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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment