The Performance Improvement Blog

Industry Report: Too Much Training; Not Enough Learning

Training magazine has published its 34^th annual Industry Report that is based on a survey of its database of organizations with 100 or more employees, asking them questions about training expenditures and activities. The 2015 study has 777 respondents which is typically a good size sample from a statistical standpoint but I would question the reliability of this data given that it’s not a random sample. I would expect the margin of error to be high.

In any case, assuming that the findings, in general, describe the state of the industry in 2015, it is disappointing to see the continuing substantial investment in “push” training. “Instructor-led classroom only” is still reported to be the primary method of employee learning and development. If we include “blended learning”, “virtual classroom/webcast only”, and “online or computer-based methods” in the mix, we see that companies are continuing to invest most in methods of learning that have the least payoff.

We know from previous studies that only about 10% to 50% of learners (depending on the nature of the training and workplace environment) actually apply what they learn in training programs back on the job. If Training magazine’s numbers are accurate and approximately $70 billion was spent on training programs last year, we can estimate that the industry wasted roughly between $35 billion and $63 billion on training.

Organizations might be increasing their investment in “pull” learning through social media, on-the-job training, and action learning. However, we don’t hear about these learning interventions because they don’t fit the more easily observed and measured formal methods.

In any case, I think we need to look at all of the ways employees learn in their organizations and to what extent employees apply that learning on the job. Currently, we have a good picture of the state of formal training. If we are to truly understand learning in organizations, we need a better picture of the informal and "pull" ways in which employees learn.

I welcome a different interpretation of Training magazine’s data. Please comment to either support or to challenge my view of the industry.

The Learning Curve and The Pivot Point

This post by David Grebow first appeared in LinkedIn Pulse on November 15, 2015.

When Stephen Gill and I were researching and writing our latest book, Only Smart Companies Win, about what it means to create and work in a “Learning Culture”, we tried to imagine what it would mean to develop training programs in that culture.

In the current Training Culture's formal[1] ‘push’ model, training is pushed or chosen for the trainees. They go back to work as soon as the formal classroom or online program is finished. The expectation is that they can do their jobs as a result of their training. They are getting ‘just-in-case training’, just in case it was needed someday.

We know from the research that this model does not work. As far back as 1885, Hermann Ebbinghaus extrapolated the hypothesis of the exponential nature of forgetting. The following formula can roughly describe it: R=e^{-\frac{t}{S}} where R is memory retention, S is the relative strength of memory, and t is time. A typical graph of the forgetting curve purports to show that humans tend to halve their memory of newly learned knowledge in a matter of days or weeks unless they consciously review the learned material. Yet we have persisted for more than 100 years in using the formal approach as the only way to train.

Further research, initially done at IBM in the late 1980’s, and many others since then, show a disproportionate amount of learning – anywhere between 70 to 80 percent - takes place during the informal phase after the more formal classroom-based or online learning is completed[2]. The upshot is eye-opening.

What little learning we get (20-30%) during the formal training stage is rapidly forgotten. This means every $1.00 spent on training returns on average 20¢ - 30¢ of value.

Plus the majority of training programs today are based on the old push model. The training stops when the initial, formal 20% training period is over. Learners are on their own as they enter the workplace with 70-80% left to learn.

In a Learning Culture, the training would be designed to catapult the learner into the more critical period of informal learning, where the research tells us that as much as 70-80% of the learning occurs[3]. We imagined a future in a Learning Culture’s ‘pull’[4] model in which learners could get the information they need whenever and wherever the information is necessary. That would be just-in-time learning.

A training program in a Learning Culture would focus on how employees can get the most from informal learning. It could include:

• Key Takeaways from the formal training
• Using formal training materials at work
• Applying learning and getting feedback
• Where to find useful apps
• How to best use just-in-time tools
• How and when to find the experts
• Remembering basic procedures from training
• How to experiment, fail and learn
• Collaborating around learning
• Teaching what you know
• The preview, view and review of learning
• Testing yourself on learning
• Keeping a learning journal

We quickly realized the implications for change between the old and new models of training is significant. The old Training Culture push model delivers formal training and stops. The new Learning Culture pull model uses formal training as a jumping off point for informal learning. Formal training in the Learning Culture is just the beginning. Formal training programs would be the first step in the learning process[5], and would be more focused on laying the groundwork for the skills that need to be adapted, tested and acquired.

In the new model there is a clear continuum from formal to informal. And that was the problem we uncovered. How do you identify the switch from formal to informal learning? What do you need to do to create the most useful bridge between these two aspects of the learning process? We call this the “The Pivot Point”.

The Pivot Point is Critical

The Pivot Point is the moment formal training ends and informal learning begins. Focusing training on the Pivot Point is important for several reasons:

• Learners need to be aware of what is involved when they pivot from formal to informal learning (and back again).
• The focus on the Pivot Point will make sure employee’s training is supported when they return to the workplace.
• A plan for a well-timed hand-off from the formal to the informal can be developed to support employee performance during their informal learning.
• The training can take the Ebbinghaus curve[6] into account and provide tools to reinforce the basics upon which learners need to build skills and knowledge as they adapt what they learned in a formal training program.
• Training can be designed to mirror the actual environment in which learners will work to make the pivot as seamless as possible.
• This approach will reinforce the new goal of training: to prepare learners to successfully pivot and learn how to improve their skills during their informal learning period.

How the Pivot Point works

Figure One: The Learning Process and The Pivot Point

All learners start out unequal. That simply means no one brings the same level of skills to a training program. Yet a training program can still be one-size-fits-all. All learners will need certain basics as they go forward from the formal to the informal part of the learning. Those basics, listed earlier in this paper, can be covered in ways to help bridge the transition between the two parts of the learning process.

The initial learning curve represents the research done by Ebbinghaus and others. The research shows that there is a precipitous drop in what someone learns during the formal program. The learning curve peaks during the learning process at the Pivot Point, immediately at the end of the formal program. If nothing happens past the Pivot Point learners start to drop off the curve and forget their lessons.

At the Pivot Point, informal learning takes over. This may be towards the end of the formal training program even as the learners are still in class completing a survey or a smile sheet. We believe that learning is a process of employees adopting what they learn in a formal setting and then applying that learning to the workplace during the period of informal learning. What is adopted needs to be tested and expanded upon – in a sense relearned in a new context – and goes through a series of similar, shorter learning curves.

“We learn by strengthening connections between related elements, and only so much strengthening can happen in any one day before we literally need to sleep before more can be achieved. That’s why an “event” model of learning has a low likelihood of actually leading to meaningful change. Instead, learning needs to be spaced over time, with sufficient practice to achieve the retention we require. Consider ways to reactivate learning at intervals after the initial learning presentation.[7]” Dr. Clark Quinn

Each of these later learning curves in the series has a downward side where there is a falling off of new learning. The difference is that each succeeding curve in this extended learning process becomes less steep. They remember more, need to learn less, and forget less as well. As employees draw closer to an expert level, the curve is almost a straight line.

“There are several ways to strengthen the relationships between related elements that lead to learning. We can represent the concept that guides performance, ideally in a new way. We can present another example of applying the concept in a new context, which both helps establish transfer to appropriate situations and, of course, supports greater retention. Or, best of all, we can provide another opportunity for the learner to practice applying the concept in context. All these activities, spaced over time, will support extending the learning, but, of course, the most important is sufficient spaced practice.[8] “Dr. Clark Quinn

The Pivot Point is when formal training needs to handoff to informal learning. Formal training needs to lead up to the pivot and create a bridge that helps learners move along the learning process continuum. Training programs in a Learning Culture can no longer be seen as the end of learning before working, but, instead, as a critical beginning to being able to learn to perform a job or task at the highest level.

When we start to see learning as a continuous process from formal to informal (and maybe back again), we realize the value of the Pivot Point. And we realize that with planning, we can make that pivot a seamless move from only pushing knowledge and skills, to employees pulling what they need, when they need it, where it’s needed.

-End-

[1] [1] Formal training happens when knowledge is captured and shared by people other than the original expert or owner of that knowledge. The knowledge can be captured in any format—written, video, audio—as long as it can be accessed anytime and anywhere, independent from the person who originally had it.

[2]Andrew Jefferson, Roy Pollock.”70:20:10: Where Is the Evidence?”, ATD Science of Learning Blog,

Tuesday, July 08, 2014.  https://www.td.org/Publications/Blogs/Science-of-Learning-Blog/2014/07/70-20-10-Where-Is-the-Evidence

[3] Ibid., ATD Science of Learning Blog

[4] Informal or pull Learning is what happens when knowledge has not been externalized or captured and exists only inside someone’s head. To get at the knowledge, you must locate and talk to that person in real time. Pull learning is learner-centered and in response to just-in-time need for knowledge and skills.

[5] We believe that learning is a process of adapting and adopting. Learners adopt what the lessons they learn in a formal program. They then adapt those lessons – through a self-directed process of trying, failing, succeeding and learning from experience – during a constantly changing set of circumstances.

[6] Weibell, C. J. (2011). Principles of learning: 7 principles to guide personalized, student-centered learning in the technology-enhanced, blended learning environment. Retrieved July 4, 2011 from https://principlesoflearning.wordpress.com.

[7] Clark Quinn, “77 Tips on Today’s Hottest Topics from DevLearn Thought Leaders” On Cognition and How the Brain Learns, 15-18,The eLearning Guild, 2015. http://elearningindustry.com/free-ebook-77-tips-on-todays-hottest-topics-from-devlearn-thought-leaders

[8]Ibid., p.18

Meaningful, Engaging, Workplace Culture

The culture-change bandwagon keeps rolling. More and more companies are making fundamental alterations to the way they work. Some of this is driven by management wanting a more productive and competitive organization. However, some of this is a recognition that employees will not be engaged in their work unless the work environment is one of involvement and respect for all.  

In a New York Times column titled “Rethinking Work”, Barry Schwartz writes:

We want work that is challenging and engaging, that enables us to exercise some discretion and control over what we do, and that provides us opportunities to learn and grow. We want to work with colleagues we respect and with supervisors who respect us. Most of all, we want work that is meaningful — that makes a difference to other people and thus ennobles us in at least some small way…We want these things so much that we may even be willing to take home a thinner pay envelope to get them.

…when given the chance to make their work meaningful and engaging, employees jump at it, even if it means that they have to work harder. Such cases should serve to remind us there is a human cost to routinizing and depersonalizing work. Too often, instead of being able to take pride in what they do, and derive satisfaction from doing it well, workers have little to show for their efforts aside from their pay.

Study after study reports evidence that routinized and depersonalized work is the norm rather than the exception. Chris Edmonds, after reviewing a number of employee studies concludes:

The sobering data from all of these sources means leaders have a lot of work to do to create productive, meaningful work environments that also treat employees with trust, dignity, and respect in every interaction.

This data also describes these dismal workplace conditions as “normal.” They are much more prevalent than engaging and inspiring work environments! If leaders are not intentional about both performance and values, their work environments will fall into these norms.

 In an effort to make work more meaningful and engaging, companies are implementing dramatic changes in their policies and structure. LinkedIn recently announced a new policy of unlimited vacation days for its employees.

HEB, a regional grocery chain, is giving most of its 85,000 employees shares of the company. Adding shares to employee compensation is not unusual, but the scale of this action by HEB and the purpose for doing so, are unusual. Craig Boyan, CEO said, “We think there is great benefit in a more empowered, inspired, proud, trained work force.”

TCC, a cell phone and related services provider, makes “doing good in local communities” part of its mission, engaging all of its employees in community service activities. For example, in 2015, TCC will donate 100,000 school-supplies filled backpacks to disadvantaged students in schools across the country. This is good for these communities but also brings meaningful engagement to the work lives of TCC employees.

Dan Price, concerned about the emotional well-being of the employees at his privately-held company, Gravity Payments, decided to do something about income inequality. He is raising the minimum salary in the company to $70,000 dollars over the next three years. Needless to say, he has made many employees very happy.

Each of these companies is trying to shake up the status quo to create a better work environment and a happier, more motivated employee. In each case, the policy changes should be treated as experiments with learning as a goal. They should evaluate the changes and have regular discussions about the implications of their observations for what should be continued and what should be modified to ensure that they are creating the positive culture that they seek.

PwC Canada Strives for a Learning Culture

If you’re looking for examples of companies that are striving to create and sustain a learning culture, PwC (PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP) of Canada should be on your list. I recently had the pleasure of speaking about the importance of a learning culture to the Edmonton meeting of The Conference Board of Canada’s Council for Learning and Leadership Development. Another speaker at the event, Karin Muchall, Development Leader for PwC Canada, impressed me with her description of how PwC is implementing the principles of a learning culture through a program they call Enhanced Working Practices^TM.

PwC Canada is a 100 year old company of 6,500 partners and staff in offices across Canada and part of a PwC network of 208,000 people in 157 countries. Using the benchmark of Johns Hopkins Hospital, PwC has created a vision for a learning culture: Achieving desired business outcomes and higher performance through continuous learning at work: individually, in teams and as an organization; everywhere, all the time, over a career lifetime.

Enhanced Working Practices is the company's way of reaching for this vision. The PwC Canada Web site describes the program this way:

Promoting Enhanced Working Practices (EWP) and experiential learning
Our EWP program empowers our people to learn within the context of their day-to-day work. Incorporating structured learning routines into our working practices (e.g. job shadowing), provides us with opportunities to accelerate employee development on the job in a supportive environment. Also, EWP leads to increased accountability and a feeling of project ownership among team members while deepening trust and confidence across the team. In FY13 we worked to expand EWP across our firm, while in FY14 we accomplished our goal of establishing EWP across all of our lines of service. EWP practices are now embedded into our formal learning programs, expanding learning into our everyday activities and work.

During FY14, we actively branded EWP as our approach to on-the-job coaching. We’ve also embedded EWP into other key people processes, such as recruitment, on-boarding and performance management. In FY15, we’ll continue to focus on EWP as a way to accelerate the development of our people so that they are able to deliver distinctive client and people experiences.

With “teach don’t tell” as the central motto, they are using a variety of learning interventions to facilitate learning “everywhere, all the time.” These methods include shadowing, observation and feedback, team workshops, lessons learned meetings, and rounds (a medical learning model). And they are aligning learning with business objectives, piloting methods before full implementation, starting with leadership buy-in, celebrating success, and evaluating impact. All good practices of a learning culture.