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.

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.

Once again facing folks who aren’t using styles, I was triggered to think more deeply about the underlying principle. That is, to separate content from description. It’s a step forward in what we can do with systems to bring about a more powerful human-aligned system.

And, as always, here’s the text, in case you (like me) prefer to read ;).

I‘ve ranted before about styles, but I want to make a slightly different pitch today. It‘s not just about styles, it‘s about the thinking behind it. The point is to separate content from description.

So, the point about styles is that they‘re a definition of formatting. You have elements of documents like headings at various levels, and body text, and special paragraphs like quotes, and so on. Then you have features, like font size, bolding and italics, color, etc. And what you see, too often, is people hand-formatting documents, choosing to do headers by increasing the font size, bolding, etc. And, importantly, having to go through and change them all manually if there‘s a desire for a change in look.  

The point of styles is instead merely to say this is a heading 1, this is a figure, this is a caption, and so on. Then, you separately say: heading 1s will be font size 16 bold and left-justified. Figures and captions will be centered, in font size 12. And so on. Then, should someone want to change how the document‘s formatted, you just change the definition of heading 1, and all the heading ones change.  

It goes further. You can define that all heading ones have a page break before (e.g. a new chapter in a book). And you can define new styles, like for a callout box (e.g. colored background), etc. You can have different heading ones for a book than for a white paper. And some styles can be based on others. So your headings can use the same font as your body text, and if you want it all to change, you change the source and the rest will change.  

Which is wonderful for writing, but the concept behind this is what‘s really important to get your head around. That is, separating out role from description. That‘s what‘s led me to be keen on content systems. The notion of pulling up content by description instead of hardwiring together content into an experience is the dream.  

It‘s all about beginning to use semantics, that is the meaning of things, as a manipulable tool. Many years ago, I led a project creating an adaptive learning system. We were going to have content objects defined by topic, and learning role, and tagged in terms of media, difficulty, and more. So you could   say: “pull a video on an example of diversity set in a sales office”. Our goal, with a suite of rules about what when to move up or back in difficulty, was to specify what learning content the learner should see next, etc.  

This is how adaptive platforms work. When Amazon or Netflix make a recommendation for you, there‘s not someone watching your behavior, instead it‘s a set of rules matching your particular actions to content recommendations. If you‘ve ordered a lot of British mysteries, and you haven‘t seen a particular series that lots of other people like, it‘ll be likely to be offered to you.  

This is the opportunity of the future. We can start doing this with learning (and coaching)!   We can start pulling together your learning goals, job role, current progress, current location (in time and space), etc, and offer you particular things that are appropriate for you. And, like our learning system, it might be recommendations of content, but you can choose others, or ignore, or…As Wayne Hodgins used to say, present the ‘right stuff‘: the right content to the right person at the right time in the right way….

The point being, just like styles, if we stop hardwiring things together, hand-formatting learning experiences, we can start offering personalized and even adaptive learning. Yes, there are technical backend issues, and more rigor in development, but this is the direction we can, and should, go. At least, that‘s my proposal, what say you?