Four steps to make learning effective

If learning is considered as a corrective step by an organisation ( based on my last week's definition of learning and development) to fill the gaps in competencies, we can exactly specify what can be done to make the learning effective and efficient. This is one of the benefit of defining vague terms like 'learning and development' in a precise manner. I suggest four steps that can make learning effective in an organisation.

First step is to diagnose the 'gaps' effectively. If, for instance, HR is told to fill the gap in team building, HR should avoid the temptation of conducting the 'one size all' team building program. Instead HR should meet the affected group and find 'the exact reason' that prevents 'team from gelling' together. It should ask tough questions to the affected group: why suddenly the team has got affected, find if new member joining the team has changed the equation, or if the team environment has been spoilt due to 'competition' arising from the impending appraisal time, or if new team member has been promoted as module leader, and so on. Very often HR avoids conducting the diagnosis which spells doom to the learning program right at the start. At the end of step one, the specific objectives of 'learning program' should be clearly spelt out.

Second step is designing the 'training program' to teach team building. Both the trainers and HR have a role to play in this stage. While trainer's role is to add games and ideas to increase the participation, HR's role is to bring context to the training lesson. For instance, a training program on interviewing skills should specifically bring the context of 'whether the interviewee is a fresher or an experienced professional'. By using mix of games, directed learning, and carefully drafted case studies ( studies based on organisational context) the training program can be made both enjoyable and instructing. Often the participatory aspect of design is overstressed at the cost of building requisite competency. The popularity of outbound programs is one of the offshoot of this trend. They are very enjoyable and fun, but fail to build any competency.

Third step is the offshot of the second step. It is designing the feedback form for the participants. Instead of the generic feedback form that asks for the content and quality, the feedback should specifically find if the objective of training program has been achieved or not. The feedback should specifically measure if the 'content and context' of the lessons have been understood by the participant. If necessary, a test may also be designed to ensure that the participants have learnt the requisite content and context.

Fourth step is ensuring that the participants are able to use the content+context in an appropriate situation. For instance, can the participants use the interviewing skills. This is the critical step in which the participants learn to apply the content in a specific situation and either fail or succeed in the application. It is here some support has to be provided either in the form of mentoring or on web. In case of interviewing skill, a company can keep a senior interviewer with the trainee interviewer to find how the trainee was applying the interviewing skill.

All these four steps need to be used to ensure that learning gaps are filled competently. Even if a learning program fails, one knows one has failed. Failure itself becomes a feedback to question everything. I know of a company who questioned the learning objective itself of their program on delegation.

Misunderstanding of data and knowledge can derail training

Training function is now called as Learning and development. It is my hypothesis that the new name is more apt because it balances both the organisational and individual needs.While learning can be organisation-centric, development can be individual- centric. Both are required to create a sustainable learning institution. Both are complementary to each other.

Learning is needed because organisational requirement drives the needs to teach individuals the gaps in technology, managerial or other competencies, while development is needed to align individual's goals to organisational goals. Learning effectiveness is higher if it is corrective while development effectiveness is higher if it is preventive. Organisation can use 'development' goals if it can anticipate issues that will crop up, while it can use learning goals to rectify the situation quickly.

Both learning and development can be problem centric or solution centric depending on the saliency of the situation. Both learning and development however have one feature in common: they are effective when they follow the path of data > information > knowledge.

Very often learning in an organisation stops at data stage, because training is downloaded without any 'context'. For instance a training program in presentation is conducted without bringing the context of inhouse team presentation,client presentation or presentation outside the team. All three contexts require different set of variables to learn. The same is true for programs in communications, delegation, time management and or interviewing skill.

Worse still, organisation provides little support for moving the learning into knowledge stage. If information is 'data with context', knowledge is 'information with action'. For instance, when a presentation is made to a boss/senior management, it is necessary to understand the 'background context' within which the presentation is being made: the expectations of boss, the possible questions of boss, the perception that boss carries about the issue at hand and the 'time' in which that presentation is being asked to made. All this determines whether the presentation will be effective or not. Without bringing the variables involved in 'situational action', one cannot make an effective presentation. This is the last stage of knowledge.

Surprisingly, very few training departments support this stage, hoping that individuals will cross this stage by themselves. They measure effectiveness of training program by asking a feedback from the participants immediately at the end of the program. This feedback, at the best, can capture if the participant have understood the 'contextual data'.

Some training departments capture the participant feedback after a delay of some period, say 3 months. This also fails to capture the real feedback, because participants can never say that 'training program was not useful'. They assume that it is their responsibility to apply the knowledge. When they fail, they wrongly ascribe this to their lack of effort. Training department never knows the effectiveness of their program.

If, however the path of data to knowledge is known and monitored, both types of training ( whether it is learning or development) can be made effective.