[This is a tad off-topic but has a 2.0 in it and so is fair game. Feel free to disagree.]
I was at a press briefing for the launch of a new report called Learning 2.0 from the CIM (Chartered Institute of Marketing) this morning (it’s not online till 21/2). They asked me what I thought of the title. I’m not sure they appreciated me saying that calling everything 2.0 makes me roll my eyes nowadays. They reckoned that for mainstream marketing people, the idea would still seem pretty fresh.
Anyway, the report was about training and learning in the marketing industry. The gist of it, which I thought was pretty sound, was as follows:
- People nowadays don’t have jobs or even careers for life. We have these portfolio careers and we’re all entrepreneurial about those careers. The average in-house marketer stays in a job for four years; it’s even lower in agency land.
- Our employers don’t have our individual agenda at heart when they design training or development programmes. They have the company’s interests in mind.
- There’s a conflict of interest here, of course – you might want to do a public speaking course, for example, because you envisage yourself as an effective public speaker. But if your boss doesn’t think that’s part of your job, the chances are, you won’t be doing one.
- Employers also tend to confuse training and learning. Training gets done to you. Learning is something an individual does themselves. Companies tend to think of training as their responsibility, rather than learning. They also think (62% of them – HROs – do) that “done to” training is the most effective way to deliver education for the job, according to survey results.
- Educationalists have identified at least 37 different types of ways in which we learn stuff, from reading a book to playing simulations. Each individual will have their own preferred and most effective learning styles. In-house training tends to focus on one – sit in a room with a bunch of other people and get talked at.
Therefore, there’s a big need for change when it comes to professional development. Individuals need to do more to take the initiative, since they’re ultimately in it for themselves. Their own preferred learning styles might mean that the current provision their company offers is utterly useless. They’d learn more from reading books, or blogging, or going to excellent networking events. Probably a combination of different learning activities. They should push for those things to be recognised as CPD investment, and potentially paid for by their employer.
On the other hand, employers need to open up their definitions of training and learning. Why does only sitting in a room and being talked at tick the box? This doesn’t necessarily imply extra investment or resources on their part. Just an openness to recognising that learning is taking place in other ways. Companies need to fund and provide time for the learning an individual wants to undertake – not just the kind that’s always been provided.
To my mind, this situation has arisen as a consequence of the dreadfulness of appraisal culture:
“Now, Ian, it’s your annual review. You have done OK, but could do better. How can we help you?”
“Well, boss, I agree I could do better. [and really want a pay rise which isn't at all linked to this appraisal. wink-wink.] But you see, I don’t really know much about phone sales.”
“Ah – we’re doing a course in May about phone sales. I’ll send you on that.”
Box ticked. Job done. Next subject. My arse.
(Bonus link to a fab blog post on this very subject from the Chief Happiness Officer – from which I stole the wink-wink gag.)
Afterthought: the worst CPD I have ever received was when I worked as a teacher. In many respects, it’s the loneliest profession – you spend your entire day with clients. Yet, the professional training is zilch – “we’ve bought this new CMS and we’re having a training day on how to use it.” “Yeah, but, how can I be a better teacher?” “Sorry, what?” – How appalling is that?
Things are changing in PD for teachers. See my blog entry http://academicbiz.typepad.com/piloted/2008/01/a-vision-for-pr.html
I’d like to think so, Mitch, but my teacher colleagues report that most training days are entirely devoted to new systems or even to catching up on admin. Both are needed, too, of course.
[...] also pointed to a couple of other blogger’s pearls recently, such as Ian Delaney’s post summing up the Learning 2.0 report from the CIM (Chartered Institute of Marketing) to be released later this [...]
Ian, I’d quibble about training as something that gets done to you.
The quibble is that I think ‘training’ is more narrow in focus and goals than ‘learning.’ Training: the essentials of tracking leads and contacts using the new system. Learning: applying that system so you’re a higher-performing salesperson.
But I often work in instructional design, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
Your main point is definitely on target. Employers (and not a few employees) tend to have the Little Corporate Schoolhouse model: scheduled courses, counts of student-days, training as inoculation.
Sometimes, too, it’s Gresham’s Law at work: the administrative ease of box-ticking drives out less familiar, less docile alternatives.
To say nothing of “training” that tries to do what improved tools, standards, processes, feedback systems, or support systems could do better (and with less irritation to the victims… I mean learners.)
[...] | Helene Blowers (LibraryBytes), points us to a wonderful post over at Twopointouch, Sit and Listen. Author Ian Delaney makes a number of great points [...]
I absolutely agree with your quibble – sorry I didn’t include that more explicitly.
Little Corporate Schoolhouse is a great expression for the prevailing attitude – one I’m definitely going to steal!