which Learning Program they select.  Once all classes for a Learning Program are completed, participants must do a real-world project in order to be certified.  Currently all classes are conducted face-to-face although they mentioned that on-line classes will be held in the future.
• CLO Academy:  The CLO Academy also has choices to make.  Theirs are Certification Tracks [cannot embed a direct link] and are called Learning Leadership, Learning Effectiveness and Learning Management.  The CLO Academy begins with a 2.5 day face-to-face session (called a Colloquium) regardless of which Track is selected and then all following Track-specific courses are conducted on-line through a partnership with Capella University.

Content and Style

• CLO Institute:  The CLO Institute classes were that…classes.  We were instructed from 9-5 and then went to our respective hotels to return the next day.  This is not all a complaint, though.  In an environment where people are hungry for the knowledge I don’t think presentations are all that bad.  The classes were small enough that we could ask questions at any point. The advantage of this format is that we received a lot of great information. The CLO Institute helps learning leaders view and analyze learning as an investment; this requires a good deal of foundational content for participants and that’s what they provided.  The CLO Institute is where I was began to apply concepts such as net present value (NPV) and economic value added (EVA) to learning expenditures.  The disadvantage of their format was the lack of informal networking and peer-to-peer collaboration.  To their credit, the CLO Institute has since set-up a place on their site as an on-line resource for the community of past participants.
• CLO Academy:  The CLO Academy Colloquium was a very different experience from the first classes of the CLO Institute.  We were borderline sequestered on the sprawling campus of the Conference Center in VA.  I ate all of my meals with participants and faculty and joined them for drinks and conversation in the late evening.  For the informal learning and relationships between peers and with faculty, the CLO Academy has it nailed. Most of the CLO Academy was in a ‘case-based’ environment.  This was a term I heard there which basically meant we had an in-depth interactive case study that we were put into that mimicked a real company.  As I put in an earlier post, the components of the case study need a little tweaking in order to be completely relevant for a learning executive.  Once these are made I’m sure it will be much more satisfying for participants.  The great part about the case study, though, was that our stellar faculty rotated among teams and gave some insight into their roles and specific methodolgy.  I did take away some nuggets from their informal talks that were not directly related to the case study.The CLO Academy also had three formal lectures from the faculty.  I had many ideas validated in the lectures but the agenda was so tight that we only had time for about two questions total following each of the structured presentations.  Some faculty were available during evening ‘fireside chats’ and meals which provided an opportunity to ask follow-up questions but I would have preferred more time with them in the front of the room for a Q/A. In terms of content and new ideas, I haven’t gotten much (yet) from the CLO Academy.  In their defense, though, the Colloquium was to establish the basics that will be built on by the on-line Capella courses (which for me begin in January due to my vacation).  According to the literature, the purpose of the Colloquium was to “provide a solid foundation for the shift from tactical to strategic thinking.”  I think that the CLO Academy is making a dangerous assumption that all participants are walking in as tactical thinkers.  At least that is how the messages were delivered to participants - that we would make this transition to being strategic thinkers.  Even if this is true for the majority of participants, I don’t know that people want to be told so outright because most people would probably like to think of themselves as strategic. 

 Faculty

• CLO Institute:  The CLO Institute went for variety.  They want to expand the view of learning professionals to include CFOs, COOs, etc. so they brought that expertise into the classroom.  Our presenter for “Level 6: Beyond ROI” was a financial consultant that happened to know about learning expenditures.  She was on a mission to teach us to speak to CFOs and I appreciated that perspective.
• CLO Academy:  The CLO Academy went for star-power.  If you want to interact with and hear from some of the top CLOs and learning executives in the field, this is the place for you.  I had one-on-one conversations with learning executives from Microsoft, General Mills, IBM, EDS, EMC, Delta and Defense Acquisition University.

All in all, I felt that both programs were well worth my time and money.  They were both very different and each had their unique advantages.  I hope that the above review helps anyone trying to determine which to attend.  Please write with any specific questions if you’re still struggling with your decision or are just curious.

Days 2 & 3 of the CLO (Chief Learning Officer) Academywere excellent.  We spent most of our time working through a case study as teams in separate rooms while CLOs and Learning Executives rotated throughout the rooms.  At the end of Day 3 (a half day), all groups presented on their portion of the case as the facilitators observed and then gave their thoughts at the end.

The case study will need some tweaking before the next group of participants arrives but this was the first time it had been conducted - and something as complex as what they assembled is not easy to pull off the first time.  With some slight modifications it will be an outstanding exercise. 

We had another fireside chat on Evening 2.  This time there wasn’t a moderator.  There were several of the facilitators present and they all took turns asking questions and interacting with the group. 

I talked to all fellow participants and most of the faculty one-on-one at some point.  I was able to discuss some very specific topics I had questions about.  As with most conferences, the informal learning that took place between sessions is where I personally got the most value. 

As promised in a past post, I am compiling a compare/contrast look of the CLO Institute and the CLO Academy - it will appear in my next entry.

I have just returned to my room after the first day of the CLO Academy in Lansdowne, VA.  The sessions started at 5pm so I’ve only seen a glimpse of what we’re we will be experiencing but so far so good.

At the orientation session we were told that our time here will largely be playing the role of consultant’s with a fictitious firm.  I don’t know much more about it yet but if I did I wouldn’t write about it - you’ll have to experience it for yourself. 

Following orientation we were introduced to Frank J. Anderson who is the President of Defense Acquisition University.  Frank talked about his experience at DAU and how he has guided this organization (with a budget of $120 billion - yes billion) to be a world-class learning organization.  His stories and examples were amazing yet somehow easily understandable to an audience that cannot comprehend overseeing a budget, staff and responsibility the size of Frank’s.  I was thilled to hear Frank mention terms such as Communities of Practice and Action Learning - he told the group he had not come from a learning and development background but had surrounded himself with people that were experts in it - he clearly selected a talented team.

CLO Academy is really taking advantage of the informal learning opportunities here.  During dinner I ate at a small table with other participants and with a faculty member that is also a learning executive with Microsoft. 

The final activity was a ‘Fireside Chat.’  A voluntary session where we sat in a circle, drank wine and did a freeform exchange of ideas from all of our different sets of experience.  Frank Anderson loosely led the discussion but the group largely set the course of what we talked about. 

More to come from me - but not tonight.  It’s late and I still have my consulting homework to do…

Want to know how other learning and development professionals would respond to your questions?

TDF (Training Director’s Forum) e-Net is a free newsletter put out by Training Magazine.  In each edition they ask for input from readers on a question posed by a reader.  The following edition will have some of the responses by individuals as well as some vendors. 

In today’s edition the topics were ‘Getting Managers Involved’ and ‘Sales Training Resources.’  One characteristic of collective group intelligence is that you have to sort out what works for you - I sometimes require a grain of salt as I read but I have found many useful nuggets in past issues.

Subscribe here if interested.

In an e-seminar hosted by CLO Magazine yesterday, presenter Josh Bersin of Bersin and Associates facilitated a talk titled, “Increasing the Strategic Value of Learning Organizations.”  You can find the slides here - the recording should be available here shortly.

Note: If you wish you had known about this e-seminar, we keep an up-to-date calendar on Orbital RPM’s site where you can search for events (big as small) throughout the learning and development field and send reminders directly to your calendar or email.

There are many good nuggets of information contained in Josh’s talk but in the interest of focus I will highlight one.  Bersin and Associates is known for their quantitative research in the field of learning and development and the statistics from one of Josh’s slides was intriguing to me.

The following percentages indicate how much more effective or efficient organizations were (in the areas listed) that have a highly effective Cheif Learning Officer (CLO) in their ranks:

• Partnering with Lines of Business: + 12%
• Measuring the Impact of Learning: + 20%
• Developing Innovative e-Learning: + 14%
• Sharing Best Practices: + 15%
• Making the Most of Resources: +12%
• Developing High Job Satisfaction: +10%

These numbers are compelling.  As the strategic role of learning and development continues its climb up the ranks of organizational credibility, it’s studies like these that will give it a boost.  Everybody loves data and these are numbers that any Executive would like to see.