I fell into a discussion on the Chief Learning Officer network early this morning that asked, “What is the most effective governance model?” The second part of the question was, “How do you ensure the governance meets your performance objectives?” Having been up to my hocks in forming and storming through the birthing pains of several governance efforts, I had to shake off the tremors before I could offer a suggestion. It was actually the second part of the question that pulled my trigger. Granted, I did not [do not] fully understand what definition of “performance objectives” may have been implied, nevertheless, the trigger was tripped…and the response went something like this…
Author: Gary G. Wise - Author - Grief Coach
Unsupervised, unfiltered, and occasionally undisciplined Writer of Things that thrill readers with engaging stories created by a seasoned storyteller.
When do you abandon a vision? How many times can you run into a wall before deciding to stop trying to get over, under, or around it? Have you ever reached a level of frustration that caused you to ask yourself questions like these? Attempting to usher in Change, especially the kind that smacks of innovation can prompt these questions if the Change is not properly positioned. Innovation can feel threatening when introduced as new technology or new methodology. Selling Change successfully redirects emphasis from the solution to the impact anticipated from it.
This return on investment (ROI) thing is getting out of hand. There is no question that valid ROI is invaluable in justifying the decision to make [or not] key investments. I have to ask, “So what is actionable about ROI after justifying/verifying an investment decision?” To get there, we seek event-specific evidence to confirm good or bad investment decisions; I cannot see anything else actionable. Seeking ongoing evidence that we created a sustained capability serves a better purpose. I do not know who said this, but it is so true, “The pursuit of true ROI does not yield a good ROI”. That said, if the concept of ROI falls into the wrong hands, it becomes a knee-jerk, ritualized, abused, and misapplied expectation, ultimately morphing into a ridiculous exercise I refer to as Return on Every Damn Thing (ROEDT).
There’s no denying, that for some businesses LMSs are essential, but they cannot singularly represent holistic technology solutions that hope to sustain dynamic learning ecosystems. Any learning technology solution [LMS or not] should support continuous learning and workforce performance in the “work context”. Establishing learning continuum methodology is foundational to both clarify and plot implementation road maps that define discrete technology solutions. Doing anything less is equivalent to re-arranging deck furniture on the Titanic.
“How many sales deals do sales reps close in the classroom? How many process decisions by managers prevent creation of material waste while taking an on-line training course? How many impactful customer complaints are resolved in training role-plays or simulations?” If your answers range from “none” to “nada”, then another question looms large – “Why are we still pumping up to 80% of our training/learning resources into a learning context where no tangible business value is generated?” Ground zero needs to be the point of impact for training, and that point exists today, downstream from our traditional classroom and on-line course venues and in the context of actual workflows. Our call-to-action breaks both traditions and paradigms and demands a level of readiness to expand our training role to embrace a holistic learning ecosystem.
“Whoa….Mon…maybe it should be.” But then I ask myself – “Self, is that a knee-jerk reaction I alone hold as truth? I think any training organization needs to assess whether it is indeed a knee-jerk or a reality startle moment.
After thirty plus years in corporate training and cross-industry learning leadership roles, I can say with confidence that the velocity of change has been greater in the world of business operations than it has in the world of training. So…is this an indictment of the training profession? Absolutely not! It is a shot across the bow to forewarn that our job as professionals in the corporate learning space just got bigger than traditions we cling to like flotation devices in a water landing.
Is innovation a methodology or is it the result of our efforts? One could successfully argue both sides of this question. With either position, there exists one consistent byproduct – Change. Regardless of definition, if we overlook creation of a sustained capability as our desired result, does it really matter how we define it?
Sounds downright subversive, maybe even a wee bit scandalous does it not? Very likely, this title may imply behavior that is a little risky too. Personally, I think it is high time we view risk as a catalyst, not a restrainer…and that could be “too much caffeine” doing the talking. Seriously, it is time to act on the risks that threaten training as we know it. Please do not confuse passionate posturing of an idea with a radical rant, though what you read in this post has earmarks of both. So hang on…
Read details of a live interview on the topic “Change Leadership: When Change Management Is Not Enough”. Gary will lead a breakout session on this topic in IQPC’s Talent Management Summit held September 27-29 in Las Vegas.