The other day, I was wondering about the possibilities of removing mandatory courses. Ok, maybe not mandated compliance, but any others. And then a colleague took it further, and I like it. So what are we talking about?
I was thinking that, if you give people a meaningful mission (ala Dan Pink’s Drive), the learner (assuming reasonable self-learning skills, a separate topic), they would take responsibility for the learning they needed. We could have courses around, or maybe await their desires and point them to outside resources, etc, unless it’s specifically internal. That is, we become much more pull (from the user) than push (from us).
However, my colleague Mark Britz took it further. He argued that instead of not making them go, instead we’d charge them what it cost to provide the learning! That is, if folks wanted training or webinars or…, they’d pay for the privilege. As he put it, if requests for elearning, being cautious about signing up, etc happened: “I couldn’t be happier!”
His point is that it would drive people to more workflow learning, more social and shared learning, etc. And that’s a good thing. I might couple that with some way to make sure they knew how to work, play, and learn well together, but it’s the different view that’s a needed jumpstart.
It’s a refreshing twist on the ‘if we build it it is good’ sort of mentality, and really helps focus the L&D unit on doing things that will significantly improve outcomes for others. If you can make a meaningful impact, people will have to pay for your assistance. You want change? You’ll pay but it’ll be worth it.
If we’re going to kick off a revolution, we need to rethink what we’re about and how we’re doing it. Mark’s upended view is a necessary kick in the status quo to get us to think anew about what we’re doing and why.
I recommend you read his original post.
Clark – I read Mark’s post over the weekend and was intrigued. I *think* I like it. So much so that I’m playing with how I might be able to transfer some sort of that principle into the work I’m doing within my own organization… AND there’s also a part of me that wonders if workers would be missing out on something.
I’m all for pull (as opposed to push). However, if we take that to an extreme, it seems to assume the *only* return on the investment in training is that people change their behavior/do something new or differently or better. I also see value in scheduled training that some are mandated to attend in that it can expose people to new ideas or ways of thinking that they otherwise wouldn’t have been exposed to. Maybe it will have an immediate impact. Or maybe it will have them thinking a little differently, and some other catalyst a month from now or a year from now will move the person to finally act in a new way. But at least the seed can be planted. I’ve also facilitated full day presentation skills courses that people were required to attend by their boss – and that they resented being sent to… but at the end of the day they’ve come up to me and said: “I didn’t want to come here this morning, but after having been through this session, I realized how much more I need to work on this skill.”
I guess my bottom line is: I like this idea (I think)… but am conflicted.
Brian, thanks for the feedback. I can agree that in some cases if we wait until they recognize they need it, it might have already cost the company money. One approach I heard was a (wildly successful) company that only made courses on it’s culture, and everything else they pointed you to books, or external courses, or what have you. It wasn’t that they weren’t willing to help, but if the answer existed, why were they going to repurpose? Curation instead of creation. So, say, if a company cultural value was ‘reflect and get feedback on your own gaps, and take initiative’. Then folks might find ways to identify needs they had that they didn’t know they had and address them. Just thinking aloud here, but appreciate your thoughts.