The Performance Improvement Blog

Learning Organization is Culture, Processes, and Leadership

“Organizational learning” and “learning organization” are terms that continue to be misused. It seems like these days any business, nonprofit, or government agency that provides training and education to its employees calls itself a learning organization. They might do a lot of training and education but that doesn’t necessarily mean employees are learning and, most importantly, it doesn’t mean that their individuals and teams are learning what they need to know in order to become and stay high performance organizations.

With the proliferation of elearning and mlearning, I’m afraid that more accessible training and education is being confused with learning. Companies are rightly proud of themselves for the quality and quantity of online performance support that they are providing. Whether employees are continuously learning and applying that learning to achieving strategic goals is another matter entirely.

It is organizational learning that will make some organizations more successful than others over the long run. Quoting Ray Stata, co-founder and former CEO of Analog Devices, Harvard Business Professor David Garvin says that learning may be the only sustainable competitive advantage for organizations today. He explains that products, services, and processes can be copied. This observation is being played out today in the many Web-based companies. Having a search engine, online payment processing, or social networking capability was a competitive advantage only a short time ago. No more. Software engineers can create comparable services seemingly overnight. Companies have to be continually learning and changing in order to merely stay in the game, let alone win the game.

 

Garvin, one of the early thought leaders on organizational learning, and another Harvard Business Professor, Amy Edmonson, define “learning organization” in an interview he and Amy Edmonson did with HBR in 2008 (See video.). They say:

…a learning organization is an organization skilled at two things: one, creating, acquiring, interpreting, transferring, and retaining knowledge; and, second, acting, modifying its behavior to respond to [that] new knowledge and insights.  

Garvin and Edmonson go on to talk about the “three building blocks” of organizational learning: 1) environment; 2) work processes; and 3) leadership. I interpret “environment” to mean organizational culture. This includes the values, basic assumptions, beliefs, expected behaviors, and norms of the organization. These aspects of culture must be aligned with continuous learning about and from the work of the organization. “Processes” are the routine ways in which the work gets done. Work and learning must be part of the same process. And by “leadership” they mean what top level leaders do to support, encourage, and remove barriers to learning and performance improvement. All three of these “building blocks” must be in place for an organization to be a truly learning organization.

 

The Unexamined Leadership Program is Not Worth Doing

If you’re not going to evaluate a leadership development program, don’t do the program! It will be a waste of time, money, energy, and trust. End-of-program reactionnaires (aka smile sheets) don’t count as evaluation. I’m talking about a systematic, evidence-based look at why it was done, what was done, how it was done, what happened as a result, how it can be improved, and what the organization learned from the process.

Viv Nunn of UK’s Open University, in an article for TrainingZone, explains some of the reasons for evaluating professional development programs. She writes that evaluation should provide the following:

• Evidence of the extent to which the professional development is contributing to your organisation's success
• Validation that the correct learning solution has been identified and suggestions for programme improvement
• Advice about how to get the most from your L&D budget by considering the workplace learning environment

I would add:

• Reinforcement of learning. That is, the act of evaluating (i.e., observing) a leadership development program reinforces learning. If done well, evaluation heightens awareness of goals, unintended consequences, and the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that were learned.

To achieve these purposes, you have to look beyond the seminar, workshop, internship, mentoring, coaching, online course, or any other method of instruction. Learning, especially about leadership, is affected by the organizational environment and external factors, as well as the program. To fully understand why and how learning did or did not occur and what impact it had, you have to examine organizational factors in addition to program factors.

Nunn provides us with an excellent description of the factors that can affect learning:

If the workplace learning environment isn't right, if learners cannot find opportunities to apply what they have learned at work, if the organisational culture is not one which encourages them to try out their new skills and knowledge, there will be little or no impact to report, regardless of how effective the actual learning solution has been. Isolating learning from its context will not provide useful data alone. Evaluating the context of learning along with the learning solution will give you the greatest opportunity to get the most from your investment.

I hate to think about how many leadership development programs I’ve participated in as either a learner or facilitator that were thought-provoking, information-rich, and emotionally powerful only to find that they resulted in little or no change because there was no immediate opportunity to apply that learning back on the job. Participants might learn about team-building but not have a team to lead in the workplace or be discouraged by management from applying what they learned in their teams.

Evaluation of professional development must examine how workplace culture supports or hinders learning. Knowing whether intended results follow, in time, a professional development program or not, won't help you unless you understand the factors that affected those results. And, as Nunn suggests, it's things like clarity of goals, manager's attitudes toward learning, incentives for professional development, opportunities to apply new learning, and feedback, that have more to say about performance improvement than does the quality of instruction alone. 

Evaluation is not an option; it’s an integral part of the learning process. If you want a leadership development program to be more than entertainment and you want it to achieve learning that results in significant performance improvement, than you must evaluate the program and the organizational evironment of that program.

 

Do You Need a CCO and CLO?

Should your organization have a CCO and CLO? Paul Hebert argues against organizations appointing a Chief Culture Officer.

Hebert writes:

…as soon as you codify, quantify and assign responsibility to something it ceases to be everyone’s responsibility…Culture is a defined as a set of shared values, behaviors, norms.  Shared.  Operative word.  Shared means we all have a part in the outcome and the input…If you create a job called “Culture Chief” you’ve just provided a backdoor for every manager, every employee to use as their personal escape route when culture starts to go wrong at your company.

I agree with Hebert and I have similar concerns with having a CLO (Chief Learning Officer). Learning is what employees in high performance organizations must do continuously as part of their jobs. Companies don’t have CWOs (Chief Work Officer), so why do they have CLOs? I suspect CEOs appoint CCOs and CLOs because it makes them feel like they are doing something about the work environment and employee development. The risk is that responsibility for employee engagement and learning will be relegated to a department and not owned by every executive, manager, and employee in the organization.

For a long time, organizations have built a department around training and given it a director in order to give it status and to protect it from the budgetary absorption of other units. The unintended consequence has been to reinforce the notion that work and learning are separate and that one has higher value than the other when, in fact, the success of the organization depends on continuous learning. To break out of this mental model, companies should stop doing things that appear to centralize responsibility for learning. Don’t put all the emphasis on a course catalogue and don’t hire a CLO.

I see the need for a CFO and a CIO. They are leaders of operational areas that require specialized focus on managing, maintaining, and improving systems that support those operations. Those areas need a voice at the executive table. But culture and learning are who we are and how we work collectively. They should be nurtured and actively fostered daily by everyone. 

On the other hand, any kind of major change in an organization needs a champion. Employees want a face on actions that affect the way they do their work and how they are rewarded. They are more likely to commit to doing things differently and going in a different strategic direction if they believe that the leadership of the organization fully endorses the new direction.   A credible, respected leader that frequently reminds people of the change can play a key role in ensuring that the change happens and that it sticks. Also, it’s good to see the visibility for culture and learning that comes with appointment of a person in those positions. However, if sole responsibility for the change rests with that leader, it will not be sustained over time. Eyes will roll every time that person opens his or her mouth. A high performance culture and continuous employee learning will not become woven into the fabric of the organization.

Change in culture, such as transforming an organization from high fear to high trust, has to be done collectively and requires that everyone in the organization accept responsibility for doing things differently and recognizing and rewarding people differently. Change in learning, such as managers forming an alliance with their direct reports around learning and performance improvement, also requires shared responsibility and mutual support for doing things quite differently. Learning is everybody’s business whether at the individual, team, or organization level.

Leadership for culture and learning should come from CEOs. It’s their job to set the strategic direction for the organization and ensure that the organization is aligned with that direction. Culture and learning are the foundation for that alignment. I understand the desire of CEOs to departmentalize those roles, but the downside risk is significant. 

 

The Future of Work and Learning

I have been asked to speak to a group of 14 to 16 year olds about the importance of finishing high school and attending college. It’s one of my favorite topics. But as I thought about the talk I realized that I better say something about the future of work and why college has become more important than ever.  It’s fun but risky to speculate about the future of work and learning. The world is changing so fast. It’s hard to know what will happen next week, let alone 10 years from now.

As leaders, we should be thinking about the future, including whom we will be leading and what they will be doing in our organizations. We need to be prepared and we need to make sure our employees are prepared.  

A good place to start is with the tech industry because that industry will affect the nature of everyone’s work in the future. Chris Jablonski, in a ZDNet post titled, 5 trends driving the future of work, describes five major ways in which work is changing:

1. More independent workers (one estimate is 20 million by 2013) – These are the independent consultants, contract workers, free lancers, free agents, and temps who cycle in and out of organizations in a constant flow. More people want to work with more flexibility and choice in what they do and more companies want to have more flexibility and choice in who they hire.  I think we will see the rise of a permanent-temp labor force.
2. Working online – Workers will find jobs and do their work via email and Web sites and apps, possibly without ever setting foot inside their employers’ organizations. It’s outsourcing and it’s telecommuting and it’s working remotely; not as an exception, but rather as the principal mode of work.
3. Co-working – For cost reasons or social reasons or convenience, workers are choosing to share work space with people from other occupations and organizations. Sometimes they start out in business incubators and then grow into a more cooperative arrangement. Co-working is more about community than entrepreneurism, although it is some of both.
4. Lifelong learning – Workers need to be learning continually because of a world that is constantly changing.  Jobs are evolving and new jobs are being created in much shorter time frames than ever before. Whether one stays in the same job or moves to a new job, there will always be more to learn just to stay current. People will be working longer, much past the traditional retirement age, and doing that in new careers that require new knowledge and new skills.
5. Businesses that solve new problems – For example (from a list prepared by the World Future Society), we might need chef-farmers who can bridge the gap between farm and restaurant, or clone ranchers who can raise cloned animals, or drone dispatchers who can manage remote-controlled vehicles, or space junk haulers who can clear the skies of unwanted debris. It's fascinating to think about the possibilities.

To Jablonski’s list, I would add five more trends:

1. More small, entrepreneurial businesses – A desire for autonomy, control, and meaning, will drive many new workers (as well as baby-boomers) towards starting and growing their own businesses. New technologies and new consumer attitudes make these kinds of endeavors possible. However, there is a limit to this growth; not everyone is psychologically and financially equipped to take the risks associated with starting and managing a new business.
2. Knowledge workers needed for nearly every job – From assembly line workers to auto mechanics to farmers to truck drivers, jobs will require increasing sophistication in the management of information. Because they have the tools, workers today, especially in developed nations, are retrieving, storing, sorting, and making sense of vast amounts of information as a normal part of their jobs.
3. Changing jobs and careers frequently – Workers will no longer seek stability in their careers. It will become normal to move from job to job, “stop out” of the workforce from time to time, move in new directions and with different organizations, and form different kinds of work relationships with their primary employers. Change, not stability, will be the order of the day.
4. Just-in-time learning – New technology is connecting more people globally and bringing more information to our fingertips (literally) whenever and wherever we need to know something. Workers will become mobile learners and learning will be on-demand rather than learning according to HR’s schedule.
5. Solving complex and difficult global problems – Workers will be called on to solve, not just observe, the most intractable problems of our era: poverty; hunger; disease; global warming; energy conservation; violence; war and peace; and economic equality. We believe that we should be able to solve these problems and many young people are choosing to dedicate their careers to these issues.

Each of these 10 trends suggests that we need a workforce that is more informed, more able to integrate information from multiple disciplines, more able to interact effectively with diverse co-workers and business associates, and more skilled and knowledgeable about technology of all kinds. This is why I think a college education (two- or four-year degree) will be the “cost of admission” in the future, if it hasn’t become this already. To work for someone else or to work for yourself will require the breadth of knowledge, skills, and emotional intelligence that is developed in college.

What workforce trends do you see and how do you think a college education plays a role in the development of workers that will be needed in the future?

 

Active and Passive Learning in Organizations

Many of the typical methods of learning in the workplace make the learner a passive recipient of knowledge and skills. Employees are asked to read, watch, or listen to information being dispensed. The method might be entertaining, interactive, and of their own choosing, but fundamentally these methods are passive for the learner. Another approach is to make the learner an active creator of knowledge and skills. In this role, employees (as individuals, teams, or the organization as a whole) receive feedback about what they are doing and how they are doing it and, through individual and collective reflection, learn how to make themselves, their teams, and the enterprise more effective.

Jane Hart has provided us with an excellent list of “passive” ways in which people learn in their workplaces. She includes:

1. Company training (face-to-face workshops and e-learning)
2. Self-directed study of external courses (of their own choice)
3. Company documents (manual, policies, strategy documents etc)
4. Internal job aids (to support use of systems, processes and activities)
5. Working collaboratively within their team (sharing resources, ideas and experiences)
6. General conversations and/or meetings with people (formal or ad hoc)
7. External personal and professional networks and communities(including online social networks like Facebook and Twitter)
8. External blog and news feeds (reading subscribed resources)
9. Content curated from external sources (daily summaries of key articles, blog posts, etc)
10. Google search for Web resources (looking for and using external resources)

Although “active” methods might be implied by some of the items on Hart's list, I think “active” ways of learning should be made more explicit in our organizations. Otherwise, I fear they will continue to be overlooked even though for many individuals, teams, and organizations they are more powerful learning methods and more likely to result in organizational improvement than the “passive” methods.

Here are ten of these “active” ways of learning in organizations that I would add to Hart’s list:

1. Action learning (structured reflection on one’s own actions and experience)
2. Logs, diaries, and journals (recording reflections and learning as it occurs)
3. Simulation and debrief (group exercises to test assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes about processes and systems)
4. Shared visioning (whole organization identification of collective values and goals)
5. Large-scale events (whole organization system change)
6. Appreciative inquiry (identifying strengths of individuals, teams, and organizations)
7. Dialogue (conversation that seeks mutual understanding of beliefs and values)
8. Coaching (facilitating an individual’s self-awareness and performance improvement)
9. Learning histories (structured group reflection about the meaning of past events)
10. Benchmarking (comparing processes of one organization to those of another)

 

What's Better: eLearning or Classroom?

We need to examine the proliferation of Web-based education before it gets out of hand (It may be
too late.). Online college courses are being promoted as the panacea for producing more college graduates and strengthening the workforce. The Obama administration has been touting the educational value of online courses since coming into office over three years ago, and many colleges, especially community colleges, have adopted that mantra.

Many companies are also convinced that “elearning” is the answer to their employee training and development needs. They are told elearning will be cheaper, faster, more convenient, and more effective than traditional, classroom training. Also, using elearning programs makes managers feel like they are staying on the cutting edge of technology. Nobody wants to be left behind.

Feeding this appetite for online programs is research that seems to support the notion that online is better than face-to-face, classroom instruction. A study by the U.S. Department of Education found a small advantage for online (blended) programs. However, they qualify that finding by writing:

Despite what appears to be strong support for blended learning applications, the studies in this meta-analysis do not demonstrate that online learning is superior as a medium. In many of the studies showing an advantage for blended learning, the online and classroom conditions differed in terms of time spent, curriculum and pedagogy. It was the combination of elements in the treatment conditions (which was likely to have included additional learning time and materials as well as additional opportunities for collaboration) that produced the observed learning advantages.

The problem is that whether online programs are better than face-to-face depends on the purpose of the course, learning goals of the program, skills of the instructor, and expectations of learners, among other things. I published an article about this nearly 10 years ago in Educational Technology. At that time, I wrote (in ilalics):

1. E-learning will not revolutionize training; it is only one instructional method among many, each better at achieving some instructional objectives than others. (I was wrong; e-learning is revolutionizing training. However, the change has been in the accessibility of information, not in the impact of instruction.)
2. Putting a course on the Web or on a CD-ROM does not ensure performance improvement.(Learning and change depend more on expectations of learners and organizational culture than on the mode of delivery.)
3. Employees learn in many different ways. (For some, online instruction fits their style of learning, but for others it is not always the best mode.)
4. E-learning is not a low cost alternative, especially if it is not aligned with the organization's strategic goals. (If the content is not aligned, it will be a waste of time and energy. No matter how cheap it is per learner, it will be too expensive.)
5. Having a vast selection of courses is meaningless. (It’s wonderful, for personal edification, to have access to thousands of courses from Carnegie Mellon, MIT, and other prestigious colleges. But if these courses aren’t related to what learners need to know on the job and can’t be applied immediately, then more is not better.)
6. Work and learning are the same. (The tendency of managers is to think that by having instruction online, employees can use non-work time for learning. But this separation between work and learning is a false dichotomy. Especially in this day and age, employees have to be continually learning; it must be part of their job.)

In the past 10 years, the technology of online instruction has evolved considerably. Interactivity has advanced. Audio and video have continued to improve. Practical mobile tools for just-in-time applications of elearning are now available (e.g., smart phones and tablets). However, the danger is that organizational leaders and technologists will assume that any learning that is computer enabled is better than direct human contact. For some learning, this could be true. For other learning, it is not. We need to align method of content delivery with intended learning outcomes.

photo credit: Mr_Stein via photopin cc

Bad News is Good News

When evaluating programs and organizations, bad news can be good news. What I mean by that is any feedback is helpful to an organization if leaders listen to the feedback, look for value in the information, and make improvements accordingly. However, what so often happens is that leaders immediately become defensive and look for ways to discredit or cast doubt on criticism. Almost impulsively, they look for ways to find fault with negative feedback and only accept high ratings and praise. The tendency is to automatically try to identify the people who made critical comments and explain away what was said because of who said it: “They’re always complaining”; “That person is poisoning the well for everyone else”; “We couldn’t give them raises this year so they’re angry”; and on and on.

Some organizations have a culture that is so insular they can’t hear bad news. The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), “founded more than one hundred years ago as a way to protect student-athletes”, appears to be one of these organizations. In a series of columns written for the New York Times, Joe Nocera has described some examples of the NCAA failing to act in the best interests of students. He writes:

The N.C.A.A. claims — as it always does — that it is acting to protect its athletes “from exploitation by professional and commercial enterprises.” But this is classic N.C.A.A. Orwellian spin. Its true purpose in preventing athletes from engaging with agents while in college is to exacerbate their exploitation. The professional and commercial enterprise doing the exploiting, of course, is college sports itself.

I can’t vouch for the accuracy of the facts that Nocera cites, but it does seem that the NCAA is not making use of this opportunity to look at itself in the mirror and make improvements. Rather than accepting the feedback and explaining what they will do to make the NCAA a better organization for students and its member institutions, organizational leaders have become defensive and have attacked Nocera in the press. Dave Pickle, a long-time employee of the NCAA, wrote a blog post about Nocera titled, “News not fit to print.”

This isn’t a constructive response, especially by an organization that has responsibility not only to its member institutions but also to the wider public.  One of the primary ways in which organizations learn is by periodically examining what they do and what stakeholder’s (customers/clients, employees, suppliers, wider community, etc.) think of what they do. If leaders do not listen to the “bad” as well as the “good”, they cannot learn. Barriers to listening, such as the argumentum ad hominem defense, do not allow for continuous improvement. Like the NCAA, a culture can develop in organizations in which these barriers become ingrained in the way they do business. “Bad news” should provide an opportunity for learning and change. Great organizations turn bad news into news they can use.

 

Evaluate Learning Process

As organizations evaluate their programs and services they need to pay attention to process as well as outcomes. Catherine (Brehm) Rain, of Rain and Brehm Consulting Group, Inc., writes this in aea365:

Process evaluation ensures you answer questions of fidelity… did you do what you set out to with respect to needs, population, setting, intervention and delivery? When these questions are answered, a feedback loop is established so that necessary modifications to the program or the evaluation can be made along the way.

Life is a journey—and so is a long-term evaluation. Stuff happens. However, it is often in the chaotic that we find the nugget of truth, the unknown need, or a new direction to better serve constituents. A well-documented process evaluation assists programs to ‘turn on a dime’, adapt to changing environments and issues, and maximize outcome potential.

The problem with much of the evaluation that goes on in organizations, whether that’s evaluation of training and development programs, communication programs, marketing campaigns, a new sales approach, or strategic planning, is that the process is not examined. You might discover what participants thought of the program from “smile sheets” and you might even know how participants applied what they learned if you are fortunate enough to do a follow-up assessment, but none of this tells you what happened and what could be changed to achieve greater impact in the future. This is what process evaluation does.

If you tell me that you provided coaching, or diversity training, or emotional intelligence training, or relationship selling, that doesn’t tell me what actually happened. These interventions could be very different from organization to organization, from department to department, or from day to day. Even if an organization implements a highly structured program such as The Fish! Philosophy with its video, guidebook, playbook, and accessories, the experience could be very different for participants in different organizations with different facilitators at different times. To assess its value to the organization and improve the program for future audiences, we have to know what happened and how that was experienced by participants.

It’s like a friend telling you that she went to Las Vegas, Nevada for a vacation and had a good time. If that’s all you know, then you don’t know very much about her trip. You couldn’t replicate her experience or improve on it for yourself. Maybe she stayed on the Strip and spent every waking moment gambling in casinos. Or maybe she stayed downtown and spent each day on Hoover Dam, Red Rock, and Grand Canyon sight-seeing trips without ever setting foot in a casino. Both experiences might receive a “five” on the vacation evaluation form but that data would be useless to you until you knew what “Las Vegas Vacation” means in her case.

So too with learning interventions, whether classroom, online, or informal, we need to know the actual process of learning (anticipated and unanticipated) in those situations in order to improve the experience for other learners and maximize impact on organizations. It is insufficient to know outcomes without knowing what happened to achieve those outcomes. 

I’ve evaluated employee training programs that included follow-up coaching. Some participants used the coaching and some did not. Some coaching consisted of several, hour-long sessions and some consisted of 15 to 20 minute sessions. Some coaching was done by phone, some was done online and asynchronous, and some was done face-to-face. Some coaching was learner-centered and some was coach-centered. Without knowing how the actual coaching process was delivered, we shouldn’t be making decisions about the program.

Lately, the trend in the employee training and development industry has been to emphasize measurement of results and ROI. While I applaud this recognition that end-of-program, smile sheets are an inadequate measure of the quality of programs, I think measuring outcomes without describing the factors that contributed to those outcomes is also inadequate. We need both process and outcome evaluation. 

 

There They Go Again: Bashing Brainstorming

What did brainstorming ever do to receive such vitriol? Jonah Lehrer writes in the January 30 issue of The New Yorker:

Typically, participants leave a brainstorming session proud of their contribution. The whiteboard has been filled with free associations. At such moments, brainstorming can seem like an ideal mental technique, a feel-good way to boost productivity. But there is one overwhelming problem with brainstorming. It doesn’t work.

Susan Cain writes in a January 13 opinion piece for the New York Times titled “The Rise of the New Group Think”:

…brainstorming sessions are one of the worst possible ways to stimulate creativity. The brainchild of a charismatic advertising executive named Alex Osborn who believed that groups produced better ideas than individuals, workplace brainstorming sessions came into vogue in the 1950s. …But decades of research show that individuals almost always perform better than groups in both quality and quantity, and group performance gets worse as group size increases… People in groups tend to sit back and let others do the work; they instinctively mimic others’ opinions and lose sight of their own; and, often succumb to peer pressure.

And now Cliff Kuang raises concerns with brainstorming again in an article for Fast Company titled, The Brainstorming Process Is B.S. But Can We Rework It? At least Kuang is asking how to make brainstorming more effective. Let’s brainstorm some possibilities (just kidding).

As I wrote in a previous blog post, “I believe the problem is in the implementation, not the method.” Indicting brainstorming is like saying that elearning is more effective than classroom-based learning. The truth is there is effective elearning and there is ineffective elearning. It all depends on the purpose, design, content, and delivery of the course.  

It’s the same with brainstorming. It all depends on the quality of design and facilitation. The critics are right; if all the facilitator does is allow participants to free associate for an hour and then go home, the process is “B.S.”. When that happens we can predict little creativity and little impact on planning.

However, when it is done well, when it is done in context and with preparation of participants, and when there is follow-up after the initial generation of ideas, then brainstorming can be very effective. A good facilitator:

1. Is clear about the purpose and intended results of the exercise and discusses this with participants
2. Prepares (even trains) participants for doing brainstorming (e.g., gives an example)
3. Establishes norms for how participants are to behave in the session
4. Leads the conversation in such a way that gets everyone involved, gets all of the ideas displayed in front of the group, and does not allow criticism until all ideas are listed
5. Helps the group reach consensus on a subset of ideas on which to do further work
6. Begins action planning to do the follow-up work
7. Helps participants learn (and learn how to learn) from their involvement

There is an art and science to brainstorming. The facilitator must be able to follow the rules of brainstorming but also deviate from and expand on those rules depending on the situation.  

When done well, there are many uses of brainstorming. It could be used to evaluate a program, consider new strategies and methods, identify problems, create a vision for the future of an organization, or solve problems.  Often, brainstorming is used simply to warm up the group for a lengthy strategic-planning or prolbem-solving discussion. The technique creates an atmosphere of trust where everyone is heard and all ideas are respected. Now, what’s wrong with that? 

 

Investing in Training in Downturns and Upturns

The U.S. is emerging from a training drought that occurred during the worst economic period since the Great Depression. At least, that’s what’s indicated by organizations that do this kind of
research. ASTD reports an increase in spending on L&D in 2010 (latest year for which data is available); they estimate companies spent about $171.5 billion. Bersin & Associates reports that corporate spending on training increased 9.5% in 2011 – the largest gain in three years.  And Training magazine’s research found a 13% increase in spending on L&D in 2011. Each of these studies uses a different method for calculating spending. However, the trend is undeniable: spending on employee training is increasing.  

With this increase in spending comes a great opportunity to do things right. In our book, The 5As Framework, Sean Murray and I wrote that most training programs significantly impact only 10% to 20% of their participants. This represents a huge waste that no organization can afford any longer. As the worldwide recession comes to an end, organizations must use every dollar very wisely. Garry Marsh, director of the U.K. company THM Business Simulations, gives us some thoughts about best ways to use those dollars. Here are those seven ideas with my spin on each one:

• Get it right first time – Think in terms of what learners need, not the latest training fad (content or delivery). Only provide experiences that will help learners improve performance and contribute to achieving the strategic goals of the organization – no more and no less. Pay attention to the quality of content and quality of the learning intervention.
• Keep employee satisfaction high – Involving employees in opportunities to learn is an effective way to increase engagement. Many employees value learning more than a pay increase. To keep engagement high, make continuous learning part of the culture of the organization.
• Train your managers – Many managers did not reach that position because they were great managers of people. This is something that all managers need to keep learning. And if organizations want to prevent their top talent from leaving as the economy improves, they must give managers the opportunity to learn and grow.
• Focus on customer experience – All organizations should have the improvement of customer experience as one of their top strategic goals. To achieve this goal, they will have to train employees in how to create a better experience. Learning about the customer experience should be on every manager’s agenda.
• Spend less, get more – Organizations should not rely on the usual suspects and usual methods for delivery of training. It’s about learning; it’s not about glitzy programs. It doesn’t have to cost much to develop talent. Maybe a manager will become a more effective team leader with the help of a mentor. Maybe a manager will become more effective at giving performance feedback with the help of a coach. Maybe a manager will become better at financial management by attending the CEO’s “open-book” meetings.
• Be ready for the upturn – As the economy improves and companies start hiring again, the best talent will look elsewhere. They have stayed only because nobody else was growing and hiring. Unless managers continue to see opportunities in their current organizations and they feel respect from their leadership, they will be gone. Organizations should do something about these conditions now.
• Look after yourself – Many resources are available to help any organization be successful while keeping costs low. Look for help internally and externally. Use what the organization already owns when that makes sense and then go outside to peers, consultants, and training organizations when they can help you improve performance and achieve your business goals.