Having just returned from a fabulous few weeks holiday in Tuscany, I’ve been catching up on my emails and reading and came across a Twitter post from Donald H Taylor on a blog by Charles Jennings the ex Reuters global head of L&D on how not to train.
I was excited and slightly depressed by his thinking. Excited, because he makes a very good case for important changes to learning based on ‘three key truths’ about how not to train:
- Too much information – is provided causing overload
- Too much time between the training and performance
- Post-training drop-off has a major impact
So all-in-all a lot of training is a huge waste of time, money and effort. Jennings goes on to make the case for informal performance support tools and makes the great analogy of a GPS in a vehicle and these tools. (I wish I’d thought of that line for our tookits, but it is one I think you’ll find me using in the future.)
The depressing part is that he thinks learning professionals are stuck in their current thinking and that it might take ten years before we see a change. Our evidence in the market place is mixed at the moment. For me, the recession is polarising the approach taken by L&D professionals. The majority are, sadly, hunkering down and doing the same things, but less of them. The more forward looking are using the opportunity to review past practice and find new and improved ways of supporting the performance of their organisation. Helping the organisation to move through this difficult time. When we talk to these people, they see the value of performance support toolkits and the need to change the previous mix of learning provision.
One of the things that holds back this development is the lack of this requirement in the normal models that people have been taught to think about when considering the learing mix they should consider eg: classroom, elearning, resource library and performance support tools. We’ll just about to publish a white paper on where we think performance support toolkits fit in the mix to start to address this problem.
Kia ora e Peter!
I find it hard to tune into what you are getting at here. I read Charles Jenning’s post. A lot of it is pragmatic good advice to any trainer or training organisation in any environment, whether they consider themselves L&D professionals or not. I might have proffered advice along these lines myself.
An alternative is to deny that there could be anything wrong with current training practices. Perhaps I’m missing some important nuance here?
As an instance, any training that’s ‘delivered’ to employees the day before summer vacation starts is simply no use, no matter who is delivering it, L&D professional or not. I’ve witnessed this happen in some organisations. Apart from it being anti-pedagogy and unfair to the trainees, it’s a downright waste of time and money.
I’d be interested in your opinion on this tack.
Catchya later
I think you may have missed a couple of nuances, Ken.
Apart from the issues with short-term memory and the gap between the ‘learning’ and embedding in practice, I was arguing that anyone who uses formal training for roll-out or upgrade of new systems or processes, or of new applications, is wasting their time and money. All the evidence points to the fact that impact is minimal.
Now that’s a challenge to most organisations as I would guarantee that 99% (at least) use formal learning in some form in these cases – such as when a new expenses, vacation tracking, HR or other ERM system is deployed.
Charles
Ken, thanks and of course timing of training is crucial, but as Charles says in his reply we are looking at the wider issue of what’s effective and when. The evidence is that just-in-time performance support is much effective, than formal training. More importantly, L&D and training professionals need to be much more focused on improving performance and using the right tools rather than debating whether informal is better than formal. What’s actually going to help your organisation perform better today!
Kia ora e Charles!
No, I don’t think so – in fact, I’d say that what you have summarised is what I concur with. I think we are perhaps miscommunicating on the meaning of the word ‘training’.
I’m not a great fan of so-called ‘formal training’ though I have been a perpetrator of this means of delivering resources mid 20th century. But when it comes to learning, the ‘embedding in practice’ is where and when the ‘training’ should occur.
While I don’t agree with just-in-time education (I don’t honestly believe that it exists) I do believe in the equivalent in ‘training’. When I’m stuck with a routine in a new system or process, or of a new application, or whatever, THAT’S when I need help. That’s when so-called training should kick into action.
I should not be required to remember a Britannica of delivered information, a month, a week, or a day before that.
But you are not necessarily right when you say that impact is minimal. I’d say there’s a fair chance with many poor trainees that there would be no impact at all!
Kia ora Peter.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss with Charles. I appreciate it.
Catchya later