Archives for May 2021

Overworked IDs

25 May 2021 by Clark 2 Comments

I was asked a somewhat challenging question the other day, and it led me to reflect. As usual, I‘m sharing that with you. The question was “How can IDs keep up with everything, feel competent and confident in our work” It‘s not a trivial question! So I‘ll share my response to overworked IDs.

There was considerable context behind the question. My interlocutor weighed in with her tasks:

“sometimes I wonder how to best juggle everything that my role requires: project management, design and ux/ui skills, basic coding, dealing with timelines and SMEs and managers. Don‘t forget task analysis and needs assessment skills, making content accessible and engaging. And staying on top of a variety of software.â€

I recognize that this is the life of overworked IDs, particularly if you‘re the lone ID (which isn‘t infrequent), or expected to handle course development on your own. Yet it is a lot of different competencies. In work with IBSTPI, where we‘re defining competencies, we‘re recognizing that different folks cut up roles differently. Regardless, many folks wear different competency requirements that in other orgs are handled by different teams. So what‘s a person to do?

My response focused on a couple of things. First, there‘re the expectations that have emerged. After 9/11, when we were avoiding travel, there was a push for elearning. And, with the usual push for efficiency, rapid elearning became the vogue. That is, tools that made it easy to take PDFs and PPTs and put it up online with a quiz. It looked like lectures, so it must be learning, right?

One of the responses, then, is to manage expectations. In fact, a recent post addressed the gap between what we know and what orgs should know. We need to reset expectations.

As part of that, we need to create better expectations about what learning is. That was what drove the Serious eLearning Manifesto [elearningmanifesto.org], where we tried to distinguish between typical elearning and serious elearning. Our focus should shift to where our first response isn‘t a course!

As to what is needed to feel competent and confident, I‘ve been arguing there are three strands. For one (not surprisingly ;), I think IDs need to know learning science. This includes being able to fill in the gaps in and update on instructional design prescriptions, and also to be able to push back against bad recommendations. (Besides the book, this has been the subject of the course I run for HR.com via Allen Academy, will be the focus of my presentation at ATD ICE this summer, and also my asynchronous course for the LDC conference.)

Second, I believe a concomitant element is understanding true engagement. Here I mean going beyond trivial approaches like tarting-up drill-and-kill, and gamification, and getting into making it meaningful. (I‘ve run a workshop on that through the LDA, and it will be the topic of my workshop at DevLearn this fall.)

The final element is a performance ecosystem mindset. That is, thinking beyond the course: first to performance support, still on the optimal execution side of the equation. Then we move to informal learning, facilitating learning. Read: continual innovation! This may seem like more competencies to add on, but the goal is to reduce the emphasis (and workload) on courses, and build an organization that continues to learn. I address this in the Revolutionize L&D book, and also my mobile course for Allen Interactions (a mobile mindset is, really, a performance ecosystem mindset!).

If you‘re on top of these you should prepared to do your job with competence and confidence. Yes, you still have to navigate organizational expectations, but you‘re better equipped to do so. I‘ll also suggest you stay tuned for further efforts to make these frameworks accessible.

So, there‘re my responses to overworked IDs. Sorry, no magic bullets, I‘m afraid (because â€˜magic‘ isn‘t a thing, sad as that may be). Hopefully, however, a basis upon which to build. That‘s my take, at any rate, I welcome hearing how you‘d respond.

What about books | conferences?

18 May 2021 by Clark Leave a Comment

Responding to a frequent question yet again, I decided to post an answer to the “what about books | conferences?” question.

And, as usual, the transcript.

Once again, after talking about how learning requires meaningful practice, I was asked the seemingly timeless question: “but what about books” Similarly, I regularly get “what about conferences” So, for the record, let me say when and why books and lectures make sense. And when not. Hopefully I won‘t have to answer another “what about books | conferences” question.

To start, learning is action and reflection. That is, learning â€˜outside‘ formal instruction. We act in the world and reflect on it to cement the lesson. It‘s slightly more complicated, because certain things, e.g. Geary‘s biologically primary things, may not really need reflection. Further some things may be really challenging to learn on your own even with reflection. But basically, doing things and reflecting (which can be reading, experimenting, writing/representing), etc is the way we learn on our own.

Which, as I‘ve argued before, suggests that instruction be designed action and guided reflection. That is, instructors should be choosing meaningful activities and scaffolding reflection around it. When we‘re designing for novices [link], in particular, when the learner doesn‘t know what‘s important nor why, we need to do the whole enchilada (darn, now I‘m hungry).

Which also means that when we‘ve segued beyond novice to practitioner (and beyond), we begin to know what‘s important and why, and we just need it. We want resources that can fill in the gaps. We want support for reflection.

So now we can explain why we can attend conferences, read books and articles, and the like. When we‘re deeply engaged in something, whether work or a passion, reading a book, listening to someone tell their story, and the like, serves as the necessary adjunct to our activity! They provide the complement to our own endeavors; the reflection to our action!

Now, hopefully, we‘ll never again need to discuss this. Realistically, we can point people here when we‘ get “what about books | conferencesâ€? At least, that‘s my story, what‘s yours?

A message to CxOs 2: about org learning myths

11 May 2021 by Clark 2 Comments

When I wrote my last post on a message to CxOs about L&D myths, I got some pushback. Which, for the record, is a good thing; one of us will learn something. As a counter to my claim that L&D often was it’s own worst enemy, there was a counter. The claim was that there are folks in L&D who get it, but fight upward against wrong beliefs. Which absolutely is true as well. So, let‘s also talk about what CxOs need to know about the org learning myths they may believe.

First, however, I do want to say that there is evidence that L&D isn‘t doing as well as it could and should. This comes from a variety of sources. However, the question is where does the blame lie. My previous post talked about how L&D deludes itself, but there are reasons to also believe in unfair expectations. So here‘s the other side.

If it looks like schooling… I used this same one against L&D, but it‘s also the case that CxOs may believe this. Further, they could be happy if that‘s the case. Which would be a shame just as I pointed out in the other case. Lectures, information dump & knowledge test, in general content presentation doesn‘t lead to meaningful change in behavior in the absence of activity. Designed action and guided reflection, which looks a lot more like a lab or studio than a classroom, is what we want.
SMEs know what needs to be learned. Research tells us to the contrary; experts don’t have conscious access to around 70% of what they do (tho’ they do have access to what they know). Just accepting what a SME says and making content around that is likely to lead to a content dump and lack of behavior change. Instead, trust (and ensure) that your designers know more about learning than the SME, and have practices to help ameliorate the problem.
The only thing that matters is keeping costs low. This might seem to be the case, but it reflects a view that org learning is a necessary evil, not an investment. If we’re facing increasing change, as the pundits would have it, we need to adapt. That means reskilling. And effective reskilling isn’t about the cheapest approach, but the most effective for the money. Lots of things done in the name of learning (see above) are a waste of time and money. Look for impact first.
Courses are the answer to performance issues. I was regaled with a tale about how sales folks and execs were insisting that customers wanted training. Without evaluating that claim. I’ll state a different claim: customers want solutions. If it’s persistent skills, yes, training’s the answer. However, a client found that customers were much happier with how-to videos than training for most of the situations. It’s a much more complex story.
Learning stops at the classroom. As is this story. One of the reasons Charles Jennings was touting 70:20:10 was not because of the numbers, but because it was a way to get execs to realize that only the bare beginning came from courses, if at all. There’s ongoing coaching with stretch assignments and feedback, and interacting with other practitioners…don’t assume a course solves a problem. A colleague mentioned how her org realized that it couldn’t create a course without also creating manager training, otherwise they’d undermine the outcomes instead of reinforcing them.
We‘ve invested in an LMS, that‘s all we need. That’s what the LMS vendors want you to believe ;)! Seriously, if all you’re doing is courses, this could be true, but I’m hoping the above
Customers want training. Back to an earlier statement, customers want solutions. It is cool to go away to training and get smothered in good food and perks. However, it’s also known that sometimes that goes to the manager, not the person who’ll actually be doing the work! Also, training can’t solve certain types of problems. There are many types of problems customers encounter, and they have different types of solutions. Videos may be better for things that occur infrequently, onboard help or job aids may meet other needs to unusual to be able to predict for training, etc. We don’t want to make customers happy, we want to make them successful!
We need ways to categorize people. It’s a natural human thing to categorize, including people. So if someone creates an appealing categorization that promises utility, hey that sounds like a good investment. Except, there are many problems! People aren’t easy to categorize, instruments struggle to be reliable, and vested interests will prey upon the unwary. Anyone can create a categorization scheme, but validating it, and having it be useful, are both surprisingly big hurdles. Asking people questions about their behavior tends to be flawed for complex reasons. Using such tools for important decisions like hiring and tracking have proven to be unethical. Caveat emptor.
Bandwagons are made to be jumped on. Face it, we’re always looking for new and better solutions. When someone links some new research to a better outcome, it’s exciting. There’s a problem, however. We often fall prey to arguments that appear to be new, but really aren’t. For instance, all the ‘neuro’ stuff unpacks to some pretty ordinary predictions we’ve had for yonks. Further, there are real benefits to machine learning and even artificial intelligence. Yet there’s also a lot of smoke to complement the sizzle. Don’t get misled. Do a skeptical analysis. This holds doubly true for technology objects. It’s like a cargo cult, what’s has come down the pike must be a new gift from those magic technologists! Yet, this is really just another bandwagon. Sure, Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality have some real potential. They’re also being way overused. This is predictable, c.f. Powerpoint presentations in Second Life, but ideally is avoided. Instead, find the key affordances – what the technology uniquely provides – and match the capability to the need. Again, be skeptical.

My point here is that there can be misconceptions about learning within L&D, but it can also be outside perspectives that are flawed. So hopefully, I’ve now addressed both. I don’t claim that this is a necessary and complete set, just certain things that are worth noting. These are org learning myths that are worth trying to overcome, or so I think. I welcome your thoughts!

A message to CxOs: about L&D myths

4 May 2021 by Clark 3 Comments

If you’re a CEO, COO, CFO, and the like, are you holding L&D to account? Because much of what I see coming out of L&D doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. As I’ve cited in books and presentations, there’s evidence that L&D isn’t up to scratch. And I think you should know a few things that may be of interest to you. So here’re some L&D myths you might want to watch out for.

If it looks like school, it must be learning. We’ve all been to school, so we know what learning looks like, right? Except, do you remember how effective school actually was? Did it give you many of the skills you apply in your job now? Maybe reading and writing, but beyond that, what did you learn about business, leadership, etc? And how did you learn those things? I’ll bet not by sitting and listening to lectures presented via bulletpoints. If it looks like schooling, it’s probably a waste of time and money. It should look more like lab, or studio.
If we’re keeping our efficiency in line with others, we’re doing good. This is a common belief amongst L&D: well, our [fill in the blank: employees served per L&D staff member | costs per hour of training | courses run per year | etc.] is the same or better than the industry average, so we’re doing good. No, this is all about efficiency, not effectiveness. If they’re not reporting on measurable changes in the improvement of business metrics, like sales, customer service, operations,e tc, they’re not demonstrating their worth. It’s a waste of money.
We produce the courses our customers need. Can they justify that? It’s a frequent symptom that the courses that are asked for have little relation to the actual problem. There are many reasons for performance problems, and a reliable solution is to throw a course at it. Without knowing whether it’s truly a function of lack of skill. Courses can’t address problems like the wrong incentives, or a lack of resources. If you’re not ensuring that you’re only using courses when they make sense, you’re throwing away money.
Job aids aren’t our job. Performance should be the job, not just courses. As Joe Harless famously said: “Inside every fat course there‘s a thin job aid crying to get out.” There are many times when a job aid is a better solution than a course. To believe otherwise is one of the classic L&D myths. If they’re avoiding taking that on, they’re avoiding a cheaper and more effective solution.
Informal learning isn’t our job. Well, it might not be if L&D truly doesn’t understand learning, but they should. When you’re doing trouble-shooting, research, design, etc., you don’t know the answer when you start. That’s learning too, and there is a role for active facilitation of best principles. Assuming people know how to do it isn’t justifiable. Informal learning is the key to innovation, and innovation is a necessary differentiation.
Our LMS is all we need. Learning management systems (which is a misnomer, they’re course management systems) manage courses well. However, if they’re trying to also be resource portals, and social media systems, and collaboration tools, they’re unlikely to be good at all that. Yet those are also functions that affect optimal performance and continual innovation (the two things I argue should be the remit of L&D). Further, you want the right tool for the job. One all-singing, all-dancing solution isn’t the way to bet for IT in general, and that holds true for L&D as well.
Our investment in evaluation instruments is valuable. If you’re using some proprietary tools that purport to help you identify and characterize individuals, you’re probably being had. If you’re using it for hiring and promotion, you’re also probably violating ethical guidelines. Whether personality, or behavior, or any other criteria, most of these are methodologically and psychometrically flawed. You’re throwing away money. We have a natural instinct to categorize, but do it on individual performance, not on some flawed instrument.
We have to jump on this latest concept. There’re a slew of myths and misconceptions running around that are appealing and yet flawed. Generations, learning styles, attention spans, neuro-<whatever> and more are all appealing, and also misguided. Don’t spend resources on investing in them without knowing the real tradeoffs and outcomes.These are classic L&D myths.
We have to have this latest technology. Hopefully you’re resistant to new technologies unless you know what they truly will do for your organization. This holds true for L&D as well. They’re as prone to lust after VR and AR and AI as the rest of the organization. They’re also as likely to spend the money without knowing the real costs and consequences. Make sure they’re coming from a place where they know the unique value the technology brings!

There’s more, but that’s enough for now. Please, dig in. Ask the hard questions. Get L&D to be scrutable for real results, not platitudes. Ensure that you’re not succumbing to L&D myths. Your organization needs it, and it’s time to hold them to account as you do the rest of your organization. Thanks, and wishing you all the best.

Something that emerged from a walk, and, well, I had to get it off my chest. I welcome your thoughts.