Obliquity

Those who’ve read my published work will know I’m a great admirer of John Kay, the Edinburgh-born economist, business strategist and Financial Times columnist. I especially enjoyed his two eminently readable short books collected from his FT columns, Everlasting Lightbulbs (on economics) and The Hare and the Tortoise (great case study material on business strategy). Kay is one of the best exponents of the ‘distinctive capabilities’ view of strategy, and has been further endeared to me by his habit of writing while walking in Provence, one of my favourite parts of the world.So I’m approaching his latest book with great interest. I confess I have yet to read Obliquity: why our goals are best pursued indirectly, but I’ve read his introductory article on the subject in Management Today, and I’ve warmed to his themes of maintaining a flexible approach, thinking laterally, always looking out for new knowledge, and taking a roundabout route to success.

These themes ought to resonate with anyone who has ever tried to facilitate learning, as simply reciting a litany of facts and figures is rarely the best way to help people absorb and apply new ideas. People learn better by tackling subjects in different ways, via discussions, reflection and activities, and by interchanging ideas with the facilitators of their learning. It makes sense that the same approach should work in pursuing business goals. Perhaps learning and development professionals have been pioneers in the new science of obliquity?

Why e-learning DOES work

A response to Mark Walsh

Among the headline-grabbing claims made by Mark Walsh in his trainingzone article published on 19 February are that e-learning “isn’t really learning” and “it doesn’t really work”. Absurd? I think so. Extreme? Certainly, but it soon transpires that that’s what Mark was setting out to do.

Later in the article, he modifies the red-top sensationalism of his headlines and makes the caveat that “much of what I have said is also not fair to all e-learning providers”, and even concludes “perhaps blended learning solutions are the future - bringing together the best of e-learning and traditional training?”

What Mark (or his editor) has done is single out some of the worst practice in e-learning and use it to attack all e-learning. As he concedes himself, he could have done a similar hatchet job on classroom-based training (or any other approach to learning, for that matter).

Mark claims that e-learning can’t train people to do things. He correctly spots that e-learning is good at helping people acquire knowledge, but its limitations in transferring that to behavioural change at work are equally true of every kind of off-the-job learning. I would argue (and did so in my book Delivering E-Learning) that e-learning is one of the best of such approaches when it comes to transfer of learning.

The problem with Mark’s sort of critique of e-learning is that it sets out to attack, rather than to understand. In its rush to dismiss, it ignores the interactivity of cleverly-designed e-learning, it’s huge advantages over old-style open and distance learning, the speed of delivery and unprecedented scalability of e-learning; ignores its capacity to be carried into the workplace via smartphones or handhelds, ignores the power of digital simulations to practice real work scenarios safely and securely, ignores the new approaches to learning digital technology has opened up, and much more; worst of all, it ignores the countless success stories from e-learning implementations all over the world. In short, it ignores the fact that e-learning demonstrably does work.

Mark needs to set aside his prejudice and attention-seeking, and look again at what’s to be learned from e-learning.

Volunteering

I’ve had a crash course in understanding volunteering in recent weeks, since joining the voluntary sector last year. I should say re-joining, as I had a spell of seven years in the sector early in my career, except that I didn’t really learn about volunteering, as I have been recently.

In the current issue of Management Today, the Chief Executive of the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, Stuart Etherington, contributes the opinion column, and writes earnestly over a full page about voluntary organisations and charities, but completely omits to mention volunteers or volunteering. Surely this is what the sector is all about?

My current responsibilities include managing (and co-delivering and assessing) a range of SQA-accredited courses in the management of volunteers and volunteering. This has given me greater insight into how we manage people in all organisations: if we consider the motivation of those whose work is unpaid, I believe we get closer to understanding what motivates paid workers too.

We all do things we don’t get paid for at some time or other (even in our jobs). We do them because we want to, because we benefit from them in some way, and because often they’re the right things to do. We don’t always recognise these things as volunteering, but perhaps that’s at least partly because even some representatives of the voluntary sector are missing the point.

I’d love to read comments from others in the sector who recognise what I’m describing. And for everyone else, I can recommend Essential Volunteer Management by Steven McCurley and Richard Lynch.

Silver Jubilee

This year is my twenty-fifth year working in learning and development. I started my first job as a Training Officer (for the Glasgow Council for Voluntary Service) in April 1985; I undertook my first certificated trainer-training course from 1985 to 86; and I took out membership of the Institute of Training and Development (one of the forerunners of CIPD) in January 1986.

So I’m designating this year as my silver jubilee celebration!

This gives me an excuse to recall some of the key developments of my 25 years in this career. Like…

E-learning. Having specialised in open, flexible and distance learning, I should have been better prepared than most for the advent in the 1990s of e-learning, which essentially enabled these approaches with digital technology. But, like many people, I took a while to grasp the full scope of what the new technologies could offer. I find many people still see e-learning as just online distance learning, which is a shame, as it means we’re only scratching the surface of what may be accomplished.

Corporate universities. Despite having been around for more than 50 years, this remains a misunderstood concept. The corporate university, or academy, became popular in the USA in the 90s, and in the UK and Europe in the past decade, but is still poorly communicated. For me, it’s the most significant strategic tool we have, and fits well with the broader use of e-learning.

Talent management. This has become an important idea in HR, but many still associate it mainly with recruitment, and the ‘War for Talent’, when equally important are the applications of key talent development and succession planning. Again, I believe this is something we have yet to make the most of.

Of course, there have been many other big ideas. One which has not fared so well over the last ten years is knowledge management, which in the late 90s seemed set to be perhaps the biggest idea of all. But I suspect we haven’t heard the last of it, and I predict it will re-surface in a new form over the next ten years.

Many of us are working to older retirement dates now, but I doubt I’ll be active in learning and development for another 25 years – perhaps another 15. However long it is, I hope I find as much variety and career satisfaction as I have so far. Thanks to all those I’ve worked with along the way, and please feel free to comment!

Implementing MOODLE

I’m in the middle of a major new MOODLE implementation. For those who don’t know, MOODLE is an open source virtual learning environment; the initials stand for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment, although enthusiasts (and there seem to be plenty of them) also use “moodle” as a verb. More information at http://moodle.org/.

We haven’t yet got to significant content development. We’ve started by downloading the platform to a staging site, and we’re concentrating on the branding and styling, on allocating roles to those who are going to be user administrators, content developers, and those who are going to support learners, and on organising training for them. We have modest plans for some initial content, and a big vision for what the platform can offer us.

I’ve been surprised by some of the language, including referring to every module you can build as a “course”, and surprised that there isn’t really a virtual classroom module, although we’re integrating Dimdim, a compatible open source application.

I’d be interested to hear from others who have experience of implementing or managing MOODLE, and I look forward to sharing more of my experiences as our site takes shape. Comments welcome.

The Learning Curve

The learning curve is a bit of a cliché, frequently used and misused. People talk about any new learning experience, especially a challenging one, as a learning curve, which is fair enough up to a point. So what’s it really about?

The learning curve is an S curve. You could think of it as a journey, where you’re travelling along, steadily, on a straight road; then the road turns uphill and the journey becomes harder work; before it levels off again at the top of the hill, and you find yourself making steady progress again, but at a higher level.

Without wishing to labour the metaphor, if you apply it to a work situation, you may be working away steadily until you encounter something new, whereupon you struggle a bit until you learn how to tackle this new development, and then you continue to work away, but now perhaps more productively, or to a higher standard, as a result of the learning.

But this is an example of the classic misuse, which is to talk about a steep or sharp learning curve when what is meant is that the learning is difficult; the metaphor of the uphill journey encourages this misunderstanding. In fact, if the curve is steep, this means the learning is quick and easy; a slow ascent of a more gentle curve would indicate a more challenging learning experience.

Perhaps we should conceive a new metaphor, but the best I can suggest is to reverse the gravity, so that the steep curve goes downwards like a slide, working in the learner’s favour. I’m sure there must be a better way of representing the curve to correct the misuse and render its undoubted relevance greater clarity. Any suggestions?

Happy New Year!

As we draw to the end of what has been (for me at least) an eventful year, and look forward to whatever 2010 will bring, I'd like to wish my family and friends, colleagues and associates, and everyone who reads this blog, a peaceful and prosperous new year.