Onlignment Archive

Throughout 2011 we will be publishing extracts from The New Learning Architect. We move on to the fifth part of chapter 5:
Having determined where the priorities lie for top-down learning interventions, attention inevitably turns to the forms that these interventions should take and the ways in which they can be most successfully delivered. All too often, l&d professionals (often on the insistence of their sponsors in the line) start with the assumption that some sort of formalised course is required, whether classroom, online or a blend. But as we have seen, there are four contexts in which top-down learning could occur. Who is to say that an action learning programme, a performance support system or a programme of coaching would not do the job better or more efficiently?
The chances that an intervention will be successful are influenced by the involvement of key stakeholders in the process of design, development and implementation, as Wick, Pollock, Jefferson and Flanagan report : “We continue to be surprised by the number of major programmes, in otherwise well-managed companies, that are developed entirely within the human resource or training organisation and go forward with little or no input from line leaders. Their perspective on the business is different from that of line leaders; they have less hands-on experience managing hard business metrics. If they consult only among themselves, they may design a programme with strong learning objectives but only weak links to key business measures.”
There is another strong reason for involving those who will be affected by the intervention and that is to gain their commitment. Learning is change. At the personal level, this is true because learning changes the brain – if it doesn’t, no learning has taken place. At an organisational level, it is true because learning changes the way we behave and consequently how the organisation performs. As we have already discussed, people don’t automatically resist change; in fact we voluntarily undertake substantial and disruptive changes in our own lives. As Peter de Jager  explains, “We don’t resist change, we resist being changed.” At very least, those being asked to change should be told why. Better still, they should participate in determining how.

The process is not complete, as we are constantly reminded, until we have evaluated the results. First of all it’s important that we know what the reactions of learners has been to our efforts – not because this is the key indicator of success, but because this feedback enables us to continuously improve what we deliver. We do need to know whether the intervention has resulted in the desired change in knowledge and skills and whether that change has manifested itself in the way that learners behave on the job. But most importantly, we need to know whether the organisation is receiving any tangible benefit from these changes. Kirkpatrick  calls this a ‘return on expectations (ROE)’. What did the organisation expect when they sanctioned this intervention? Have these expectations been met? It is not necessary to provide incontrovertible proof, based on controlled scientific studies. It is necessary, however, to be able to provide a chain of evidence: we know the intervention was well-received and that participants learned what we wanted them to learn; we know they applied this back on the job and we have seen an improvement in those areas of the business that we were looking to address. That’s as much proof as most managers will ever require.
On the other hand, evaluation studies don’t always capture the true value of learning interventions. As Stephen Downes  reminds us: “Measuring learning is still like measuring friendship. You can count friends, or you can count on friends, but not, it seems, both.”
Coming next, the sixth part of chapter 5: Conditions for success
Return to Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4
Obtain your copy of The New Learning Architect

Throughout 2011 we will be publishing extracts from The New Learning Architect. We move on to the fourth part of chapter 5:
As we’ve seen, given that all l&d professionals operate within a context of limited resources, top-down learning needs to be well targeted. Determining what those targets should be is not a trivial task, particularly as many l&d departments are not that well connected to the managerial decision-making process within their organisations. The effort must be made, however, or else a high proportion of the resources expended in top-down interventions (not least the efforts and talents of committed l&d professionals) will be misdirected, if not completely wasted. As Berry Gordy, founder of Motown Records, famously remarked: “People ask me, ‘where did I go wrong?’ My answer is always the same: Probably at the beginning.”

It is nothing new to be told that training should be aligned to the needs of the business, but that doesn’t mean that it ‘goes without saying’ or is ‘common sense’. All too often, common sense is anything but common. Ask yourself how many of the training interventions in your organisation are clearly aligned to current business needs, rather than fulfilling requirements articulated sometime in the distant past, but which have no current relevance. And how many interventions have originated from the l&d department on the basis of where they believe the organisation should be heading, regardless of the views of senior management? No organisation ever set up an l&d department so this department could then determine the appropriate direction for the organisation. It is not up to l&d professionals to decide what is good leadership, what is good customer service or what are appropriate values for the organisation. Their job is to help senior management make their vision a reality, regardless of whether that vision is shared by the professionals that staff the l&d department.
A good question to ask is this:
What behaviours are critical to the future success of this organisation?
Let’s unpick this a little. You need to know about ‘behaviours’ because, of all the various factors which influence the success of an organisation, only these can be affected by learning and development. You need to find out which are the ‘critical’ behaviours, because you don’t have the resources to devote to the non-critical. And you need to focus on ‘future success’, because learning and development is an investment in the future and can do little to influence what happens right now. The only people who can answer this question with any authority are senior management.
The question can and should also be addressed at each of the main functional and regional departments and divisions within the organisation, as well as at various levels. For example: “What behaviours are critical to the future success of the IT department or European region”; “What middle management behaviours are critical to the future success of the organisation?”
Once you know what behaviours are required if the organisation is to succeed in the future, you need to assess the extent of the task in front of you:
To what degree are employees already exhibiting the behaviours that are critical for success?
Answering this question is no small task. If you work for a larger organisation, then ideally you’ll have set up a performance management system which enables you to keep track of how individuals are performing. This will include a competency framework covering every job position; one that is up-to-date with the constant and inevitable changes in job responsibilities and which describes the behaviours that senior management are looking to encourage. In order for you to assess the extent to which these competences are evidenced in actual performance, all employees will have been regularly assessed against this framework or will have conducted some form of self-assessment. Smaller organisations may not have gone so far, but they should at very least be conducting regular performance appraisals.
If, having carried out your research, you find no gaps, then your only problem is ensuring the continued supply of employees who exhibit the desired behaviours. You should be so lucky! Chances are you’ll have to ask one more question:
What influence can learning and development have on these behaviours?
Performance is influenced by a lot more than skill and knowledge, as this diagram shows:

Situational influences on the performer include the clarity of roles and objectives, the suitability of the working environment, and the tools and other resources at the performer’s disposal. The performer him or herself has aptitudes (indicating his or her potential to learn) and motivations, as well as their accumulated knowledge and skills. The performer’s responses are also influenced by outcomes (the incentives and disincentives that are likely to result from performing in a certain way) as well as the timely availability of relevant feedback. The whole performance system has to be functioning correctly if performers are to exhibit the desired behaviours. Learning and development is only going to work if (1) unsatisfactory performance can at least partly be attributed to a lack of knowledge or skills, and (2) the employees in question have the aptitude to acquire these.
According to Stolovitch & Keeps , “The leading human performance authorities have all demonstrated that most performance deficiencies in the workplace are not a result of skill and knowledge gaps. Far more frequently they are due to environmental factors, such as a lack of clear expectations; insufficient and untimely feedback; lack of access to required information; inadequate tools, resources and procedures; inappropriate and even counterproductive incentives; task interference and administrative obstacles that prevent them achieving desired results.”
L&d professionals may have to be assertive in conducting and communicating this sort of logical analysis. As Wick, Pollock, Jefferson and Flanagan  remind us, “The problem typically begins when someone in upper management decrees that the company needs to have a programme on some particular topic. And when the goal of having a programme is defined as ‘having a programme’, the initiative is in trouble from the start.” Senior managers may be experts in determining the problems that are getting in the way of performance, but they are not experts in finding the solutions – that’s your job, and this is your time to speak up.
Coming next, the fifth part of chapter 5: Implementing top-down learning interventions
Return to Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4
Obtain your copy of The New Learning Architect

Throughout 2011 we will be publishing extracts from The New Learning Architect. We move on to the third part of chapter 5:
It’s possible that, where there isn’t that much to know and it doesn’t change that often, all learning can be managed on a top-down basis. However, this is completely unrealistic for the majority of organisations in which there’s far too much to know and it’s changing far too quickly. So where should the priorities be placed?
On the most critical knowledge and skills: Some learning is of high importance, not necessarily because it is required that often, but because if it is not applied on the occasions when it is required then there could be serious consequences for the organisation. Imagine a pilot who didn’t know how to land a plane in bad weather conditions, a financial trader who did not know how to respond to a market crash, a manager who did not realise the implications of firing a direct report who he happened not to like all that much. Some learning simply cannot be left to chance – it needs to be planned carefully, expertly facilitated and rigorously assessed.
On the most commonly-used knowledge and skills: Leaving aside the really critical, high stakes knowledge and skills, a judgement has to be made on how the remainder is handled. One answer is to apply the Pareto principle, also known as the 80:20 rule. This states that, in many situations in life, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. In a learning context it would be reasonable to assume that 20% of all the knowledge related to a particular job will be adequate to cover 80% of tasks. The remaining 80% of the knowledge is used only occasionally. It makes sense, therefore, to concentrate resources on providing the knowledge that is most regularly needed, whether through a training intervention or the provision of performance support.
On novices: When you have little or no knowledge of a subject, you are more appreciative of a structured and supportive learning environment. Novice learners don’t have the advantage of existing schemas (generalised knowledge about situations and events) in long-term memory that enable more experienced employees to cope with less structured learning experiences. Clark, Nguyen and Sweller  explain how carefully-designed instructional approaches “serve as schema substitutes for novice learners. Since novices don’t have relevant schemas, the instruction needs to serve the role that schemas in long-term memory would serve.” The implication of all this is that, if you’re a skilled l&d professional, your services will be most appreciated by novices.
Where metacognitive skills are low: Those with good metacognitive skills are better equipped to learn independently. They have a good feel for what they already know, what’s missing and how to go about filling the gap. They will benefit from top-down learning but they don’t depend on it. For this reason, where resources are tight, efforts are more sensibly directed at those who most need the assistance. There are various ways of finding out who has the ability to learn independently. You could (1) guess based on generalisations (unskilled workers, unlikely; software engineers, likely), (2) observe behaviour over time and come to a considered opinion, person by person, or (3) ask the people involved directly.  Just make sure you don’t use the term ‘metacognitive skills’!
Coming next, the fourth part of chapter 5: Targeting top-down learning
Return to Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4
Obtain your copy of The New Learning Architect

Throughout 2011 we will be publishing extracts from The New Learning Architect. We move on to the first part of chapter 5:
Top-down learning occurs because organisations want their employees to perform effectively and efficiently and because they appreciate that this depends, at least in part, on these employees possessing the appropriate knowledge and skills. Top-down learning is designed to fulfil the employer’s objectives for improved performance, not the employees’.
Top-down learning occurs in all four contexts:
Experiential: Employers can initiate all sorts of programmes to maximise the opportunities for employees to learn directly from their work experience. For example, through a process of job rotation, employees might be moved from one position to another, perhaps from one geographical location to another, in order to obtain a more rounded perspective on the organisation’s activities. Similarly, through job enrichment, employees may be assigned additional responsibilities which expand their opportunities to develop. Other initiatives may attempt to institutionalise the process of reflection upon which experiential learning depends – formal project reviews, benchmarking within and between organisations, action learning programmes and, of course, performance appraisal.
On-demand: Where the nature of the work that employees carry out requires that they have ready access to information at the point of need, there are again many opportunities for top-down interventions. These include the provision of performance support materials, in print form or online, at the desktop or through mobile devices; employers may offer online access to vast catalogues of books, using services such as Books 24×7; they may also make available person-to-person support using help desks and other ways to ‘ask-the-expert’.
Non-formal: Of course nearly all employees will require some training to help them adjust to the organisation and to their new positions, to cope with changes and to prepare for future responsibilities. Proactive, top-down interventions include on-job training, coaching programmes and ‘mini-courses’ in various forms including short workshops, rapid e-learning modules, podcasts or white papers.
Formal: Top-down learning is at its most structured and controlled when it is implemented within the wrapper of a ‘course’, traditionally in the classroom, but nowadays just as likely online or some blend of the two. Formal learning is not necessarily rigid, authoritarian or boring – it will often include games and simulations, drama, outdoor activities and other forms of discovery learning.
Top-down learning is the traditional domain of the l&d professional, acting on authority delegated from senior management, sometimes through the human resources department (most typically when the requirement spans the whole workforce) and sometimes through the line (when the requirement is of a more technical nature). Because it exists to serve the needs of management, top-down learning must by definition be managed in this traditional, hierarchical fashion and cannot be allowed to just happen of its own accord.
To many l&d professionals, top-down learning will be their only concern and the only form of learning that they recognise or even acknowledge. But, as we know, even in the most tightly-controlled organisations, a great deal of learning also occurs on a bottom-up basis, on the initiative of employees themselves, who have their own interests in performing well in their jobs and continuing to be rewarded by their employers accordingly. As we shall see in the following chapter, bottom-up learning is more flexible, more adaptive, requires less support and in the right circumstances is capable of being highly effective. So why should organisations continue to devote resources to top-down learning and take great care to ensure that these resources are applied effectively and efficiently? This question requires some careful consideration and that is where we will start.
Coming next, the second part of chapter 5: Why top-down learning is needed
Return to Chapter 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Chapter 4
Obtain your copy of The New Learning Architect