Reblogged from Activate Learning Solutions:

• 

I've been reading many articles and blog posts that have an urgency about them regarding the impending death of Learning and Development function in corporate organisations.

Admittedly when I read these, my heart races a little faster.  I have this anxiety to catch up with the latest theories and tools in the field so that my survival in the job market in competition with all Gen Ys is secured.

Read more… 1,859 more words

My first interview was with the very infectiously positive Henry Stewart. This guy has enthusiasm and passion for what he does in abundance. I love that.

I chose Henry because I enjoyed meeting him at one of the Connecting HR unconferences, subsequently at the inaugural L&D Connect unconference and then reading his book, the Happy Manifesto.

We started talking about how he began his journey into creating a happy workplace. He was part of a group of people who started a campaign publication and in the process raised £6.5 million. Wow, right? What a great way to start a business, and with capital at your disposal. They lost it in six weeks. But why, I asked?

Henry: Because we created a company that was a truly dreadful place to work. It was full of endless meetings, back biting, and blame. We hired some fantastic people and created an environment where it was impossible for them to work. What should have been an ethical and principled company was worse than when I was working at IBM.

As you listen to the playback, you’ll hear a consistent laugh from Henry which is infectious and I couldn’t help getting dragged along by it. Love it!

We moved on to talking about Maverick by Ricardo Semler. Henry swears by it as a text focused on people that he gives everyone a copy who joins Happy.

I asked Henry why he thought the theory behind Semler’s success could work here in the UK.

Henry: Why not? The old way wasn’t working. This made sense. People can be trusted wherever they are, and it seemed to work.

Nice and simples. I’m liking this guy the more and more I talk to him.

I picked his brain about this concept of ‘pre-approval’.

Henry: You have to have clear parameters. The moment I see the detail I want to get involved. It’s no longer Johnny’s project. I have to say – how are we going to measure this? As long as he accepts those are the measures, he needs to understand what I won’t accept. And he’ll create a great site, and if not, he’ll get feedback. There are 8 steps to help make this happen. It’s to avoid me as the manager seeing the detail, which I’ll mess up. Because when we get involved we always get it right, don’t we?! I can’t get involved in everything and I can’t come up with the best ideas.

I’ve been fascinated by his association with Action for Happiness which I enjoy following on Twitter, and wanted to find out more about this.

Henry: They’re simply trying to help people be happier. It’s about helping other people. It’s about staying active. It’s about good relationships. These are simple steps people can take.

Me: Do you see this movement is gaining momentum?

We saw last year (2012) it was on the front page of Harvard Business Review. Research has shown us that the best 100 companies to work for produce better market results than investing in the FTSE 100. If you went back 25 years and invested in them, you’d have made a greater return than traditional investments.

Me: What do you say to the cynics and try to win them over?

Henry: I do a thought exercise – do you agree people work best when they feel good about themselves? Nearly everyone puts their hand up. So what’s the point of management? Maybe it’s to help people feel good about themselves? What would your organisation be like if that’s the focus of management? Most people come up with positives. Not everyone will go away and do this. We can’t always do this, but people agree it’s the right thing to do.

Me: So what’s the challenge behind not doing this?

Henry: The challenge is that this is the best way to help them (people) be productive. Is it the priority for them (organisations), that’s the challenge. There are some companies who are ready to lap it up, and others who are just stuck.

Me: How can HR/L&D get involved with this or influence this?

Henry: They have to be making the links internally. They need to know what they’re expecting as a result in three months time before launching a programme like this. You need to ask questions like, what do you (the organisation) want to achieve? It can’t be about just spending some budget so you don’t lose it the following year. It needs to be about talking the language of the business so they understand the benefit of doing so.

Me: Do you find interest from HR/L&D field? Or is it mainly entrepreneurs and CEOs and MDs?

Henry: I’m pleased that at the Happy Conference we have about a third who are CEOs. With HR I find there are those who enjoy working with people, and those who enjoy working with process. Those about the latter need to get out of the job(!).

We finished the talk by talking about the Happy Workplace Conference which has now since passed. If you want to know more about The Happy Manifesto, visit the website. Henry does regular talks and speaking engagements and can be followed on Twitter here.

And if you’re interested in hearing a very amateur attempt at recording the interview, that’s right here. Unfortunately I’ve not mastered merging MP3 files, so this interview is in five parts – there’s about 40 mins of interview.

Part One.

Part Two.

Part Three.

Part Four.

Part Five.

The next instalment is about a collaboration between some people who came together online to produce something impressive. It’s a story about how to support others through achieving a dream. I hope you enjoy reading about ‘A very modern collaboration‘.

One of the topics I get all het up about is inclusion. There are plenty of people writing about their experience of being excluded because of various factors. There are plenty of people writing about the need to include people of all ilks, and not discriminate. There are some very smart people moving beyond these conversations and making compelling arguments for the case.

Inclusion. It matters.

I’m fortunate. Very fortunate.

My folks chose to graft and send me to a private school to get a good education in my early years. I got my GCSEs – distinctly not all A’s and B’s. More like C’s and a combination of the rest. That’s not a good thing to making a point of. The private education was meant to do better for me than that with respect to my results. What I did learn about though was things like being independent. I went on school skiing trips, camping trips, week long I.T. camps, trips to the ballet, to Canterbury Cathedral, and more. I learned how to be confident in myself even though I may not have been academically brilliant.

From there, I went on to college to do my ‘A’ Levels in psychology, sociology and french. A year longer than I should have been there, and I got my grades to get me on a bachelors degree in psychology. I enjoyed that subject a lot. And after that, and some wondering whether I was going to go down the educational psychology route, I decided on occupational psychology and got my pass in 2003. I was a straight C student through all that. I didn’t find it easy, and often questioned what I wanted to do.

My family were there through all that. My friends came and went through all that. I also worked in a lot of different part time jobs through all that. I learned a lot about other cultures in that time. Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Sikhi, Hinduism, all became fascinating topic of interest for me. I wasn’t scholarly, but I knew a lot of people from all those religions and actively sought to find out more about them. I even did my undergraduate dissertation on the topic of homosexuality and religion.

I’ve got a nerve.

It wasn’t until I started work life that I was exposed to more. I thought I was fairly good at being sensitive to others and knowing how to behave. Then I met people who were wheelchair bound. I met people who were homosexuals and lesbians. I met people who were challenging poor behaviours at work. I learned slowly that difference exists in the big bad world, and you can choose to either accept people for who they are, or you don’t. I saw that people tended to be better when they were inclusive. I like being inclusive, and don’t like to exclude anyone. Harmony and relationships are important to me. So I take the time to learn more about these other ways of living and what that means for people.

Later in my working career, I started to work in positions where I was having to help others understand more about this topic of diversity. Wow that was hard. I had to learn a lot about my own prejudices and my own behaviours I was exhibiting. That was tough. I had to face up to facts about myself and how I thought about the world. That’s not an easy set of thoughts to own up to. I had to accept I had prejudices against gay people. I had to accept I had prejudices against certain religions. I had to accept I had prejudices against disabled people. Holy crap.

I’ve got a nerve.

Through hard work, I learned that this was just crap. I had to learn how to challenge myself. I had to learn how to value others. Because, you see, I didn’t – not really. I accepted them. I even tolerated them. How very superior, right? How very unintelligent. How very crass and single minded. I don’t think I was ever openly dsicriminatory to anyone. But that wasn’t my issue. I was privately discriminatory.

How do you get past that? How do you stop that kind of thinking?

There’s no silver bullet here people. I can’t point at a particular thing and say “that right this, and that right there” was what helped me. I had to challenge what I knew by talking with others. By talking to people in the know. By reading what I could. By taking time to reflect and find out what was going on in my head.

I’ve got a nerve.

At the same time as all this, I remember learning about being English. That’s a weird thing to say, right? I mean, why would I want to learn that? I grew up in this country, so why wouldn’t I know about the culture I’ve grown up in? Because growing up in a country, and knowing its culture are not the same thing. Things like football, cricket, tea, English breakfast, beer, London Town, music, art, books – all of these things and more, make up what I love about being an English man.

Voting, sarcasm, self-deprecation, politics, schooling, education, the NHS, this is all part of who I am and what I know. Banter – oh my, what would we do without banter! I’ve learned, both through my own and through others mistakes, just how powerful a thing banter can be. It can build relationships, and it can cut people to their core. It is, of course, a British affair and not restricted to the English. And I’ve learned how to use banter as a way of testing boundaries with people. I don’t always get it right, but I do enjoy the conversation.

I’ve got a nerve.

And at some point in the last five years I started to value people. I saw past my prejudices, my biases and my own self-limiting beliefs about others. I saw the folly in that thinking and realised I love the human condition. It’s weird, wonderful, and scary. Difference rules, and we should all strive to be unique. We all need a place to land and a place to thrive. It’s why I blog now. I have a voice to help others find theirs. It’s why I’m so keen on the learning and development field. I learn so much about others that I improve myself. I become a better person because of the people I work with every damn day. We’re all brilliant, and I want to harness that brilliance and share it with everyone.

I’ve got a nerve.

It’s a sense of things happening in and around you. That conversation you can hear, is summoning something inside you. Your commute you take, it’s driving you to choose your actions. What will they be? Let’s find out.

Actions.

When I choose to hear that voice speaking to me and I take action on it. When I hear that voice inside and I learn to have that internal dialogue. I learn from myself. Not because I must, but because I understand what I am telling myself. My experience and learning takes me on a journey to reach a point in my life. I take action based on this sense I have inside me.

Dialogue.

I have the privilege of hearing your voice. It speaks to me and I am moved by it. I engage with it and learn about you. You share something with me which reveals you to me. Did you know this? Did you know I am here for you? Did you expect me to enter your mind?

Sustenance.

Is a moment where I indulge my body. The choices I make to fuel my body are mine to make. I have full congnisance of the world around me. I am aware of what I place before myself. It helps me to reach a goal. It’s my goal. This is me being selfish.

Diversity.

I embrace the person I am with. They are complete human beings. This is, and always will be, awesome. I am but a ripple in the ocean, and I am the drop. You and I, we are here and I hear you. I see you. I understand you. I need you. I loathe you. I am who I am because of me. I am who I am because of you. Where does this take me? What journey am I on? How can I know unless I respect and walk with you?

Silence.

Taking a moment to hear nothing. To watch a bird take flight. To see a couple walking hand in hand. To see a homeless guy sit and beg for his money. To just be. To not be plugged in. To not be listening. To be calm. to find calm. To hear nothing. To hear only that which matters.

Life.

I live it. I live it with you. I live it for me. I live it for you. I live it for who I am. It is affirming. It is frightening. It is what it is. I thrive in it. I lose myself in it. I welcome it. I am life.

Time.

It flows. It doesn’t stop because it doesn’t know how. How do you take that concept and make it meaningful? How do you manipulate it for your wares? Are your efforts futile? Where are you going with this time? It’s there, forever moving. I can either move with meaning, or I can move with none. I move because the time insists I do.

The L&D profession is essentially driving itself into complacency. The other day I asked the question if L&D has stalled, and this has been bugging me. Why have we stalled? As one of the speakers at the conference said, this is the time for L&D (and HR) to shine, to really let loose within our organisations, and drive change. Except, this is an ambition only a few will ever realise.

There’s some important things to consider in my statement.

The economy continues to be fucked. Spending is still down, people are unsure of what’s happening tomorrow, and the government has narrowly escaped a third recession. This means organisations are in uncharted waters. They don’t know how to navigate this uncertainty, and don’t know where to get their inspiration from. There aren’t any experts or ‘gurus’ who can provide the much sought after guidance. No-one knows what the answer is. This has the potential to ignite a fire in some and create an awesome set of opportunities. For the vast majority they’re just trying to tread this water until they find shore when they can regain their footing and do what they always did. Except what most don’t realise is that shore they land on will be in undiscovered countries where the same old things are obsolete.

There are no new advancement in the understanding of the human condition – not significant enough to challenge the way we think about human learning and development. When we are still using Maslow’s hierarchy of needs as a basis for talking about motivation, this is evidence enough of how complacent we are in the profession. Quite possibly the only new piece of thinking we can rely on is in the area of neuroscience, as technology allows us to discover more about the intricacies of the brain.

At the same time, there are a lot of theories about human learning and development, and in particular about organisational learning and development. For the modern L&Der to be skilled enough, knowledgeable enough, and able enough to be jack of all trades, and master of all is mission impossible – yet it’s what’s being asked of us. Which are we supposed to invest our efforts in? Which are we supposed to disregard? Which are going to help our organisations move forward? Which are going to be obsolete tomorrow? And most importantly – who has the answer to any of that?

Engagement is a topic that isn’t going away any time soon. There’s a lot being said about discretionary effort, and it’s causing some people to be turned off to the concept and conversation. What happened to just treating people right and doing the right things? When did it become about policy and management and protocol?

Technology continues to progress at a greater speed than the late majority will get to grips with. Take the world of movies as an example. No-one these days sells VHS cassettes. DVDs, blurays and online streaming are the world of today. Give it a few years and DVDs will become obsolete. How do we keep up with these advancements? How do we harness what the technology enables us to do and use it to aid learners needs? Do we even know what learners needs are anymore? I’m of the growing opinion that we are becoming more clueless about what the learner needs in order to be effective in their roles we hire them for.

Social technologies in particular are causing a lot discomfort and anxiety for people who don’t know how to harness it. They can (and are) being used in all manners from learning to marketing to the glib to the insightful. And there are so many to use to connect with others, how are we supposed to navigate that? The question of need is redundant, it has to be done. The questions become centred around using them for useful and progressive purposes. Holy mama, I’m getting tired now.

The skills of the L&Der need to be more. Save a few people, most of what I heard from various speakers is that we are treading water to keep alive. We’re not allowing ourselves to thrive and act with intention and positivity. We have the opportunity to do this, but we lack the creativity to find what that means. How does this make you feel? Are you inspired to act differently? Do you want to fight about this and argue your case?

I, for one, refuse to be part of this complacency. It’s a rotten place to be.

Nick started by sharing how they had to develop their technology engneering talent against the backdrop of being the provider for broadcasting the Olympics in 2012. Some further information around this is that they had to move from 3 software courses to 25 across a range of technologies and working methodologies.

They have what they call the BBC Academy, and through that created an interesting set of internal knowledge sharing sessions such as holding events where people come and have an open house talking about topics of interest. This was open to staff and to external people. I’m a fan of this type of intervention and think it’s only a good thing to do. You get natural engagement, good PR, and potentially a recruitment activity.

They created an internal accredited course which would provide the equivalent of gaining a MSc by joining the company. This is interesting as it’s attractive to people who may be interested in advancing their careers, but don’t have the finances to do so and need someone to help sponsor this activity. They also partnered with other organisations and created a buddy programme where they shared top talent with their partners to work on select projects. That’s a great example of collaboration and how it can truly work.

Unsurprisingly, they use a nine box model of mapping talent, which recognises specialism, performance, and leadership talent. This kills me inside. It says “we only recognise certain people in our organisation have talent”. It says we don’t want to invest in all our staff, just the people we like. It says we don’t have the time or resources to be a learning organisation, that’s exclusive to people on this programme. Le sigh.

Also unsurpisingly, they have a strong governance structure. However, this means that it acts as a barrier to market. Nick shared a story that iPlayer was ready for launch but was held up by two years because of governance structures and processes before they could get it to market. This also kills me inside. I understand the purpose of governance, and yet where there is clear innovation happening, the organisation is more concerned in red tape than it is making things happen.

Andy shared a story about how Hanover needed to invest in a £750,000 software project, but the supplier couldn’t offer any trainers to train staff. I loved the start of this presentation where he likened what they went through as an accidental innovation – akin to post-it notes, velcro and teflon. He said they stumbled on an answer which paid dividends in unexpected ways.

Andy shared some interesting thoughts which I think are worth repeating. He said that research shows us that 99.2% of business in the UK have no more than 50 staff. He said that although we’re going through rough and turbulent times, this is probably the most exciting time to be in HR (L&D/OD) as this is when we can be our most innovative and creative. And he shared how many organisations are raising the entry mark of a degree to 2:1 in the UK, because they think this will attract a better calibre of applicant. This all prompts a lot of thought for me which I’ll have to re-visit in a later blog post.

They opened the opportunity to be trainers to all staff across the organisation. He shared that with complex projects like this, involving people to be part of the solution is a great form of engagement and inclusive practice. They essentially asked for volunteers to become trainers for the period of time needed for the project to be delivered. To support them, they would go through seven weeks of intensive training. It was an open application, and they had a lot of applicants from which they selected the people by asking them to do a ten minute training session and interviews. It would be a formal secondment, and they would go back to their original roles once the project was complete. What is key here was having a clear re-integration plan for the person to help them understand how to use their new talents and skills in their original roles.

It worked out well for them. So well in fact that they won an award from Training Journal because of it. How’s that for ROI and ROE? What worked for me in Andy’s presentation (apart from an energetic and very engaging presentation style) was he shared a clear business problem, how they solved it, and what happened along the way. It was a great story that I enjoyed listening to. He shared some thoughts on six keys to talent development:
1) Be confident to trust those ‘within’ before those ‘without’ i.e. look internally for talent before thinking about externally, and explore options
2) Don’t set the selection bar unrealistically high
3) Invest value and reward in the opportunity
4) Ensure mistakes are a welcome part of the learning process
5) Reassure and define what is a ‘bridge too far’
6) Plan the communication, support, reward and have fun!

This was a good session which covered a lot about how a considered and practical appraoch to solving business problems can gain a lot of activity and support from the organisation you may have previously dismissed.

Mike helps us to understand that in sports training, from as young as 7 they start to build resilience in their training. It’s fascinating to learn that a footballing organisation considers resilience to be such a core part of the development of players. Players need this to help them cope with constant change and challenge they face as they grow as players and people.

There’s a great piece of learning offered there around the support needed for players by the traditional support workforce.

From the policing perspective, they understand resilience in different terms. The first is in terms of operational resilience – are they capable as an organisation to deal with events as they arise. The second is in terms of helping people to deal with traumatic and distressing things they may face in their day to day activity. Last is around the personal resilience we have to deal with turbulence in your own life.

Ali helped to understand the importance of understanding the DNA of your organisation so you know where your strengths are. By using Lean thinking, and starting at the end point of saving lives in the water, they were able to track back every step of what they do and identify where duplication and unnecessary process/policy exists. Having done the exercise they are realising savings of £20 million.

Really nice to hear that they had core learnings about not losing sight of the people and how they are resilient and in giving them power, they produce results. There was a lot of learning that resilience is about physical, mental and emotional aspects of people.

Some great sharing from Mike about the fact we need to look at the whole person when it comes to building people and developing them. We just don’t do this in organisations. We done care about the whole person. We care about the performance of the person and neglect all else. At the peril of organisations.

This is followed on by a point from Stephen and Ali that there is a difference between personal energy and personal resilience. Yes.

What they had in place were tools such as Microsoft Lync and webex to enable communication to happen. They chose to focus on taking e-learning development in-house using Adobe Captivate. He shares a good point that one key benefit is the agility to adapt/amend content as needed. They created virtual training labs to provide training to engineers across countries. This allowed for on-demand training for engineers when they needed it. There is a need to consider where the use of external partners can help support the L&D training delivery – for example taking off the shelf training in topics such as project management.

Tom makes a good point that people need to be primed in using technology in order that this is to a barrier to learning. The technologies they used were: e-learning, webinars, videoconferencing, training labs, LMS, videos and podcasting.

Interestingly, Tom spoke about getting an external provider to support ROI through the Kirkpatrick levels.

Next up was Niall Gavin. Immediately I appreciate the way he provides his history without the use of words on the slide, instead he provides his contact details.

Niall advocates that in light of challenges First Group are facing, they’re focusing on the customer experience. He also advocates that HR needs to see the people they work with as customers, and we need to improve their experience which has an impact on how we work with customers. I agree with this.

Interestingly, he says that the classroom was the original social learning platform.

Niall makes the point that through their e-learning platform, they decided not to develop their own MS Office training as they could buy this in. They instead chose to focus on business critical software which could be transferred to e-learning. He shares a great story abou how they developed learning for a particular software, only to be told by the IT team it was being upgraded thereby making that development redundant. It’s all about engaging with stakeholders to understand the needs of the organisation.

He shared a good story about how he first came across Twitter some years ago at a learning technologies conference. He saw the potential of it and tasked his team with signing up and seeing what the potential comes from it. They started to hear about how technologies such as webinars were being used, for free. They decided to look for a webinar based technology, and decided to use a system compatible with their internal systems. This ended up not working because it wasn’t robust enough. Lots of great learning being shared here about where things didn’t work, and what happened next.

Good piece from both presenters about practical use of technology to enable learning to happen in different ways.

They’ve been interesting in their own rights, and it’s encouraging to hear a few things.

Google get their basics right in treating staff, and having a culture that supports innovation and creativity.

Anglo American are very focused on safety at all levels which ensures they support staff and treat them well.

Google are famous for allowing staff to have 20% of their time to work on personal projects, they aren’t concerned about market share, for them it’s about their products.

Anglo American are a truly global mulit-national who have to work hard at ensuring their leaders go through a robust training programme which provides them with the skills they need to be good leaders.

It’s interesting, right?

Are you doing some variation of the above? Are you as an L&Der / OD professional pushing these same boundaried? Is your leadership programme effective and focsued on developing them?

Here’s what I’m left with so far. Innovation in L&D has stalled. There are some intriguing innovations out there with the likes of MOOCs, but really, L&D has lost its steam. There’s nothing new. There’s nothing different. We’re not being disruptive. We’re not creating a competitive advantage to the organisations we’re part of.

At least that’s the message I’m hearing. What I’m hearing is we’re doing business as usual, doing a good job of it and being very safe in that delivery.

There are a lot of people in the social space who advocate challenging and innovating their practice, but who’s actually doing it? Where are the internal practitioners who are blazing a new trail for their organisations? Where are the external practitioners who are shaking up the world of learning and development to provide something new and exciting?

Part of me says, you know what, I shouldn’t be complaining. As a profession we’re doing a good job. Some practitioners will be trying to be the trailblazers. Some won’t know what that looks like and unsure how to start. Some are on the path of doing it, but staying safe. And all of that is ok, because we all have secure jobs and income. And it’s mildly encouraging because it means we’re not missing any tricks. We’re not behind the curve. We’re not doing any worse than the likes of Google.

And if we believe that’s ok, then we’ve already lost the end game.