Learning Conversations

For a while I've been wondering about the words we use to describe our profession. Like Donald Taylor, I'm not convinced that learning & development really can be considered a profession until we have a clear set of standards by which we can measure ourselves. Part of that includes tightening up on our language.

My dog is three years old. By now she's learnt where she can relieve herself and the bits of the house she's not allowed in. She occasionally walks to heel and, even more occasionally, comes back when I call her name. Why does she do that? Because she's associated particular behaviour with either reward or punishment. We call that "training".

I know very little about tennis, but, to my untutored eyes, Andy Murray has become a considerably better tennis player over the past year. How has he done that? Through considerable work, with his coach, to make his body react faster and his muscles stronger. We call that "training".

A few years back I became the manager of a small team. All new managers had to learn about the company's appraisal processes. I spent one day with a group of other managers and an expert in appraisal. By the end of that day I was allowed to perform appraisals. We call that "training".

What are the similarities here?

For each scenario there is an expected outcome - a particular behaviour or characteristic that is required. In the case of the dog it's keeping to her part of the house. For Andy Murray it's being stronger & faster than his opponents. For the manager it's being able to get the best out of the appraisal process.

For each scenario there was also an external input of some sort. Someone who sets the standard, can provide immediate feedback and suggest ways in which the expected outcome can be achieved.

And what are the differences?

The dog was motivated to change her behaviour because she learnt to associate it with reward or punishment (extrinsic motivation). Andy Murray is motivated to change because, I guess, he wants to win (intrinsic motivation). I was motivated to change because... well, I'm not sure really.

Changing a dog's behaviour takes time and constant, ongoing reinforcing feedback. Andy Murray's new speed and strength certainly didn't come about overnight, and again will require constant practice and feedback to maintain it. My ability to perform appraisals was expected to be developed over the course of one day and no-one since then has given any feedback on how I do them.

So what does this mean for the world of "training" in the workplace?

If we (the learning professionals) a're going to do training properly we need to:

• Be clear about what the expected outcomes are - not that we have to make that explicit to the trainee up front, but at least we should be certain about where we're heading. Training is very different from informal learning as it's focussed on externally derived outcomes.
• Make sure the trainee is given access to an external input who can set the direction of travel and provide feedback and guidance to reinforce the correct behaviour.
• Ensure that trainees have clear motivation to change. Without that motivation we are wasting our time. cf. Motivation post. Motivation may be intrinsic (I want to do my job better), or extrinsic (if I do this I will keep my job / get a pay rise / impress my manager).
• Forget the idea that you can take short cuts. Good training is hard work - requiring ongoing coaching and feedback.

Training that works

If we take those principles into account, then what will an effective, large scale, training regime look like. I would suggest a threefold strategy:

1. Build in extrinsic motivational factors - most of your trainees will need them. How this works will depend on your organisation, but may include financial reward, status, or recognition. Negative reinforcement may include being able to continue in a particular role or even the removal of certain privileges. Note, I'm not recommending this, just saying that it's a possible motivational factor. Positive reinforcement is always much more effective long term.
2. Expect managers (at all levels) to be coaches and to provide ongoing, reinforcing feedback. The Manager-Tools advice on feedback and coaching is invaluable here. This is a major change to the role of most managers - but will be far more effective than expecting a one-hit training workshop to make a difference back in the workplace.
3. Provide external input which sets the standard and gives examples of "correct" behaviour. Use resources like videos, posters, briefing papers, elearning packages, even a face-to-face workshop with an expert, to ensure a consistent message is available right across the organisation. The precise medium will depend very much on the type of message and who you're training.

You'll see that the training department is not the only part of the organisation involved in training. It should include senior management to model the coaching & feedback regime, HR to set reward policies, and Internal Communications to ensure messages are consistent and presented well.

Training is, and never can be, a fix for poorly designed processes, systems and user interfaces (just see the Terminal 5 debacle for an example).

Training not development

Those people who know me will be wondering what's happened. I'm normally a died-in-the-wool constructivist in my approach to learning. The thing is when we're trying to induce specific behaviours & capabilities, then we need a far more behaviourist approach, as proposed above. Constructivist approaches work when we are taking a developmental strategy - where there are no "right answers". If that's where you're heading, then you don't want "training".

What examples would you say are training and which are development?

With thanks to Donald Clark for the impetus to put these thoughts down.