Training Versus Education - Part 2
Training vs. Education
Part 2
If
you spend any amount of time as a teacher or training professional, you’ll
probably recognize the image, or something akin, that’s on the screen. It’s
called a lesson plan. In the training world, we refer to it as an outline,
course plan, storyboard, etc. In any setting the “lesson plan” notes for each
unit of instruction (could be one activity, one whole class (45 min, 1hr, day),
one week (or a 3 day workshop), maybe even a whole month (or course) the topics
to be covered, the timing of the activities, and the instructional strategies
to be used. In the case of the discussion of training versus education, one of
the sources of the lingering debate stems from the fact that each approach uses
different strategies and in the past, these strategies were employed in a
haphazard, inconsistent, and very often poor pedagogical manner. When people
think of the word “education” traditionally, it involved a lecture based
approach. Even in a hard science setting, a university biology course would
involve only 1 hour of “lab” time for every 3 hours spent (or more) in the
lecture hall. Students had to memorize material independent of the actual lab,
points were rewarded only for those who got the lab experiments “right”, and
the majority of grades – or measurements, were still large “knowledge checks”
in the form of tests, quizzes, and papers.
On the other hand, “training” in such
places as vocational schools, technical schools, included a hands-on approach.
But, confusing everything was that lecture was involved and “grades” very often
still came from those “knowledge checks”. In the business world, since the
earliest “training professionals” would come from the educational world,
especially higher-ed, or
go through a program there to gain certification, they only reinforced the
“lecture” based model more, one that would have had enough support given the
wider social understanding of “teaching” – that is the lectures people were
used to in school. The irony is that for either “education” or “training’ to be
successful a program or course of study must include strategies that were
traditionally upheld to belong in the other arena. Sales training needs tons of
hands-on experiential learning as well simulations, etc., but without the
opportunity for personal reflection, discussion, idea sharing, and access to
the right information (about the customer, competitor, company, product, et al)
then the sales folks will employ the wrong strategy at the wrong time.
Conversely, a graduate program in education meant to help working professionals
transition into a k-12 classroom would be ineffective if it didn’t give you a
chance to actually get into the classroom and try it yourself.
As I write this I’m reminded of a movie
and a personal story. Ever see the movie
“In Good Company”? I just looked it up – can’t believe it’s almost 10 years old
now. But, what it speaks of in terms of the oddities and reality of today’s
business world still holds true. The basic premise – successful sales leader at
a sports company sees company get bought by international conglomerate and the
successful sales leader (ad exec) has someone literally half his age come in as
his boss. The two have different styles, both face personal crises early on,
and the boss actually falls for the older one’s daughter. After reaching the
climax of the movie, the younger prodigy needs the older ones practical
experience to help save their main account. In this case, the real life
learning becomes more important in that instance than all the information the
prodigy learned in business school. On a personal note, I started teaching high
school right out of college and struggled a bit, especially when I left a
private, suburban school to a urban one. But I worked hard and managed to
improve myself greatly. After a career change and personal life change, I found
myself in the corporate arena doing training and instructional design. I wanted
a program that would fit my needs as someone interested and learning to like
more and more the corporate/adult area. So, I enrolled in a university’
master’s program in instructional technology aiming to learn more about the
tech and more about the analysis/evaluation area. Well, let’s just say I
stopped the program after 3 courses. Don’t get me wrong – it was a good and
credentialed program at a well-respected university – but it didn’t suit my needs.
I didn’t need more educational theory – I was looking for a way to learn how to
create effective evaluations, do a thorough needs analysis, and learn how to
create technology. The fact that was that the program was designed by and
mostly enrolled in by k-12 folks. I don’t need any more theory without
practical application, and I don’t need to spend hours reading either. So, I’m
on the hunt for either a few certificates or maybe a program – if it’s out
there, that has just what I’m looking for. In this case, I need lots of
training and very little education.
None of this, of course, is to bemoan
education. On the contrary, as noted with the nursing example earlier, poor
education can present deadly consequences, and at the least, impact’s business’
bottom line.
Are
you familiar with Ken Robinson? If not I suggest searching for him on the
internet – watch or listen to some of his podcasts or videos or read his two
popular books. In any media, his thoughts and insights into the world of
today’s educational system and the inherent flaws are very important. I’d jump
off from his discussion of things such as standardized testing, the narrowing
of the curriculum in the k-12 setting, and the lack of real creativity and
support for teachers and say that the ongoing debate between education and
training really represents two divergent viewpoints, opinions, on how a person
should be prepared for life and/or a job. From the educational camp there’s the
ongoing push for higher standards, to Robinson’s point – well duh! Who doesn’t
want that!, to the business world’s cry for better “thinking” employees – lots
of folks advocate a conception of education as being completely cut off from
reality or involving skills that just occur naturally. From the training camp
there are schools that contain no standards and do nothing but experiential
learning to company’s where the career ladders seems like Sisyphus with his
rock – because of the amount of knowledge and skill people need to get promoted
– heck even to get your foot in the door these days.
Again, just as with the strategies used
it’s really hard to decipher the truth or the driving factor beneath each
person’s opinion. There are certainly enough folks out there who think just
because of their degree they automatically qualify for a corner office or who
bemoan going out into the “field”. On the flip side, there are lots of talented
and hard-working professionals employed in crafts, trade, and “blue collar”
type work who could become a manager or start their own business if they didn’t
feel badly about the process of education – or in reality the “system”. If you
can learn to discover the basis for people opinions, read “suggestions”,
“ideas”, or “concerns”, then you can help them and yourself forward.
The
other factor that continues to drive the debate on into the future is cost.
Training, education, whatever – “learning” in any context or setting is a cost.
If you decide you want to go to college right after high school, that’s a cost
you are incurring. Even if you get a full scholarship and/or grants and don’t
end up taking out loans, you still limit your income in the meantime. Business
used to be a lot different. If you came out of higher-ed with
a degree twenty years ago or more and wanted to work in a hotel – you’d be
immediately put through a manager training program, spend a few years working
the front desk, sales, etc. on the way up. Likewise, if you graduate from law
school ten or twelve years ago and came from a respected school, you’d end up
starting out with a nice income – especially if you ended up at a successful
firm or with a successful company. Neither of those guarantees are there any
more. And with the rising cost of a college degree, the amount of loans a
person has to pay back versus what they make the first five, ten years out of
school, it’s stiffling. It’s preventative. It’s also about
expectation. We expect a law school graduate to be…. Just as we expect a
college degree to mean … or the fact that you worked for a large company such
as … doing … or with the title of … We’re learning how much we assume is
wrong. So, the cost of educating or
training someone has risen at the same time when the old guarantees or
assumptions are under fire – what we have here folks is a genuine game of
chicken.
Businesses have cut their salaries,
bonuses, training programs, staff size, etc. Universities have increased
tuition, increased or changed admittance practices, and increase class sizes.
Businesses want the educational system to “produce” ready to work employees.
Universities expect businesses to offer opportunities – internships, coops,
onboarding/training programs that help build practical knowledge. So, who bites
first? And, which one is right? I’ve met lots of folks who went to college
first and ended up happy and successful, at least by their definition, first.
I’ve also meant folks who ended up happy and successful, again by their
definition, and they either never went to college or went later in life (like
after a stint in the military). So which approach is right? They both incur a
cost – both to the person and to the business/college. So – where’s the happy
middle ground? I think we’re working it out right now. More and more college
programs include the chance, even a mandatory on things such as internships.
Businesses are slowly rebuilding and redesigning training programs. People are
taking more time to look at their careers and their own abilities/wants to
determine the best fit for them at this particular time. So, if you hear
someone talking about the difference between education and training, stop and
see if their comments or ideas are true, or really just represent a fear of the costs involved.
And
not to beat a dead horse – but we can also understand the debate between
training versus education if we look at that three point framework we mentioned
earlier. Remember, we said that the debate could also be understood and
examined by looking at the traditions, goals, and learning involved at any
given instance. So, in light of what we’ve learned thus far, let’s examine the
debate a little more.
If you look at both ideas or practices,
you’ll see that the main point of contention involves certain traditions and
ideas that were common to both “approaches”. Previously, only certain
lifestyles or “professions” included systems of learning that involved equal
amounts and gave equal amounts of credence to both training and education.
We’ve mentioned several of them before – law, medicine (healthcare in general),
and a few others. The nature of work and society as not only expanded our
understanding of a need for equal weight given to both, but also the rapid
changes of the past two hundred years has done nothing but throw each and every
assumption that’s made or process that’d developed into the furnace. What does
that mean? Here’s a line from one of my favorite two books of all time – the
Great Train Robbery by Michael Crichton.
The line is part of Crichton’s explanation as to how the mastermind of the
robbery was able to “put on air” as a gentleman with a university education. “
the majority of wellborn young men were more interested in acquiring a
‘university bearing’ than a university degree.” 150 years ago there apparently
was sufficient power and politics involved in life that the friendships and
general education offered by a university meant more than the actual course of
study, especially for the upper classes. Is that sentiment still not at least
slightly true today? Don’t we assume that a person with an Ivy League education
or an MBA from a prestigious business school possesses certain abilities and/or
characteristics? Going back to Ken Robinson for a moment there’s an analogy he
came up with that readily explains the problem facing people as the make a
decision about going to college. If, as he says, you did well in school and
went to college and got a degree when he was that age – you were guaranteed a job.
Period. Now it didn’t imply a vice-presidency or a six-figure salary per se,
but if you had that diploma you could always find a job that guaranteed you a
certain level of income barring any egregious personality traits. Nowadays a
college degree no longer represents a “passport” but rather a “visa”. It comes
with an unknown expiration date. It gives you, for the most part, a chance to
enter the workforce, but outside of that, there are no guarantees. In fact,
many recent graduates have found it difficult to even start their “trial”
period – either for a plethora of folks in a particular field (education), the
cutbacks in others (healthcare – and education), a lack of good internships or
the rise of fall of new technologies (technology) and son on.
All of this is important when we
consider the debate between training versus education because society, either
purposely or passively, placed different value on each, the terms were
historically used to describe the learning done by different social classes (or
jobs), and we as individuals perpetuated the distinction in our own day-to-day
language. The rich, the elite, the smart, the lucky were “educated”. Working
class folks were “trained” to be a mechanic, a truck driver, a nurse, a
teacher. The popular terminology years ago was “teacher training” – even though
you theoretically got a degree in…”education”! Seriously? Yes, unfortunately
for many people we’ve continued such banal stereotypes and assumptions to
everyone’s detriment. Real “learning” involves both sides of the coin as we
noted already. So, when the discussion comes up, keep in mind that the
traditions inherit to the past may represent the reason why a program “must be
the way it is” or that a person’s opinion doesn’t represent their hard learned
understanding but a deeper prejudice or assumption of what the world, and
learning in particular, should look like.
Earlier we talked about objectives. In
the world of education and training – they’re the key and the lock. If a
training/education program meets the objectives it was designed for, learning
takes place. Of course, learning can take place in spite of the objectives.
Think about a teacher in high school or a college professor you had, one who
really didn’t engage the students, one who didn’t really do a good job
“teaching”. Now, be careful and don’t jump to too many conclusions. Think long
and hard about it. Just because you continue to struggle today with a certain
field – math, language, music, and you have a burning desire to learn it still
– don’t just assume that one of those teacher you had was all that bad. But,
you should be able to identify, given the law of averages, a particular person
who didn’t make the grade. Now, this exercise isn’t about casting blame or
uncovering long ago buried rage. The exercise is meant to have you think of a
situation in which you achieved learning in spite of the circumstances. Did you
have a language professor who didn’t do anything in class besides chit-chat. I
had a political science professor for two courses, back to back on the same day
in the same semester, who did nothing but ask “what’s going on in politics
today”. Now, it may be been an effective strategy if it were coupled with
purposeful reading assignments from texts or other sources. It may have been
great if we were all working on the same campaign or each had internships. It
may have been effective if we were all assigned a lengthy research project from
the start, broken into small teams, each member assigned a different role or a
different sub-topic on the project, and then the discussions in class would
fuel the learning. Not the case. In fact, it was even more absurd given the
fact that the two courses were “Political Parties” and “The Presidency” – and
this was the fall of 2000. Yes, during the most contested and perhaps formative
election in the past __________ years, we learned very little – except that the
6 or 7 of us who were in the same two classes could usually skip the second
class – with the professor’s approval!, because there was no difference between
them. I want my money back!
Goals – goals are essential in any
program designed to teach a person knowledge, skills, attitudes, behaviors.
Even in a family setting, the goal of a particular strategy or exercise as
designed by the parent is crucial to whether or not a child, or a pet, learns
the behavior or embodies the belief. Without clear goal you can’t pick the
right instructional strategies. In fact, if the goals aren’t clear, if in the
case of formal study the larger program isn’t clearly mapped out, you may end
up employing the completely opposite strategy than you should. That discussion
mode I reference earlier – it’s great for highly motivated people in very
clearly defined settings and with a clear program set out, with lots of
resources, a great roadmap, etc. That strategy, lots of time spent on
discussion, would be great for a retail or hotel manager development program.
Whether daily or weekly, whether virtually, via a discussion board, or in
person – allowing people to discuss experiences, opinions, ideas, problems, can
lead to learning. Or, take a call-center. Learning to deal with irate
customers, learning all the products a particular company has to offer,
learning how to up-sell or trouble shoot – all of that can be greatly enhanced
by the exchange of ideas and by getting people to talk about their experiences,
their feelings, their ideas. If you establish clear goals for each individual
unit of learning – you automatically improve the odds that learning will occur.
In terms of the debate between training
versus education – the underlying issue seems to be about control. In the past,
training programs were meant to give people the “skills” they needed to perform
certain tasks. Education was about learning how “to think”. One was the realm
of the commoner, the worker who needed just enough learning to complete their
job. The other, was for the manager, the boss. It focused on cognitive ability
and to a lesser extent, “soft skills” needed to manager the workers. Of course,
with the growing size of international companies and the growing complexity of
the world – from medicine, to law, to technology, to industrial manufacturing,
etc. there’s no way such a split can serve either “side” well these days. Both
approaches have goals – to achieve the “learning” that both sides need, but
there was a de-emphasis on the skills of the other “side” in the representative
programs. Think of all the scandals that emerge where somebody embezzles money,
goods or something along those lines. Why doesn’t anybody spot it sooner? There
was a case in the Philadelphia area recently were a school’s or school
district’s head of maintenance was caught selling supplies for cash. They’d
over order, I believe it was car/bus parts, and sell the extra ones out the
back door, literally, for cash. Apparently it went on for over a decade. What?
Why didn’t anyone catch it sooner? Who knows. It was found out after an audit
was done – meaning people had to research the facts and do their homework. Of
course, this may be a bit of a stretch, but if part of the district’s training
program for leaders covered basic accounting of car parts…. Seriously though,
the debate between training and education really hampers both the “workers” and
the “leaders” today because neither side does itself a favor when learning is
broken about. Both approaches have goals, and those goals do rely on the
ability of the person to learn at least a minimum of skill from the other side
of the coin. Have you notice we used that word “learning” a lot here?
That’s
the other reason why, in the end, there’s no real difference between training
and education – they both involve the act of learning. And, as a successful
person may note, true success in any field will not happen without a blend of
both. I’m not sure how it happened. I’m not sure what combination of events
lead to it – but there was a real distinction made the two. The discussion
today is the lingering element of the distinction that was placed between the
two. We’ve been stating that both involve learning. At times, both sides seem
incapable of reconciling the strategies and goals of the other. And, as some of
you might have noted already – there never really was two “camps”. There were
individuals, programs, degrees, schools, businesses, etc that
made assumptions or placed higher values on one side or the other. People used
what seemed to make the most sense for them at the time. Of course, based on
their own experiences and their own opinions (traditions). To build an
effective learning program, you need to identify such fallacies and ensure that
individual units of study (classes) and larger program/projects incorporate
both education and training, if you truly want to see the highest level of
success possible.
If you’re still confused at this point,
don’t worry. A lot of what we’ve done so far lies in the theoretical. Now, I
want to take this back into the practical. We said the second question we could
used to understand the difference between education and training, if there was
one, was what’s the implication, or impact of that distinction?
Education
involves the mind. Training involves the hands. Right? Well as we clearly saw,
or perhaps not so clearly, that distinction, and many similar ones, doesn’t
hold true. Learning doesn’t happen in isolation and ability doesn’t exist in
one realm or the other. There is a distinction between the two, but it’s a
very, very subtle one that requires a lot of discovery and inquiry if you want
to build (or as a learner find) a program that gives the knowledge and skills,
i.e. achieve the goals, you need to impart. Just as doctors use there vast
experience and understanding to select the right course of medicine or
treatment after identifying the right symptom/disease, so to does a learning
professional – teacher, professor, instructional designer, rely on their
abilities to build effective learning program.
As such there are several questions or concepts that need to be
discussed as a result, each one a critical factor in the design or selection of
a program.
•Which is important (training or
education) to someone at what point in their lives/careers?
•What does “Just-in-time-Learning” mean,
and can it be achieved?
•How does the discussion and our
understanding impact the design of learning, especially in the business world?
•With the explosion of learning
technologies, what’s the right balance between learning and “performance
support”?
•How can the findings we’ve uncovered
improve both fields and make it easier to design and obtain resources for
quality programs?
•How can we use the results to help
overcome outdated traditions, opinions, etc.
What’s the old joke from comedians,
comedy is 90% timing? Well, as we continue to talk about training versus
education, that’s a very important theme. Running through the background of
what we were talking already, there seems to be a classic chicken versus egg
scenario playing out. Education – or the focus on critical thinking,
reflection, and ideas improves the choices we make, the products we design,
etc. Training – the focus on specific tasks, the ability to perform certain
actions, puts learning into motion and gives experience. The dilemma comes in
when we recognize that no two people in the same job, at the same company, even
at the same age, are alike. That fifty-three year old car dealer trying to sell
you on the latest model may possess thirty five years experience in the job,
only have high school diploma or perhaps a technical school certificate, but he
grew up around cars and after a few years in the dealer’s auto body shop he
migrated over into sales and is now the most successful sales persons at that
dealer. Another fifty-three year old sales persons at that same dealership may
have a graduate degree and worked a number of jobs over the years, never moving
up into higher management and this may be his first month on the job and he’s
trying to make sure he can continue to afford his children’s college education
and thought this might work out after getting down sized from his last job. Two
people – two different stories. Which one, education or training, does each of
these people need? Answer – you need a lot more information. Sure, the
successful career salesperson may not have a “degree” but that doesn’t mean
he’s uneducated. He could devour books on finance, sales, leadership, et al during
his spare time. Just because he’s worked in office jobs and never made a move
into management thus far, doesn’t mean the grad school newbie automatically
needs hours of “sales” training. He may turn out, once he knows enough about
the processes and structure of the dealership as well as about the cars and
their competitors, to be an awesome sales person. You never know. That’s what
any training or education program needs to be robust, flexible, and include the
input of the participants, especially when you are talking about learning
programs for adults. If you try to standardize too much, if you push people
down paths they don’t want or need to go, you’re not only potentially blocking
learning, you may even build resentment, anger, frustration, and all the other
attitudes research and common sense show inhibit growth. Of course, the big
issue is – cost. Building flexible and individualized training/education
programs costs. Even if not in terms of physical resources, it costs time to
develop, it may cost a lot of human capital, and it may cost a lot in terms of
money or time not spent on other things. The issue is – which comes first – the
cost of building, implementing and maintaining such a program or the cost on
the back end dealing with missed deals, poorly designed products, high employee
turnover, or lawsuits.
On a personal note – it’s also a
dilemma that we face as individuals in our own lives and careers. I’ve come to
realize I don’t really need much more education, at least right now. I need the
opportunity to learn new skills, apply them, and grow my ability with
technology and with the real business side of learning – design, evaluation,
assessment, analysis. As an individual, you must look to your own “salvation”
and determine what is important to you. Does the difference between an A and a
B+ matter to you now if it means you can spend a weekend with your kids when
you work fifty hours a week and then do fifteen hours of studying every week,
as well as run a household? Well then, becoming self-aware of what you need
will help you master your own career. And if you design learning or education
programs for a living, then keep in mind to always include ways to get input in
the design from the people you’re designing the learning for.
A big
topic in the world of instructional design and corporate training over the past
several years has been “just-in-time” training. It’s also sometimes called
just-in-time learning. If we’ve learned anything at all thus far, is that a
useful side effect of gaining a better understanding on the issue of education
versus training allows us to dispel the notion of just-in-time learning.
There’s lots of “just-in-time” things out there. There’s “just-in-time
information” – think about how much easier life is now with the advent of
internet searching, online databases, and other technologies. My fiancée owns a
franchise and if she wants to know, what were my sales last year versus this
year over a particular timeframe, the
company’s software can tell her in under thirty seconds. There’s “just-in-time
training”. Imagine your worked at a fast-food restaurant and the company was
premiering a new sandwich this week, but you were off from work the day the
regional trainer came out to teach the line cooks how to make it. What then?
Well, if the company was smart and or prosperous enough, they might have a
video training system that could give you the low-down and step-by-step
process. Not the same thing as the hands on experience with the trainer, but
you can practice it and then go back and check with a co-worker who was there
that you got everything right. There’s also “just-in-time education”. That
seems like more of a stretch, but think about what a discussion board or blog
can do – it can introduce you to a new idea or a new concept. Studying for a
job interview – that research you’re doing, the examination of the company via
social media, it’s all “education” as you prepare yourself. Or, perhaps you are
that line cook back at the fast-food place and you’ve been promoted to food
manager. Maybe the company has you go through a lot of leadership training –
perhaps virtual – maybe you even get to talk with and virtually meet all the
other new food managers across the company. Now, if you encounter a situation
where a new “employee” of yours doesn’t respect the new authority given to you,
if you discussed that with your boss, reached our to a fellow newly minted
manager via a discussion board or perhaps a phone call, or you reached for an
SOP or manual created by the company on this topic, searching for ideas on how
to handle the disrespectful employee, that would be just-in-time “education”.
But, there is no “just-in-time
learning”. Learning occurs via experience. It’s based off of practice,
engagement, failure, success, reflection, adaptation, intiation, and
so on. Do you know what companies tend to offer the most training – franchises!
Why? Because it’s in the company’s best interest to see each franchisee
succeed. So, want to own a location of a certain fast-food joint? There’s a
global “hambuger
university” for that. I’m not kidding either. That’s its name. They will
exhaust you with hours, days, weeks of training both before they sell you the
franchise formally and after – everything from budgeting, time keeping, food
preparation, storage, safety, environmental laws, etc. All to make sure you are
profitable, and therefore the company is too. Never worked in a restaurant
before and not owned a store of your own? You may need lots of education and
training – and in the end a lot of support post orientation – but that would be
in one form or another. If you really didn’t care or found out that this isn’t
the business for you, all the SOPs, cohort groups, training videos, etc
won’t be of use. That’s why they say rightly that success in life depends as
much on determination and happiness/fulfillment as on anything else.
Ever
overhear a manager or work with a SME that said something to the effect of “I
don’t care what they learn as long as they do their jobs”. Well, that’s the
point I’d start looking for something else inside that company or out. I saw a
recent discussion start in an online forum I belong to asking if the
professionals in the group would stay in a company if they knew that leadership
didn’t value training. I don’t want to get into that debate but I will say that
the understanding we’ve been gaining in exploring this issue of education
versus training helps us understand that the answer to the manager’s rant is
simple – they can’t do their jobs if you don’t tell me what they need to learn.
Contrary to the consternation of many managers in the business world and to the
detriment of learning professionals everywhere – a thorough “needs analysis” is
needed in the design of any training program. I’d argue the same for any
educational program as well. There’s plenty of literature and common material
out there noting how learning happens best, it happens faster, it lasts longer
when the design is intentional and the learning happened purposefully. And,
that literature will also point out that, at least in the business world, a
large percentage of “training” problems really don’t require training as part
of the solution. It may need better, faster, clearer communication. It may need
the redesign of a task or the simplification of a process. It may mean
implementing a new part of the software that was previously left off. It may
mean spending less time in meetings and more time working. It may mean making
an investment and a clear appreciation program for employees. There’s plenty of
other examples out there as well. The point being that the investment and time
spent up front, designing the learning means that there’s less time and money
spent on the back end. It’s not a guarantee – just the law of averages at work.
And, completing a proper analysis, building sound and individualized (if
only for the company or particular job description) program can help you
improve not only the training, but also uncover the deeper fears, assumptions,
and limiting factors that hold people or programs back now. Company’s today
seem to still suffer from the “why should I invest in my employees if they’re
going to leave after a few years anyway”. Yes people job hop and the sting can
hurt. But, there’s always been change and people often switch jobs for other
reasons – career/industry change, moving, other life issues, and that can be
either good or bad. But, the best companies in any industry realize that the
potential for any employee to leave after a certain time period is the cost of
doing business. Papa John – he worked for another pizza chain. Quite frankly, I
don’t like his pizza – but enough people do. In another recent post I noted why
folks like Donald Trump or Richard Kiyosaki freely write books, and plenty of
them, talking about the strategies and ideas they use to make money. Are they
afraid of creating some competitors? NO! They like the challenge, they love
what they do and the potential losses from a few folks who might challenge them
in a particular deal or in a particular area (remember they’re both heavy in
real estate) is off set by the name brand they create via the books and the
money they rake in from them and speaking engagement, seminars, etc. Very
often, either personally or collectively, there are many things that get in the
way from either learning or designing great learning and if you spend enough
time and energy you can usually uncover them.
Another hot topic in the
business/corporate realm since the advent of learning technologies in past
decade has been on “performance support”. Performance support is a critical
factor in the design of any learning program. You can practice a skill or study
a subject for a long time, but if you don’t apply it back on the job or it’s
been years since you had to think on the subject, you’d find all that time and
energy might feel like a waste. What you need is good performance support. But,
the issue, much like the debate between education and training, is when does a
person (you) need performance support and when do you need learning?
Performance is conditional. The best trapeze artist in history would not go far
in the middle of a category five hurricane. Exaggeration? Yes, but reality can
often be either exaggerated or complex. In either event, performance depends on
the input factors in each particular case. Performance support tools help you
keep skills or knowledge fresh and make processes simpler or memory recall more
accurate and faster. You don’t however, want to go into the operating room with
a pediatrician operating on your brain even with the best performance support
tools in the world. Sorry, it doesn’t work like that.
As the chart on the screen illustrates,
there’s a time and place (or need) for formal instruction as well as a time and
place for performance support. Good companies, good learning programs provide
both and the resources and design of each is complimentary and the flow feels
right. Why is there a department within your organization/company called
“organizational development” – to help trainers and leadership prepare
individuals and groups for changes – in processes, in documentation, in
expectations, etc. They’re learning professionals who work on building the
systems and communication needed to keep your larger team competitive and
aligned with the goals and needs of the business. The right design and application
of performance support not only improve “on-the-job” success but can also lead
to better training and to better performance as the design/analysis can help
you uncover things that might otherwise get missed or dismissed. Remember,
Alaska was once known as “Seward’s Folly”. I bet all the gold miner and oil
executives who profited from the country’s ownership of Alaska the last century
and a half would welcome that folly. Maybe they should hold a parade in his
honor.
On
the webinar panel I recently participated in, the host noted that one of the
differences between education and training is that “training has to sell
itself”. In a sense, it’s true. But it’s only true because of the assumptions
people make about learning, performance, and business. Yes, in the past
education didn’t really need to sell itself. Before massed systems of public
education, or before the increase in higher-education enrollment, education was
assumed to be important and necessary. With the cost of education rising
though, education finds itself more and more in the petri dish, suffering under
microscopic examination by either politicians or school boards examining
budgets, or students and parents comparing the cost of one school versus another.
On the other hand, the modernization and improvement in training metrics,
analytics, and technology has offered professionals a better way to advocate
and prove the value of training. Of course, nothing is ever easy or simple. At
the same time, technology has created new fields of study, re-shaped job
descriptions, brought down whole companies, and boosted others up in the blink
of an eye. It’s created a blurred and undulating landscape where training
professionals find themselves asked to play an increasing number of roles while
trying to satisfy an increasing number of demands. I’ve love to see the
accountants or lawyers get treated like that.
The great thing about learning more and
more about education and training and getting involved in discussions like
these is that they can help learning professionals both improve the quality
and/or success of their programs, as well as sell those programs to leadership.
Many smart and successful people in the learning profession reject the use of
“ROI” or return-on-investment. Even if you assigned dollar values to every
block of learning, factored in sales, costs, created a huge interactive
spreadsheet – it would be damn near impossible to prove the value of every bit
of training. But, we’d all do ourselves some real service if we could shift the
paradigm to the point where we created learning that did satisfy ROI – except
that in each case we’d define the ROI. But that depends on having clear
objectives and uncovering the real cause of problems. Why are sales down? Well,
we sell coats and it’s 75 degrees in Idaho, Minnesota, and Maine in January.
That’s an indicator. Maybe we should sell something else too or we need to find
ways to keep our costs down. None of that involves training. It may involve a
little education – learning professional could help facilitate some meetings or
help design the presentation of the ideas, but if you approach it from a “this
is a training issue” everyone will fail. Miserably. Grab YOUR coat and go home.
So we need to shift the mind set of folks away from the idea that training is a
one time event and focused just on doing and everyone wins.
Lastly,
understanding the difference between education and training and learning more
and more about the factors driving the debate one helps you overcome obstacles.
This can be from both a personal and a career (i.e. you as the learning
designer) perspective. Many concepts, ideas, or values live long past their
shelf life. It’s apparent in so many parts of our lives. Afraid of the boss
catching you goofing off or surfing the web at 2pm? I wouldn’t want to work for
that person. Especially for complex knowledge workers – the idea that you can’t
take a minute to rest – when you have to work at 9pm at night or bring work
home. Go to the office on a weekend or review materials on Saturday for a
Sunday night phone meeting? If that’s the price of business today you can take
twenty minutes a day to refresh and relax. In education and training circles
silence used to be the rule. Professors professed (lectured) or trainers
“trained” (spoke) ad nausea for long periods of time. I remember sitting in a
graduate theology class with perhaps the most important and famous scholar on
Saint Paul in the modern world. Here’s a guy who spoke eight or nine language,
taught at the most prestigious biblical scholar university in the world, grew
up in Ireland, moved to America, and now lived and worked the past forty years
or more in the Middle East, very often coming close to the violence that still
plagues that region. What did class consist of everyday (this was a summer
course) three 45 minutes segments of him talking and us taking notes. That’s
great. I enjoyed the course, learned a lot more about history and about the
religion I grew up in. If asked to prove anything though – by translating a
text or getting into a systematic theology debate with someone – nope – I failed.
I remember I felt stupid and shamed as I sat in the room with people who also
spoke multiple languages and were set on the path to biblical scholarship. I
was a high school teacher looking for something to do in the summer and not
quite sure where I wanted to go. I didn’t need more education – I needed
training. Yes, I love beating horses to death. But in reality these
observations that I’ve made about my own life give me the ability to understand
how such things really limit others in their own lives and careers and how
companies can limit their own potential by holding on too, not always
purposely, outdated ideas or concepts.
Comments
Post a Comment