Do you know why refrigerators with the freezer on the bottom are popular today? Because it just makes sense.
90% of the products we use most frequently are easily accessible in this design. But it wasn’t always this way. It probably took a thoughtful engineer to observe where most people spent their time and ask “why not make accessing the 90% easier and the less needed 10% lower?” Yet even after observing and discussing the advantages of this change, the traditional models persisted to dominate the market place. The new offering didn’t look like the old model everyone had and was accustom to – it didn’t fit the paradigm; a fridge should look like this, not that. After many years of marketing, of people experiencing the new model and early influencials who bought in and spreading the word… BOOM! A new paradigm emerged.
I suspect 702010 is on the brink of a similar paradigm shift. You see, 702010 is alive and well but most are just too busy to notice as they read articles and talk to people who use “learning” and “training” interchangeably and they sit in awe of big old firms grappling with new training related technologies. Meanwhile under their nose are smaller companies, augmented by technology, where people are learning in their work and placing a greater priority on social and experiencial (work flow) learning. They know the answer they need right now is a click away or just down the hallway. It’s convenient, it’s efficient and, similar to the freezer on the bottom, it just makes sense. Unfortunately, most are still trapped in a paradigm where anything different than training is odd and threatening. Yet momentum is building, conversations about workflow learning are increasing, people are sharing stories of success, and thoughtful leaders [maybe yours], like an engineer who observed real refrigerator use, are asking similarly – “why not make accessing the 90% (of how we really learn) easier?”
A paradigm shift is coming.
I wish it were so. But I remain skeptical. I’ve been hearing this kind of talk since 1979 about Guidance, Job Aids and Performance Support. Every once in a while it seems to peak – again. And as Experts are mostly operating using their non-conscious knowledge, going down the hall for an answer might provide one with only 30% of what they need. And zero opportunity for practice – except on the job. Which is OK for performance of little consequence.
It’s the high Risk and high Reward performance that I would worry about – and focus on – in the T&D biz. And start with Guidance w/o Training as the default option. And then consider Guidance w/ Training where the Risks and Rewards dictate the need for greater assurances for Performance Competence back on the job and getting it right the first time.
Good thoughts and insights as always Guy. I don’t disagree that training is necessary but its certainly not necessary at the levels we see today. As I mention in my post, so few are considering the impact of workflow learning as they are bombarded with the messages of the training industry. Still far more in my experience become so entrenched in train technologies they become more experts in features and functions of tools and lose sight of how and where people learn. Since ’79 we have seen the emergence of the Internet and Web 2.0 which have no doubt contributed to greater knowledge sharing (but also false knowledge sharing). The greater need then for individuals is in personal knowledge management to better own the direction of their own learning. The work environment and dare I say the work culture has changed too, a lack of loyalty and focus on short-term metrics has made employees feel far less secure and in this new age, far less likely to expect that their organizations can provide for learning opportunities that matter long term. I also mention small organizations as this is who I have been engaging with more as of late. T&D isn’t even a consideration as a department as greater expectation is placed on better hiring of people who show a growth mindset and self-improvement drive and expect their organizations will provide more opportunity and trust in their choices of how, where and what to learn. It’s quite a departure from large companies of course who grew from an industrial age mindset about what and where learning happens. I find it facsinating and wonder how these small business can or if they will try to scale this approach.