Learnability

You must have heard term ‘transfer of learning’ in relation to classroom programs.  Initially this term used to appeal to me.

But over a period of time I started realizing a few things.

First, the term ‘transfer of learning’’ gives a sense that you start thinking about how learning could be transferred to workplace only once you have completed learning something. But I consistently find that ‘learning’ and ‘application’ are not necessarily different parts of process.

Rather, I find the notion of tying together ‘learning’ and ‘application’ and approaching entire process through lens of ‘relevance’ more powerful. I call this process ‘application of learning’ and not ‘transfer of learning’. 

Now you may say that I am talking about ‘learning on the job’. That’s surely one aspect of it! But you can simulate ‘applications’ in learning from others and learning in classroom settings too.  

Frankly, what I find consistently is that source of learning can be anything – a great read, an insightful conversation, observing someone inspirational, etc.  Only important questions to ask are ‘how is this relevant to my context? What are 2-3 things that I can take away and implement?’.

So entire process needs to be seen as an integrated one - with a focus on ‘relevant learning’ that leads to ‘relevant application’ –which in turn leads to desired ‘outcomes’. Secondly, you need to start seeing learning possibilities in any situation/experience.

Once you were to build a discipline around, you might start finding that your ‘learnability’ has significantly improved.

 

-

Sourav

Employee Engagement Surveys

What do employee engagement surveys tell or not tell us? 

Over next few weeks, I would be supporting managers/leaders in interpreting results from an organization wide engagement survey and creating action plans from them.

I observe such surveys are taken seriously by even business managers. I wonder whether they are complying (a part of their assessment does depend on results) or whether they truly believe in the possible benefits from such surveys.

Well! I would not know till the time I am neck deep into exercise too.  Here are some initial thoughts on my mind

• Surprises – what conclusions can I draw if a manager/leader is taken by surprise by results of the survey? I would know that at the least he has not had his ear to the ground. He either has not picked up what´s been expressed, has discouraged the expression of possible concerns, or has not acted on what has been expressed.  If I observe surprises, I would want to explore ´What has been the manager/leader doing to understand pulse of his organization and consequently act? What needs to change?´

• Statistically Significant shifts in scores-  I have heard this term often. It is a criterion for deciding possible action areas/strength areas.  I do agree that  we should consider this criterion, but what other criterion we may be missing out on?  I think ´context´ is a relevant term here I need to  interpret scores in terms of larger ´context´ a team is in.

• Context –  I support a growing business with a large number of new employees. They obviously are in early stages of employee life cycle. Feel good factor prevalent in ´initial days´ might have bumped up scores. I certainly need to segment scores of employees as per their stage in employee life cycle.

• Segmenting Scores by Employee Groups– there is a need to identify trends for relevant groups (as per demographics, specific job types, specialist teams, etc). If I were to take only an uber level view of things, I might not sense some important under-currents.

• Qualitative responses –  can be a double edged sword. Subjective answers provide richer understanding of emotions behind the different scores, but I am unsure of their utility in confidential surveys.  If I come across a ´concerning´ subjective answer, I would  discuss the same with the leader/manage and give him/her a chance to respond. How s/he responds is what I would be more interested in.

• Why this survey? – What is primary objective of conducting such a survey? I am not sure whether allocating rewards for managers/leaders should be primary outcome. The intent should be to understand what we are doing well/bad at a certain point of time, and take a collective decision on how can we progress further.

• Action Plans – ´Best plans are best executed plans´.  Administering a survey (ensuring high participation rate and a safe environment for employees to respond authentically) and interpreting and sharing results don´t necessarily lead to increase in employee engagement. Co- creating action plans that have buy in of different stakeholders and ensuring their execution are the more monotonous, more difficult, but the most crucial aspects of ensuring  a successful employee engagement survey.

-

Sourav

E-learning and Context!

‘Context’ is an interesting term. For most things we do we want to know the ‘context’. May be it is a result of being ‘adults’ – of being able to think independently.

‘My needs need to be met. Whatever you offer must be customized to my needs!’-is an oft heard term.

Some days back I was having a conversation with a colleague on how we could make e-learning efforts more effective. She asked ‘What can we do to ensure more acceptance and usage of e-learning?’.

I reflected on how I had felt when I had taken e-learning modules and what I had heard from others who had taken these modules.

‘Content is standard. It is not customized to our workplace requirements.’

‘Content is good. But how do I use it on my job? I am not sure. I felt great when I took the modules. But here I am 5 months down the line and I am not sure what has changed.’

‘It is boring to study alone. Classroom learning is much better. You can talk with people and share your experiences.’

‘Customization’ and ‘Context’ seem to be the 2 lacks in e-learning modules.

What can be done about these?

Should we revert to only classroom and on-job learning efforts?

Or should we see ‘how to build context into e-learning and customize e-learning to our needs?’

Do the solutions only lie in design of e-learning modules? Should we focus on creating more customized e-learning modules? But that always comes at a cost and you always run the risk of quick redundancy.

For that matter even in case of classroom training (ILT as I heard someone say J), program contents/design can be customized only to a certain extent.

I feel the answers lie in looking at what supporting structures can we use along with e-learning to build context and customize content for each individual learner.

A few things that can be done:

• Use a ‘blended learning approach’- Blend e-learning along with classroom learning efforts. So e-learning is one part of the learning process and there is a ‘classroom like’ forum which is instructor led and where you have peers who are struggling with same/similar problems. ‘Classroom’ like can mean a proper in-person classroom session, a virtual classroom, a conference call where everyone dials in, etc.
• Necessity for learning discussions between the boss and subordinate as primary driver of learning effectiveness still exists. These discussions have to be pre-program (on what you want to take out from the sessions), post-program (what have you derived from the sessions and how you want to implement them), and review sessions (how is the progress). E-learning can only support this primary driver.
• Come out with other formats in which you create two elements of classroom learning that learners most relate to: 1) presence of an instructor; 2) peer discussions we learn from. What can be these formats? I am still searching for answers! Can you suggest some?

-

Sourav