Where would organizations be without their people?
Picture: The Learner
Have you ever found yourself commenting under your breath about yet another policy being pushed down from above? Do your experiences at work find you wondering if you really are just another number in the cog of industry? Does the organization that you are a part of pay lip service to how valuable their people are, yet their actions really seem to indicate otherwise?
Ok, enough of the negative questions.
Are you fortunate enough to be part of an organization that values the insight and opinions of all employees? Do the organization’s leaders consult with employees before implementing policies that will affect those same employees? Do leaders within the organization understand the practiced art of listening? Does the organization that you are a part of demonstrate every day how valuable their people are, through both words and actions?
Now it’s a fact that learning and development initiatives will continue to take place in either type of organization implied above (or in an organization that falls somewhere in between the two extremes). The issue to consider is what type of organization is likely to see success from training initiatives. One that sees and believes that they have automatons collecting pay every two weeks? Or one that sees people and opportunities, (in short, an organization that believes the heart is as important as the brain)?
How the organizational leadership views their employees is an important component of any training and development program; if they view them as the former (automatons with no hearts), then perhaps an attitude adjustment is required first. After all, if the organization is to succeed over the long term then its people must also.
Or am I living in too idealistic a world?
What does it really mean to be a “Learning Organization”?
Peter Senge did a lot of work through the late 1980’s and early 90’s considering the concept of the learning organization. In two seminal books* that have stood the test of time, he defined and honed in on five “learning disciplines” that are common in learning organizations:
- Personal Mastery
- Mental Modes
- Shared Vision
- Team Learning
- Systems Thinking
I don’t want to rehash his work here, just point out that the concept of the learning organization has been around for quite some time. Clearly valuing the contributions of all employees and finding ways to capitalize on and communicate the depth of organizational knowledge that they have are the benefits of operating in an environment that considers itself a learning one.
What I think is important to consider is the changes that having taken place on the technological front since Senge penned his theories. Consider that the widespread use of computers and all that means for learning (e.g. e-learning, online learning, LMS’s, Wiki’s, blogs, etc.), just didn’t exist in the late 80’s and early 90’s; the learning landscape has changed significantly, but the fundamentals are still the fundamentals.
A question that I would like to throw out there is:
What role do you feel that technology has played in enhancing (or not) learning organizations?
* Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art & practice of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.
* Senge, P. (1994). The fifth discipline fieldbook. New York: Currency Doubleday.
Designing Training Programs; Internal and External Resources
Picture: The Company (continued)
In this post, let’s discuss design and the leveraging of internal and external resources.
Design – where does the organization turn when designing training programs?
There are three separate responses to this, or as is more probably the truth in many organizations, a combination of two or possibly all three. Many organizations rely on internal resources exclusively to design training initiatives. If the organization is large and profitable enough, they may actually have the resources required to hire or develop certified learning and development professionals. While it’s tempting to suggest that this is the ideal scenario, it may not necessarily be so. Having the required internal resource may be a point of pride for an organization, but if the return-on-investment required is not being met, there are other alternatives. One of those alternatives is using external resources to design and deliver proprietary programs; the other alternative is the use off-the-shelf programs that can be easily customized to fit the organization’s needs and culture.
Leveraging Internal Resources
For many organizations, subject matter experts (SMEs) are the most common turn-to-when-required internal resource when it comes to developing training programs. The logic behind this is self evident. The challenge with this is not with the depth of knowledge that the SME brings to the table, but rather with the assumption that just because someone has the requisite knowledge, they must therefore be a good instructional designer and facilitator. How often have you sat through a one way, long, difficult to follow, information intensive slide presentation from a SME with the expectation that you will internalized all of the required knowledge and then be capable of using it in the workplace? Unfortunately this scenario is all too common. SMEs are important, but teaming them up with an individual that understands fundamental instructional design and delivery is just as important if you are to capture the value that you are looking for (remember ROI?). One way to leverage a SME’s knowledge could be through the application of a train-the-trainer program (TtT). The SME provides the knowledge, and then those within the organization who have an aptitude for presenting content effectively can be taken through a TtT program. All of this though rests with the final key component. Do the training initiatives being undertaken have the support of the organization? This means more than just lip service, it means the financial and resource support necessary to ensure that the design and delivery of the program won’t be hindered by lack of resources and ultimately lead to questions being asked that result in the answer, “we didn’t have the support we needed to benefit from this.”
External Resources
As mentioned, sometimes using external resources could actually lead to a significantly greater ROI than relying exclusively on internal resources. This can mean everything from sourcing external consultants to do all of the design work for you, to reaching for easily customized, off-the-shelf solutions. An off-the-shelf solution, or program in a box, is often as good as or better than internally designed initiatives. This is of course contingent on the context (i.e. technical in nature, proprietary to the organization, focused on fundamental leadership or office efficiencies).
When looking at the “P”icture of the company, it’s important to know how ingrained in the culture these issues are. The next post will discuss expectations, leadership orientation, and what it means to be a learning organization. After that, “P”icture will move onto The Learner.
Where does Learning & Development fit?
Picture: The Company (continued)
Of course there are more questions that require answering and areas to investigate to gain a complete picture of the company. Not discussed in the previous post is determining where learning and development as an organizational activity fits. Is it a stand alone department that has a seat at the organizational leadership team table or is it a sub-group that reports to HR or I/T? Clearly the answer to this question will necessarily colour L&D goals and objectives.
Stepping back for a moment to the concept of culture, what role do the shareholders of the organization play? Determine if the C-level team within the organization consider the shareholders a key component of the structure and consider the delivering of profit to shareholders as trumping everything else, or if the shareholders are seen as one component of many when decisions are made.
What do you know about the company metrics? If the organization operates in an environment that has very focused metrics and runs a by-the-numbers shop, be sure to investigate just what that means. Are costs and margins razor thin as a result of the industry that the organization is involved in, resulting in tight controls and little flexibility, or are the key metrics viewed in a more holistic manner, meaning that they are an important part of the whole, but not the only factor considered when training initiatives are advanced. And this brings us to the “B” word: budgets.
An important question that needs answering before any program development can take place is the budget question. How much will be available (in dollars and other resources)? Through the process of investigating some of the issues mentioned previously, it will become apparent as to what type of monetary and resource constraints (or not) you will be working with. Up front you should know if you will be operating on a shoestring budget, a negotiable as required budget, or the best of all possible worlds, an unlimited budget. Knowing these broad parameters at the beginning of any program development is important, because going in on a wing and a prayer will ultimately lead to the failure and frustration that it is critical to avoid (see the post on trust). The sooner you can hone in on a number, the better you will be able to sell those to whom you report on the program itself. There is no room for ambiguity here. As much as those of us in the learning world want to say that it’s all about the learner, we can never forget that the learner will never get what they need without the support of the organizational leaders.
Picture: The Company (continued)
Of course there are more questions that require answering and areas to investigate to gain a complete picture of the company. Not discussed in the previous post is determining where learning and development as an organizational activity fits. Is it a stand alone department that has a seat at the organizational leadership team table or is it a sub-group that reports to HR or I/T? Clearly the answer to this question will necessarily colour L&D goals and objectives.
Stepping back for a moment to the concept of culture, what role do the shareholders of the organization play? Determine if the C-level team within the organization consider the shareholders a key component of the structure and consider the delivering of profit to shareholders as trumping everything else, or if the shareholders are seen as one component of many when decisions are made.
What do you know about the company metrics? If the organization operates in an environment that has very focused metrics and runs a by-the-numbers shop, be sure to investigate just what that means. Are costs and margins razor thin as a result of the industry that the organization is involved in, resulting in tight controls and little flexibility, or are the key metrics viewed in a more holistic manner, meaning that they are an important part of the whole, but not the only factor considered when training initiatives are advanced. And this brings us to the “B” word: budgets.
An important question that needs answering before any program development can take place is the budget question. How much will be available (in dollars and other resources)? Through the process of investigating some of the issues mentioned previously, it will become apparent as to what type of monetary and resource constraints (or not) you will be working with. Up front you should know if you will be operating on a shoestring budget, a negotiable as required budget, or the best of all possible worlds, an unlimited budget. Knowing these broad parameters at the beginning of any program development is important, because going in on a wing and a prayer will ultimately lead to the failure and frustration that it is critical to avoid (see the post on trust). The sooner you can hone in on a number, the better you will be able to sell those to whom you report on the program itself. There is no room for ambiguity here. As much as those of us in the learning world want to say that it’s all about the learner, we can never forget that the learner will never get what they need without the support of the organizational leaders.
Picture: The Company
“P”icture: Look at the big picture; the context; the overarching objectives; the who’s who in the company, trainer, learner triumvirate
When you look at your organization, what do you see? Do you see a culture where the leaders not only talk high principles but also live them? Do you see people who make noises about their teams needing certain skill sets and leadership philosophies not drinking from the same cup? In short, do you see an organization that walks the talk? Having and demonstrating a learning culture means that organizational leaders walk the talk, clearly value their people, and demonstrate this through investing in them, and consequently in the future success of the organization.
Knowing the history of the organization is important also. Where the organization has come from and understanding the challenges that it has faced and overcome will help you to develop an appreciation for the culture that exists today. Are the company’s mission, vision, and values congruent with where the organization has been, where it is, and where it wants to go? As a developer of training, being clear about the organization’s raison d’être will be a key component of any program. The company’s cultural milieu should be integral to every training initiative developed internally (and should be customized into any external or off-the-shelf initiatives brought inside).
If these key pieces (mission, vision, values) are not readily apparent, or even if they are, being clear about who’s who in the organization is also necessary. Reviewing the org-chart will help any developer to identify the structure and resources available, and if necessary, to develop a picture of any constraints that you may be working with.
KISS your PARTNER
Ok, I’ll admit that it’s a little cheesy for a title to a posting, but it really does say something very fundamental: when implementing a training program of any sort, a model like PARTNER is meant to keep the process simple and easy to manage. So Keep it Simple, Silly (I don’t really want to call anyone stupid, so I’ve substituted the more politically acceptable term Silly).
Experiencing success in the application of a training program is wonderful, but can that success be easily duplicated? Is the program easily transferrable? Can other learners benefit from the hard work that went into designing the program, and can other trainers benefit from being able to easily deliver on that work? PARTNER isn’t a magic bullet, it’s simply a process to help ensure that the development, delivery, follow-up, and evaluation of a training program has a good chance of success by applying a simple, easy to follow process to create programs that are easily duplicated and easily transferrable.
Training’s PARTNERship model
Douglas Conant, President and CEO of the Campbell Soup Company, said, “you can’t win in the marketplace unless you are first winning in the workplace,” (2007). And that means doing the right things, right. And when it comes to training programs, doing things right means using a model to ensure that what needs to get done, gets done.
So what will a model do for you? First, and most important, it will set you up for success. By providing you with a checklist that you follow, a model helps to ensure that all the time and effort put into building your training program results in a positive return on investment. Now be aware that a positive return on investment can be measured many different ways, but knowing how you are going to measure your results before you begin developing you program will help to ensure that as you build, you always know what your objectives are, both for learners and for the organization. There’s nothing more unfortunate that having to justify training programs after they have been delivered by searching to find any redeeming outcomes.
This is of course where I want to introduce the PARTNER model; a plan to be used when developing training programs that deliver results because the results to be delivered are known before the program begins. PARTNER is an acronym that breaks down as follows:
“P”icture
Look at the big picture; the context; the overarching objectives; the who’s who in the company, trainer, learner triumvirate
“A”nalysis
Just what are the needs and wants of the different stakeholders? Identify the gaps and prepare to address them
“R”eady
Define your objectives and write them down; design your program(s); prepare for an effective delivery through facilitator preparation (e.g. train-the-trainer initiatives)
“T”rain
Deliver the training; know the context and required delivery method (classroom, e-learning, experiential, on-the-job, mentorship, coaching, etc.); always consider the needs of the learner
“N”urture
Coach the application of learning; have a before, during, and after training learner plan; use different tools as applicable and appropriate (e.g. learner contracts)
“E”valuate
Know you objectives before you begin; understand what ROI is and why it is the cornerstone of your entire training program; use a proven evaluation model and work it to fit your needs (e.g. Kirkpatrick, Phillips)
“R”evisit
It’s not over until it’s over; measuring success means using all of the feedback generated from all the stakeholders to further refine and modify your program as required; engrain the concept of learning as vital to the work culture
Future posts will look at each component of the PARTNERship model in more detail.
