If we cannot move our training innovations closer to Point-of-Work, we need to regroup with a strategic re-think. Why not leverage Digital Performance Support – DPS technology and converge Point-of-Work with Point-of-Entry?
Category: Continuous Learning
“If you ask people to describe what empathy means, you’re likely to hear words such as understanding, sympathy, compassion, responsiveness, identity, recognition, consideration, thoughtfulness, kindness, concern, sensitivity, flexibility and care.” In many ways this perceived lack of empathy is a lot like workforce performance…not what we do to ensure it, but what is not done to enable it.
I’m sure you’ve heard some variation of the phrase, “If Training is a hammer, then every performance problem is a nail” at some point in the past. What if…after closer inspection…we had discovered a hammer was the wrong tool for the job…or maybe not the wrong tool…but certainly not the only tool? We never looked. Didn’t have the motivation to look. We were paradigm-blinded. Maybe the more appropriate convicting question is, “Do we ever actually DO a closer inspection?”
Unleash the Impact beast, but not before the workforce has a firm grip on their own leash to control the Impact that yields sustained performance and positive business outcomes. We all know how IT spends countless dollars to optimize systems before launch and then more dollars and support to maintain those same systems to keep them optimized. Do we apply the same level of diligence across the ecosystem when it comes to optimizing and maintaining our workforce?
My attempts in this post to clarify Point-of-Work are driven by the fact that L&D cannot simply pursue the Point-of-Work associated with the primary end-user…like we typically do when we target and launch a static training course. Even that statement gives away my main concern…target and launch a static training course…into a dynamic learning performance ecosystem?
Many of my Performance Support colleagues and I have lamented over and struggled to find why the adoption of performance support technology has been so difficult. Having been in the L&D discipline for over 30 years, I can see why, and it’s not a failure of L&D. It’s a failure of the Training paradigm in which we’ve devolved as we have evolved. We are walled in by the myth that Training drives performance… and we have successfully evolved deeper within the walls of that paradigm to innovate and improve our learning solutions. Sadly, that evolution has given rise to a devolution of the ultimate strategic business objective of enabling sustained capability and workforce performance at Point-of-Work.
In the comparison to a 400-meter relay race, Training does not fail. Training delivers a quality product for 25% of the race and makes a successful hand off to…ummm…the Help Desk? This is not a sustainable solution. Training doesn’t fail…the expectations of what training can deliver fails, and that’s because expectations are not aligned with the entire scope of the race. This is a misdiagnosis of how to sustain a dynamic learning performance ecosystem. Training is critical…and always will be…but serves only part of a longer race. That’s a paradigm failure; not a failure of L&D.
If L&D spent half the time enabling human performance at Point-of-Work in the operation of new systems as IT spends in fine-tuning and optimizing the systems prior to GoLive, think about how much more productive the workforce would be…with little to no learning curve to overcome…not to mention how the Help Desk would fare with 40-50% fewer distress calls
Momentum to accept the validity of performance support has been a long time coming as evidenced by a dramatic increase of articles advocating more L&D attention targeting performance outcomes. Unfortunately, the attention given is still largely skewed toward innovative learning solutions in the training environment. Methinks part of that dilemma is a result not of the discovery questions asked, but those unasked.
LMS Market Trends revealed 48% of organizations desire a “new or different learning technology” and nearly half (47%) are at least seeking to “revise their current learning strategy”. Why does dissatisfaction exist? Why revise learning strategy? Given the report was focused on LMS I wondered if “learning technology” was code for LMS and performance support technology would remain separate and apart from learning strategy. Then my mind’s eye flashed to a herd of lemmings dashing over the same cliff as their predecessors. I really hope for the sake of L&D organizations everywhere that I’m wrong.