
The Low-Hanging Fruit Is Tasty
The higher you go, the farther you see. Recent research finds that CLOs work on short-term efficiency while other C-level officers look beyond to long-term prosperity. The CEOs, CFOs, CIOs and other longer-tenured C-level officers look to learning to build the capacity to transform the business. Their goals are long-term, qualitative and aspirational. CLOs are more focused on short-term improvements in how learning takes place. They work with business units to make training more efficient. They introduce technology and innovation to streamline the delivery of learning.
Go forward a few years, and our current notion of learning grows obsolete. The pace of change itself is accelerating. In the past, workers learned how to do something. In the future, they will need to learn what changed last night. In the past, execution required knowledge and skill. Future execution will require ingenuity, alacrity and innovation.
From now on, it might be more productive to think of learning as adaptation to change than as acquisition of knowledge. Learning enables you to participate successfully in life, at work and in the groups that matter to you. The faster the world changes, the more adaptation is required.
Formal training programs are not the only learning game in town. CLOs who spend the bulk of their time improving the development and delivery of training might be optimizing the insignificant. Consider this:
- According to Tom Gilbert and Peter Dean, training only accounts for 10.5 percent of the total potential change in worker behavior. Clarity of objectives, working conditions and other factors are more important.
- According to the Institute for Research on Learning, at most, formal training only accounts for 20 percent of how people learn their jobs. Most workers learn their jobs from observing others, asking questions, trial and error, calling the help desk and other unscheduled, largely independent activities.
- According to Robert Brinkerhoff and Stephen Gill, people who do attend formal training never apply 80 to 90 percent of what they learn back on the job. They forget the bulk of what theyre exposed to in a matter of days.
So, formal training accounts for 20 percent x 20 percent x 10 percent of the possible improvements you can make to worker performance. Thats 0.4 percent. To account for potential double-counting and other quirks, lets say training might influence 1 percent of worker potential. C-level officers who want the human capacity to thrive over the long haul are looking for more.
Over the past year, Ive talked with dozens of organizations about informal alternatives to formal training, particularly what I call free-range learning. The workplace is becoming increasingly democratized as knowledge work becomes the norm and workers become more independent. Knowledge workers want you to state your expectations and then leave them alone. Knowledge workers resent it when you try to connect the dots for them.
Free-range learning entails workers taking part in meaningful conversations, listening to and telling stories, building personal trust networks that yield advice quickly and learning things in small chunks as needed. Workers shoulder responsibility not only for learning, but also for instructional design.
Informal and formal learning are ranges along a continuum. Formal learning is like riding a bus: The driver decides where the bus is going, and the passengers are along for the ride. Informal learning is like riding a bike: The rider chooses the destination, the speed and the route.
Free-range learning is purposeful activity. Experience finds that most workers are more exacting instructors than the trainers who once filled the role. Informal learning is effective because it is personal. The individual calls the shots. Its real. Its self-service.
Frequently, the best way to take advantage of informal learning is to get out of its way. Less is more. Informal learning has no need for the busywork, chrome and bureaucracy that accompany typical corporate training. Informal learning is the low-hanging fruit of worker development. Shouldnt taking advantage of it be part of every CLOs mission?






{ 6 trackbacks }
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
I think that informal learning is a healthier option for public education as well. It would only be a threat to some teachers and administrators, not for learners.
Everyone who has seen this video (link below), agrees that this “no curriculum” program is excellent for learning. What’s most interesting are the results of this 18 month program, started in 1939; and what happened to the graduates:
mms://multimedia.apa.org/education/ibm_gifted_children.wmv
Via: http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/2006/04/flashes-from-past-different-school.htm
Aren’t all people gifted learners?
A useful article – even if I wasn’t sure what a “CIO” was … I’ve decided (wrongly or rightly) that a CLO is Chief Learning Office, CEO (executive), CFO (Finance), but got stuck on the I!
Ah Jay, the power of “nested” 80-20 rules. I wrote something exploring similar themes back in 2002. See: http://www.performance-vision.com/articles/less-than-a-penny.htm The gist: little of what we spend on training goes to design; little of what we do spend on design is effective or relevant to job performance; and, even that ignores the vast majority of critical job learning that happens out of our usual sight – unstructured, inconsistently, on the job.
It seems to me that how we teach – in corporate and public education settings – has had far more to do with the needs of teachers and the baggage that comes with the notion of a “course” (start and end dates, predefined content, registration, etc.) than with the needs of learners or the performance expected of them in the workplace or life generally.
Hi
Just a quick idea on two lines from above
“Knowledge workers want you to state your expectations and then leave them alone. Knowledge workers resent it when you try to connect the dots for them.”
I agree but i would venture that the reason behind this is the idea of perceived value. When value is recognised – at a biological/survival, personal and cultural level then people (most of the time) will want to learn or “connect the dots” for themselves.
Try as hard as we might to provide the ‘view toward’ or ‘pave the way toward’ seeing this value, it is always hit and miss and ultimately a personal path with as many variations as you have learners. So, yeah, let’s get out of the way of the bike riders and recognise their individual but valuable paths. But let’s also get them to bring along stories of their adventures to the next group learning event.
Cheers
Jeff
great site and looking forward to more
Harold, you really got me curious here, all I got when clicking on the link above was:
Not Found
The requested URL was not found on this server. Please visit the Blogger homepage or the Blogger Knowledge Base for further assistance.
The mms:// link gave me a “file not found” message.
Ulrike
Maybe the problem is how elearning is created. From my experience, the process of creating anything worthy of attention takes an eternity to create and is so watered down by the time it’s complete that no one can survive the boredom to absorb the information. Training development is like a tanker crossing the ocean at top speed. It takes an enormous amount of effort to alter its course. Innovation is not an option. If training developers cannot add spontaniety to their product, if there is no element of surprise, if there is nothing remotely entertaining, if there is no reason to stay awake, how can information be transferred?
Until there is a quick, cost-effective method to churn training courseware with sufficient complexity and high information value, the low success rate cited will continue to prevail.
See: What’s the problem with e-Learning?
http://blog.qmind.com/blog/2006/4/2/whats-the-problem-with-elearning.html
Whew! Way too much to respond to here, so I’ll answer the comments that stick in my head.
On this side of the pond, CIO = Chief Information Officer, also known as the head of IT (Information Technology).
Stan, I remember your article. Something about pennies, wasn’t it? I also plagiarize the best.
Chas, what you describe happens all too often, but I’m not addressing only eLearning. Almost all top-down, learn-in-advance programs are ineffective.
jay