13 Matching Annotations
  1. May 2022
    1. Eighty-seven percent of students who report feeling understood are satisfied with their experience overall compared to just 45% of students who say their institution doesn’t understand what's important to them.
  2. Sep 2021
  3. Aug 2021
    1. Reactionary training is an expense

      need to move from reactionary training to proactive and anticipatory training

  4. Jun 2021
    1. Tweet Post Share Save Get PDF Buy Copies Print Idea in Brief The Situation The fast-changing nature of business today means that employees’ continual learning is vital for organizational success. The Response Chief learning officers are assuming a more expansive role, aiming not only to train employees but also to transform their organizations’ capabilities and make learning an integral part of the company’s strategic agenda. The Specifics Extensive interviews at 19 large companies revealed that “transformer CLOs”—those who are embracing this expanded role—are driving changes in their enterprises’ learning goals, learning methods, and learning departments. In today’s dynamic business environment, workplace learning has become a key lever for success. And with that shift, the traditional role of the chief learning officer is changing. No longer are CLOs responsible just for training—making skills-based and compliance-oriented courses available to employees and perhaps running leadership-development programs. Instead, they’re embracing a more powerful role in which they reshape capabilities and organizational culture. We call this new type of leader the transformer CLO. Transformer CLOs are strong senior managers whose mission is to help their companies and their employees thrive, even as technologies, business practices, and whole industries undergo rapid change. The transformer CLO role is not reserved for the lucky few whose CEOs see learning and development as essential; any CLO can take steps to fundamentally change the nature of learning in an organization. We recently conducted extensive interviews with 21 senior learning officers at 19 large companies to find out how they conceive of their roles and organizations. This research, which builds on our prior work on digital leadership and culture, revealed that transformer CLOs are driving three principal types of change in their enterprises. They’re transforming their organizations’ learning goals, shifting the focus from the development of skills to the development of mindsets and capabilities that will help workers perform well now and adapt smoothly in the future. They’re transforming their organizations’ learning methods, making them more experiential and immediate, and atomizing content for delivery when and where it’s needed. And they’re transforming their organizations’ learning departments, making them leaner, more agile, and more strategic. Transforming Learning Goals The need for organizations to become more adaptable means changing the goals of corporate learning. Instead of narrowly focusing on job- or compliance-related training for all but their high-potential leaders, organizations should cultivate every employee’s ability to explore, learn, and grow. The objective is not only to train people but also to position the company for success. To achieve this, CLOs should strive to do the following: Reshape leadership development. Creating a true learning organization starts at the top, with preparing executives to lead in new ways. One company that has done this well recently is Standard Chartered, a multinational financial-services company. Three years ago, under a new CEO, Standard Chartered launched a strategy that fundamentally changed the way it does business—and required its leaders to build new strengths. “We’d been doing executive development for years,” said Ewan Clark, the company’s global head of leadership effectiveness and organizational development. “But a lot of it had been about either pure self-actualization or aspects of coaching. This time we’ve put the organizational agenda right in the center of executive development, and we’ve said that leadership is about developing the skills, capabilities, and value behaviors to lead this agenda.” As part of that effort, the company began teaching leaders to augment their experience and intuition with investigation, experimentation, and data-driven analysis when making decisions about their parts of the organization. Their instructions, according to Clark, were straightforward: “Articulate a hypothesis. Go out and experiment. And if it doesn’t work, then why not? What did you learn? Add to it. Capture your learning. Share it with other people.” This new approach required changes in the leaders’ mindsets, not just their skills and procedures. Organizations should cultivate every employee’s ability to learn and grow. It’s not enough, though, to improve leadership capabilities at the very top of the organization. To effect widespread change, organizations need strong leadership to cascade down. Cargill, a privately held food and agriculture business, achieved this by democratizing learning. As Julie Dervin, the company’s global head of corporate learning and development, told us, “We really only had the capacity to reach about 10% to 15% of the total relevant population in a given year when delivering a particular learning program. Unintentionally, we were creating a learning culture where only a select few got access to high-quality training.” Dervin and her team resolved to fix that problem. “We’ve been fundamentally changing how we design, deliver, and shape those learning experiences to be able to reach exponentially more learners with high-impact learning,” she said. Concentrate on capabilities, not competence. In their change programs, transformer CLOs focus less on teaching currently needed skills and more on developing mindsets and behaviors that can enable employees to perform well in tasks that may not yet be defined. This shift may also mean moving away from comprehensive skills inventories and competency maps, which can lead people to check boxes rather than build capabilities. “We don’t really know enough about what the world will look like in the next couple of years to be able to predict exactly what skills we will need,” said Amelie Villeneuve, the head of the corporate university at UBS, the multinational financial-services firm. “If you focus on building individual microskills, you may be missing the bigger picture.” Emphasize digital thinking. The transformer CLOs we interviewed have sought to develop digital awareness and aptitude in their employees. Singapore-based DBS Bank, for example, created a learning curriculum that aims to build seven priority skills for digital-business success. “While not everyone needs to be an expert at each of these,” said David Gledhill, who served as the company’s chief information officer until August 2019, “we want them to know enough so that they understand the transformation we’re driving and contribute great ideas.” Vital Skills for a Digital World To equip its employees for success in today’s digital business environment, DBS Bank focuses on imparting skills ... One priority, for instance, is to get people more comfortable using data in decision-making. Data-driven thinking is key for almost everyone in an organization, but in different ways. Frontline sales and service reps need to be aware of information about customer preferences and behaviors. Executives must learn to trust and value data even when it contradicts their past experiences and gut feelings. Leaders often don’t know what to do with all the data that digital innovations are making available to them, said Nancy Robert, who, as the executive vice president of the American Nurses Association, led the design and delivery of training for millions of the organization’s members. As Robert put it, nurses don’t necessarily have the “digital-data competency” to answer the questions that confront them. “How am I going to interpret that data and integrate it into the rest of the care?” she said. “That takes a very different cognitive skill.” Cultivate curiosity and a growth mindset. CLOs can amplify their teams’ energies and capabilities by fostering a “pull” model of learning, in which employees set their own agendas for gaining knowledge and skills. Doing that, however, requires an environment that sparks employees’ curiosity and ignites in them the desire to learn and grow. Villeneuve has worked on this at UBS and previously at Google, where, she said, she learned how it is possible to “accelerate wisdom more effectively by providing a series of contexts where people can play and learn at the same time.” Leaders at DBS Bank launched a number of programs to find out what would inspire curiosity among their employees. One notable success is GANDALF Scholars, in which employees can apply to receive grants of $1,000 toward training on any work-related topic, as long as they agree to teach what they learn to at least 10 other people. When you engage employees in teaching, as DBS is doing, you expand and deepen learning. Rahul Varma, the senior managing director for talent at Accenture, calls this a “leaders teaching leaders” philosophy. “You learn the most,” he said, “when you actually have to teach somebody what you learn.” This approach turns the natural curiosity and energy of any single employee into learning opportunities for many others. It certainly seems to be working at DBS: As of early 2019, 120 grant recipients had gone on to train more than 13,500 people—4,000 in person and the rest through digital channels. According to Gledhill, many GANDALF Scholars report that the teaching component of the program is their favorite part. “What they enjoyed most,” he said, “was the empowerment.” Transformer CLOs are personalizing, digitizing, and atomizing learning. UBS, DBS, Accenture, and other companies that have embraced a growth mindset subscribe to two beliefs: that everyone’s abilities can and must be developed if the organization is to thrive in a fast-moving environment, and that innate talent is just the starting point. But for a growth mindset to become part of the company’s culture, all employees must internalize those beliefs. That won’t happen unless learning is pervasive, available to everybody who might benefit from it. And that requires rethinking the way learning is delivered. Transforming Learning Methods Until recently, providing learning to all employees was too expensive, and there weren’t enough trainers. Employees almost always had to be physically present at training sessions, which often meant traveling and missing time at work. That naturally limited the number of participants, making learning an exclusive rather than a democratic opportunity. Now things have changed. Peer teaching greatly expands the number of trainers and expert content developers. And digital instruction expands the reach of learning opportunities to more employees without the company’s having to worry about enrollment numbers, scheduling conflicts, or travel costs. Employees can access learning when and where they need it, often from colleagues who live the topic every day. Transformer CLOs are taking advantage of all these developments. Perhaps most visibly, they are moving away from traditional classroom training in which people are exposed to the same content for the same amount of time regardless of their particular needs and levels of understanding. Instead, these CLOs are personalizing, digitizing, and atomizing learning. They are shifting their attention from specific courses to the whole learning experience. To accommodate the different preferences employees have for how they consume and absorb information, a growing number of companies now make training available through a variety of media—text, audio, video, and more. Transformer CLOs go even further. They’re introducing innovations such as programs that set aside learning time on people’s calendars, and mobile apps that pose leadership questions to managers during their day. They’re offering games and simulations and encouraging the company’s own subject-matter experts to produce YouTube-type instructional videos. They’re even exploring the use of artificial intelligence to develop recommendation engines that, guided by individual and peer behavior, will suggest tailored learning activities to employees. In short, transformer CLOs do everything possible to create engaging and effective experiences that meet employees wherever they happen to be, geographically, temporally, or intellectually. Optimize the inventory of learning resources. CLOs need to be selective about what learning materials to stock and how to supply them. At GE Digital, Heather Whiteman, the company’s former head of learning, used analytics with her team to study hundreds of courses taken by thousands of employees—and then systematically rooted out those found lacking, not just in terms of usage and ratings but in their effects on employee growth. “If a course didn’t move the dial for capabilities that lead to performance,” she told us, “we would drop it in favor of one that did.” Similarly, Villeneuve and her team at UBS used analytics to optimize the learning inventory. The bank had a wealth of training materials online, but analysis showed that many employees who searched for those materials gave up before finding what they needed. Armed with that knowledge, Villeneuve and her team focused on developing a core of fewer but better resources. Then, applying principles of behavioral science, they designed a user interface that put no more than six items on a page, with no more than three clicks needed to get to any item. The results have been remarkable: Ten times more employees now engage with the materials on the company’s core learning shelf. Balance face-to-face and digital learning. CLOs should experiment to get the right mix of face-to-face and digital learning. Cargill, which until recently allocated 80% of its budget to in-person training and only 20% to digital training, is in the process of flipping that ratio around. Dervin and her team have redesigned the company’s leadership-development programs to put some of the coursework online. Senior leaders initially had reservations about the effectiveness of digital instruction and worried about losing opportunities to network and build relationships. But those misgivings were short-lived. The first three cohorts who tried the online learning ended up enjoying the experience so much that they engaged in more training than was required. “What we’re seeing,” Dervin said, “is that this goes hand in glove with the pace and the rhythms of their day-to-day, and they’re loving the flexibility it provides.” Deutsche Telekom, for its part, has developed a matrix to help determine whether a given offering might be better handled with face-to-face instruction, a purely digital approach, or a blend of the two. The matrix helps leaders weigh multiple factors: the type of content, the target audience, and development and delivery considerations. Digital or Face-to-Face Training? Deutsche Telekom considers a number of factors when deciding how best to present specific learning programs. FORMAT CONTENT TARGET AUDIENCE DEVELOPMENT AND DELIVERY CONSIDERATIONS Purely digital formats Best suited for: Hard skills Mandatory training Simple topics Durable, reusable material Larger groups Geographically dispersed or mobile employees, such as those in sales and field service More time required to produce nonstandard material Higher up-front cost to produce nonstandard material Lower cost to deliver per user No need for trainers or videoconferencing facilities at the location Face-to-face or blended formats Best suited for: Soft skills Ad hoc training Complex topics Material that changes frequently Smaller groups Geographically concentrated employees Employees being onboarded Less time required to produce nonstandard material Lower up-front cost for course preparation Potential higher cost to deliver, but possibility of using existing staff as trainers Need for training rooms or videoconferencing at the location   Source: Adapted from company documents © HBR.org Rethink face-to-face learning. As engaging and effective as digital learning experiences can be, face-to-face learning is still important—although it may take new forms. Accenture employs some very sophisticated digital learning platforms and tools and has a vast library of online content, but Varma’s experience is that digital learning goes only so far. “What we’ve found,” he said, “is that there is no substitute for getting people together in cohorts that are cross-cultural and cross-functional.” To achieve that without requiring employees to be in the same physical space, Accenture has created more than 90 “connected classrooms” around the world. These enable the company to offer all employees some types of training—classes in design thinking, for example—that are taught by in-house experts in several different locations. “One facilitator could be in Bangalore, another could be in Manila, and another in Dalian, China,” Varma told us. People are still learning from people, but thanks to videoconferencing and other interactive technologies, along with more-collaborative approaches to learning, traditional geographic constraints no longer apply. Teams all over the world now coach one another and solve problems together. “That is how we do learning, every single day,” Varma said. Some companies have pursued another approach for their face-to-face learning: They’ve created hands-on simulations in which participants must solve real-life problems. At UBS, employees take part in “three-dimensional case studies” in order to develop key capabilities, such as the ability to influence stakeholders or rethink a company product. The interactive case studies test not only their knowledge and intellectual skills but also how they engage with others and react as the situation unfolds. As Villeneuve told us, “They have to do it all together, and they get feedback on everything at the same time.” Face-to-face learning is still important—although it may take new forms. Similarly, operational professionals at DBS spend three days in a simulation exercise that involves transforming a hypothetical old-school bank into a full-fledged digital bank. They work with trainers and colleagues from other parts of the business to tackle staffing and resourcing issues and handle crisis situations unique to the digital world. An element of competition heightens the intensity and engagement. Go beyond instruction. Transformer CLOs believe that instruction alone is not sufficient for meaningful learning. Accenture’s Varma anchors his approach in what he calls the three I’s: instruction, introspection, and immersion. Instruction comes first, of course. But then trainees need to engage in reflection—the introspection part of Varma’s three I’s. This might involve giving employees time to privately mull over what they’ve learned, having them talk it over with a fellow trainee on a walk, or providing a formal opportunity during class to discuss it with a whole cohort.

      This is something I've thought about before - is that often people are continually learning on the job, but there is not enough slack-time in the day to allow for people to engage with reflection

  5. May 2021
    1. Our institutions are colonial systems, the ivory towers render the people leading and running them to become disconnected from the very public they are supposed to be representing, ending up only serving themselves. “Do we have to burn it down and start again? Do we have to completely recalibrate it from the inside?

  6. Apr 2021
    1. Here are the economics: The cost of recruiting a midcareer software engineer (who earns $150,000- 200,000 per year) can be $30,000 or more including recruitment fees, advertising, and recruiting technology. This new hire also requires onboarding and has a potential turnover of two to three times higher than an internal recruit. By contrast, the cost to train and reskill an internal employee may be $20,000 or less, saving as much as $116,000 per person over three years.  The net savings: it can cost as much as 6-times more to hire from the outside than to build from within.
      • the cost of hiring talent vs upskilling talent
  7. Feb 2019
    1. For instance, an aborigine who possesses all of our basic sensory-mental-motor capabilities, but does not possess our background of indirect knowledge and procedure, cannot organize the proper direct actions necessary to drive a car through traffic, request a book from the library, call a committee meeting to discuss a tentative plan, call someone on the telephone, or compose a letter on the typewriter.

      In other words: culture. I'm pretty sure that Engelbart would agree with the statement that someone who could order a book from a library would likely not know the best way to find a nearby water source, as the right kind of aborigine would know. Collective intelligence is a monotonically increasing store of knowledge that is maintained through social learning -- not just social learning, but teaching. Many species engage in social learning, but humans are the only primates with visible sclera -- the whites of our eyeballs -- which enables even infants to track where their teacher/parent is looking. I think this function of culture is what Engelbart would call "C work"

      A Activity: 'Business as Usual'. The organization's day to day core business activity, such as customer engagement and support, product development, R&D, marketing, sales, accounting, legal, manufacturing (if any), etc. Examples: Aerospace - all the activities involved in producing a plane; Congress - passing legislation; Medicine - researching a cure for disease; Education - teaching and mentoring students; Professional Societies - advancing a field or discipline; Initiatives or Nonprofits - advancing a cause.
      
      B Activity: Improving how we do that. Improving how A work is done, asking 'How can we do this better?' Examples: adopting a new tool(s) or technique(s) for how we go about working together, pursuing leads, conducting research, designing, planning, understanding the customer, coordinating efforts, tracking issues, managing budgets, delivering internal services. Could be an individual introducing a new technique gleaned from reading, conferences, or networking with peers, or an internal initiative tasked with improving core capability within or across various A Activities.
      
      C Activity: Improving how we improve. Improving how B work is done, asking 'How can we improve the way we improve?' Examples: improving effectiveness of B Activity teams in how they foster relations with their A Activity customers, collaborate to identify needs and opportunities, research, innovate, and implement available solutions, incorporate input, feedback, and lessons learned, run pilot projects, etc. Could be a B Activity individual learning about new techniques for innovation teams (reading, conferences, networking), or an initiative, innovation team or improvement community engaging with B Activity and other key stakeholders to implement new/improved capability for one or more B activities.
      

      In other words, human culture, using language, artifacts, methodology, and training, bootstrapped collective intelligence; what Engelbart proposed, then was to apply C work to culture's bootstrapping capabilities.

    2. Our culture has evolved means for us to organize the little things we can do with our basic capabilities so that we can derive comprehension from truly complex situations, and accomplish the processes of deriving and implementing problem solutions. The ways in which human capabilities are thus extended are here called augmentation means, and we define four basic classes of them: 2a4 Artifacts—physical objects designed to provide for human comfort, for the manipulation of things or materials, and for the manipulation of symbols.2a4a Language—the way in which the individual parcels out the picture of his world into the concepts that his mind uses to model that world, and the symbols that he attaches to those concepts and uses in consciously manipulating the concepts ("thinking"). 2a4b Methodology—the methods, procedures, strategies, etc., with which an individual organizes his goal-centered (problem-solving) activity. 2a4c Training—the conditioning needed by the human being to bring his skills in using Means 1, 2, and 3 to the point where they are operationally effective. 2a4d The system we want to improve can thus be visualized as a trained human being together with his artifacts, language, and methodology. The explicit new system we contemplate will involve as artifacts computers, and computer-controlled information-storage, information-handling, and information-display devices. The aspects of the conceptual framework that are discussed here are primarily those relating to the human being's ability to make significant use of such equipment in an integrated system.

      To me, this is the most prescient of Engelbart's future visions, and the seed for future study of culture-technology co-evolution. I talked with Engelbart about this passage over the years and we agreed that although the power of the artifacts, from RAM to CPU speed to network bandwidth, had improved by the billionfold since 1962, the "softer" parts of the formula -- the language, methodology, and training -- have not advanced so much. Certainly language, training methods and pedagogy, and collaborative strategies have evolved with the growth and spread of digital media, but are still lagging. H/LAMT interests me even more today than it did thirty years ago because Engelbart unknowingly forecast the fundamental elements of what has come to be called cultural-biological co-evolution. I gave a TED talk in 2005, calling for an interdisciplinary study of human cooperation -- and obstacles to cooperation. It seems that in recent years an interdisciplinary understanding has begun to emerge. Joseph Henrich at Harvard, for one, in his recent book, The Secret of Our Success, noted:

      Drawing insights from lost European Explorers, clever chimpanzees, hunter-gatherers, cultural neuroscience, ancient bones and the human genome, Henrich shows that it’s not our general intelligence, innate brain power, or specialized mental abilities that explain our success. Instead, it’s our collective brains, which arise from a combination of our ability to learn selectively from each and our sociality. Our collective brains, which often operate outside of any individual’s conscious awareness, gradually produce increasingly complex, nuanced and subtle technological, linguistic and social products over generations.

      Tracking this back into the mist of our evolutionary past, and to the remote corners of the globe, Henrich shows how this non-genetic system of cultural inheritance has long driven human genetic evolution. By producing fire, cooking, water containers, tracking know-how, plant knowledge, words, hunting strategies and projectiles, culture-driven genetic evolution expanded our brains, shaped our anatomy and physiology, and influenced our psychology, making us into the world’s only living cultural species. Only by understanding cultural evolution, can we understand human genetic evolution.

      Henrich, Boyd, and RIcherson wrote, about the social fundamentals that distinguish human culture's methods of evolving collective intelligence in The Origin and Evolution of Culture:

      Surely, without punishment, language, technology, individual intelligence and inventiveness, ready establishment of reciprocal arrangements, prestige systems and solutions to games of coordination, our societies would take on a distinctly different cast. Thus, a major constraint on explanations of human sociality is its systemic structure

    1. The kind of participatory connected learning experiences that we are advocating for arenot easily described

      What are some ways we who seem to "grok" participatory connected learning (or think we do) can make this concept more accessible to colleagues who lament the failure of "sit-and-get" faculty development/PD, but don't know what to do next? I was reminded of this a few days ago in a "mixed" meeting of faculty, staff, and administrators. We all meant well, but could have done better in planning some upcoming sessions that (we hope) will become a Community of Practice. I think a way to describe participatory culture in a room full of people who don't already know Henry Jenkins and Mimi Ito would help.

  8. Jul 2018
    1. This system of demonstrating tasks to one robot that can then transfer its skills to other robots with different body shapes, strengths, and constraints might just be the first step toward independent social learning in robots. From there, we might be on the road to creating cultured robots.
    2. Soon we might add robots to this list. While our fanciful desert scene of robots teaching each other how to defuse bombs lies in the distant future, robots are beginning to learn socially. If one day robots start to develop and share knowledge independently of humans, might that be the seed for robot culture?
    3. If we didn’t have social learning, we wouldn’t have culture. As zoologists Kevin Laland and Will Hoppitt argue, “culture is built upon socially learned and socially transmitted information.” Socially acquired knowledge is distinct from what we learn individually and from information inherited through genes or through imitation.
  9. Sep 2015