Part 2 of our little jaunt to the Learning Technologies event
In case you missed the first part, you can find it here.
We can all be guilty of thinking that problems can be addressed with a one-size-fits-all solution. With an elearning course or even a blended learning journey – it’s “we design, you consume.” Saffron Interactive spoke at the event of Taylorism – the principles of management devised by Frederick Taylor (not to be confused with the fandom of Taylor Swift!).
Taylorism worked really well in the early 1900s manufacturing world, where working out the most efficient and effective way of doing something, then teaching everyone else to do just that, in that way, gave great results. As decades, technology, lifestyles, attitudes and ways of working have moved on, Taylorism has all but disappeared, except, this speaker argued, in L&D.
That sounds rather harsh – are we really saying that L&D teams sit in a dark room working out what people need to know and how they should learn it, then force out that model for consumption? There have certainly been examples of this, but we see plenty of examples of the opposite too: L&D professionals working with people to identify the root cause of an issue and generate solutions together that suit each person. There is also the challenge of making individually-tailored learning and problem-solving solutions scalable. We can’t deliver something bespoke to every person in a global corporation, can we?
One suggestion of how this individually tailored approach might work was from Saffron Interactive. They seem to have taken what works well in the consumer world – YouTube channels and iPod history – and presented the idea of playlists for learning. This works particularly well if your online learning system is a curated set of user-generated insights, on top of the L&D-generated material. The idea is that an individual’s line manager would look at the content and suggest a playlist for someone in their team.
You would hope that playlist would be based on the individual’s recent reviews, goals, strengths and development needs – as well as interest areas. Then the manager has been directly involved in the development journey and encourages the individual to use the content recommended. When the individual looks through that playlist, views content, rates it as useful, adds their comments, recommends it to others in their team – there we start to see the level of engagement with learning we might dream of.
Work problems not learning needs
But does all this miss the point, that we don’t think we need learning? Another study conducted by Scott Bradbury highlighted that managers are highly confident in their abilities as people managers. They consider that they have plenty of experience – and it’s this experience that is most beneficial when someone faces an issue, not external best practice insight or learning. Now that’s a challenge: If someone doesn’t think they need any development, why would they choose to login to a learning system at all?
Perhaps this brings all of these considerations back to the overall trend in learning and development: We need to be helping people with their work challenges, not offering them learning. Rather than a “leadership programme” we need to be offering “what to do when you’re pushed to deliver more with less.” So does that mean you should stop all elearning?
That seems a bit drastic considering the content could be useful. But certainly there is a need to reposition what’s on the system as helping with challenges rather than giving learning. And if your system is mostly used for compliance training, there is a far wider question to be explored about the culture of the organisation and the behaviour that is encouraged – is it in line with, or counter to the content of the compliance training?