MindLeaders: Fueling the Learning Revolution

Is Sourcing Talent Easier or Harder in a Recession?

The economic indicators may be showing signs of life, but the US economy is still in recovery and will be for some time. Since the labor market lags economic recovery, a surplus of labor is now available for hire. As companies move to snatch up key talent that might not otherwise be available (or affordable), is their job easier or harder?

The quick answer is to say easier. After all, there’s a lot of extra labor out there looking for work. Many of those are extremely talented folks who simply had the misfortune of working for a company who wasn’t set up to survive the recession very well. But there are also a lot of B and C level employees who were in the rounds of layoffs because they are B and C level employees. And then there is the sheer number of applicants regardless of what level of employee they are.

A recent MSNBC article showed that JC Penney received more than 15,000 applications for 500 job postings at a new Manhattan store. I think JC Penney is not alone. Many hiring employers are finding themselves under a deluge of resumes. And that’s not the only issue.

The longer people are out of work, the more desperate they become for a job. The more willing they are to go out on a limb and try to change careers. The more likely it is that they will apply for a job that they aren’t necessarily qualified for in the hope that maybe things will work out.

Yes, there is some great talent out there. And for companies in a good position to start growing, the time is ripe to snatch them up. But they are going to have to wade through a lot of resumes and have some good screening processes to find the true A level employees. So I think the answer is that finding that A level talent is harder.

What do you think? Are you screening for talent now? Is it easier or harder with the number of folks out there looking for jobs?

Why Are We Compelled to Compare Classrooms and E-Learning?

It’s the inevitable thing that happens if you’ve been in the business of providing e-learning for more than five minutes. At some point someone will turn to you and say, “But it’s not the same as being in a classroom.” Not to state the obvious, but “well, duh.”

The interesting thing here is the implication of classroom training being the gold standard. And that’s the real issue. Because most of us have gone through the public school system, the classroom experience is the one we are most familiar with. But familiarity hardly makes for an inherently superior learning experience.

Like all forms of training, the classroom experience has its strengths and weaknesses. Expecting e-learning to be a classroom experience is like expecting an apple to magically transform into an orange. On the other hand, dismissing e-learning as somehow subpar because it is not a classroom is poor logic. After all, you wouldn’t say that you can’t learn anything from a book or a hands-on experience simply because it didn’t happen in a classroom. As with a classroom, books and experiences simply have different strengths that lend themselves to particular kinds of learners and learning. That’s all.

So why are we compelled to compare? Well, comparisons do help bring a new thing into the range of most people’s experience. Yet e-learning is hardly brand new, and still the comparisons continue. Would it not be more productive to simply understand the things that e-learning does really well and capitalize on them when appropriate? Things like learning at one’s own pace, the ability to quickly review a presented point, being able to search through content to easily find something, and the ability to immediately check learning and get feedback. All things that the classroom setting does relatively poorly.

What do you think? Is the classroom the gold standard in training? Are all the comparisons productive? Or is it simply better to pick the medium (or blend of mediums) that works best for the situation and move on?

The social media truth lies between the hype and the cynicism

There's a new variation of the classic "Did You Know" video about the ways our world is changing.

This one is called "Social Media Revolution" and, of course, focuses on statistics about social media, how rapidly it's expanding, and how we're using it.

The new video is guilty of hyperbole; the number of new Facebook users in the past year or is in no way equivalent to how long it took people to bring televisions into their homes. (Did You Know does a better job of presenting statistics validly.)

It's this kind of Oo-golly-wow-this-is-the-biggest-thing-EVAH hype that brings out the nay-sayers who pile mockery onto anything that smells of web 2.0 or social media as Just Another Fad.

There are two truths under all this: Society always shifts and changes, and social media is changing the way we communicate. Social media is not a be-all end-all, but it is part of a process.

 

I drew this as a linear progression, but that doesn't mean the earlier methods get abandoned - we still talk with our neighbors in our yard. But we're also just as likely to add them as friends in Facebook. And there's an arrow at the end because changes will keep coming, building on how we exchange information and keep in touch with the people we care about.

And for us trainers, this affects our delivery and methods, too - and it profoundly affects the expectations and learning styles of our students.

Don't get swept up by the hype, but don't refuse to explore new options, either. Sure, in 10 years we'll be laughing about how obsessed we were with Twitter and Facebook, but it'll be because we've moved on to bigger and better things. What worked in the past still has uses, but success depends on continually taking advantage of the new.

From Web 2.0 to Enterprise 2.0?

Jakob Nielsen recently released a report on the progress and impact of social networking tools on corporate intranets. Social networking isn’t a passing fad or a trend that can be ignored. As the pervasiveness of social networking tools grows, more people expect to be able to communicate with their friends, co-workers, companies, and customers in this way. For organizations, it means letting go of controlling every communication (which they really don’t anyway) and moving to Enterprise 2.0. For those that do, there are some benefits, including:

·        Breaking down communication barriers

·        Allowing workers to more easily collaborate to solve business problems

·        Engage workers who expect innovation and to share ideas at work

·        Capture and preserve information which is exchanged informally between co-workers (informal learning, anyone?)

·        Self policing communities

Most companies aren’t very far along with Enterprise 2.0. Efforts are largely being driven by grassroots efforts of front-line employees. Senior management, often as not, is a barrier since the perception is that these are “tools that teenagers use.” When considering Enterprise 2.0 tools, there are some best practices to keep in mind:

·        Choose tools that have capabilities to help solve specific business problems (rather than integrating whatever is “hot” on the web)

·        Integrate social tools into the main intranet to avoid double work and having the same content in two places

·        Know and allow the participation inequality that is part of most online communities. The lurkers will benefit from the content as much as those posting it.

·        Ban anonymity

·        Take a thoughtful and staged approach, consulting with employees when needed

You can read Nielsen’s full summary here and also access a link to purchase the complete case study. Where is your company on the Enterprise 2.0 scale?

Where Is Your Training Dollar Focused?

I read an interesting post on the Informal Learning Blog that had me pondering this very question. Where are most training dollars focused? My suspicion is that it’s the basics. Things like getting the newbies ramped up in their new jobs, teaching basic tasks in new software, and providing new managers the fundamentals.

But is this the best place to focus? The Pareto Principle tells us 20% of employees generate 80% of a company’s returns. Given the incredible impact of that 20% (read star performers), wouldn’t it make sense to focus more attention there? Taking a handful of average performers and turning them into superstars would make an incredible difference in bottom-line results. Talk about demonstrable ROI!

Of course, this is a tougher group to train. Taking a very good project manager and making them exceptional requires specialized content, maybe even personalized. Same goes for sales people or managers or developers. Each very good performer will have their own set of weaknesses which has to be improved to make them superstars. And with limited resources, training groups are often forced to focus on what can be given to the many to keep things running, rather than to the few that would move things to the next level. Some thoughts to consider if you’re trying to improve the results of your training program:

• Do you know which job titles in your organization drive 80% of the revenues?
• Do you know who the superstars are in that group?
• Do you know who the very good performers are in that group?
• Have you talked to either one?

What do you think? Are your training dollars focused on the basics? Or the 20%?

Can corporate policies keep people off Twitter and Facebook?

According to legend, news happens in threes, and in the past two days the news has given us three major employers - ESPN, the NFL, and the Marines - who have all put new social media policies in place. Each one has approached it differently and given us a wealth of object lessons in one week.

• ESPN released some "additional guidelines" for participating in social networking. They seem to have tripped over their shoes, though: when it happened, one of their workers immediately tweeted that they were now only allowed to tweet for ESPN directly. ESPN has spent the past day trying to clarify and says that their new guidelines are not intended to shut down social media use.
  
  It seems that ESPN's problems stem from their guidelines being pretty vague: how exactly do you interpret the guideline "The first and only priority is to serve ESPN sanctioned efforts?" Is it really feasible to require that "Prior to engaging in any form of social networking dealing with sports, you must receive permission?" Other guidelines, like "Assume at all times you are representing ESPN" and "If you wouldn’t say it on the air or write it in your column, don’t tweet it" make much more sense.

• The NFL seems to be setting up policies that are more restrictive, but also more closely defined and, consequently, less open to misinterpretation. They seem to be putting restrictions on when their employees can tweet: they cannot tweet from meetings. (One glaring issue: this policy seems to only be apply to Twitter - how about a Facebook post? Oops.) The NFL already bans any kind of cell phones or computers on the sidelines, and the word is that Twitter restrictions may apply to game days in their entirety. It has the benefit of being clear, although it's a ham-handed approach. (But what else do you expect from football?) I can hear the hundreds of questions coming in already: What about after the game? What if my baby is born (or insert any other totally-non-game-related thing here) on a game day?
  
  There will always be events within an organization that are secret and cannot be spread yet. The NFL is trying to approach these with a sledgehammer, but the germ of an age-old idea is there: some projects or meetings must begin with "And by the way, this is company confidential, please don't share this outside these walls." With extra emphasis in these social media times.

• The Marines have banned Twitter, Facebook, and MySpace entirely from their computers. I give them a large pass on making that kind of blanket approach, since unlike most offices, when Marines are on duty it's truly a 24/7 life. But even the Marines have only put the ban in place for a year while they sort out security issues, and only for the military computers - so in theory, marines who aren't deployed can still log into Facebook, etc. from home at the end of the day. What kind of guidance is the Marines giving to their marines for that home use?

It's smart - and becoming essential - to provide your organization with guidance and education about the proper use of social networks. The spread of information is like a flood: you can't stop it, but you can do a lot to channel it in directions you'd rather it go.

For a couple of stellar examples of corporate Web 2.0 policies, IBM and Sun have made theirs publicly available and are great examples to take inspiration from if you need to build up your own.

Knowledge Workers and a Culture of Learning

Why do some organizations have a culture of learning and others don’t? As with most things, it boils down to the day to day choices that make up a group’s culture. And many of those choices have little to do with the company’s learning program. Like the way managers treat their employees and how employees view their company. Those views can make a big difference in attitude, engagement, performance, and learning culture.

Most of today’s workers are knowledge workers. So here’s the question. Does your organization treat them like knowledge workers? Is it ok for them to learn and teach on the job? Do managers set clear objectives and then allow workers to manage themselves in achieving those objectives? Is quality of work at least as important as quantity of output? Are workers regarded as an asset or an expense?

As you might guess, the more questions you answer "yes" to, the more likely it is that a culture of learning exists or is easy to facilitiate. As for those answering "no" to most of the questions, well I'm assuming that a culture of learning is the least of many problems.

Many of these questions correlate to Peter Drucker’s six principles of managing knowledge worker productivity, but productivity is the least of the gains. Treating knowledge workers like knowledge workers, with respect and regard for their ideas fosters a lot more than productivity. It fosters collaboration, engagement, and innovation. And yes, even a culture of learning.

How does your organization rate? Do you see a correlation between appropriate management of knowledge workers and a learning culture?

Do You Know What's Next?

The economic news is turning optimistic. Last week several economic indicators came in ahead of expectations. Foreclosures in some of the hardest hit states are starting to stabilize. Geithner is quoted as saying that the economy is beginning to recover. The stock market is continuing to rise. Unemployment is still high, but perhaps the worse really is behind us.

If that’s true, do you know what’s next? I don’t mean for the economy. I mean for your learning program? This past year has hit many learning programs hard. Many have been hunkered down, cutting costs and just trying to survive. But now that things are slowly improving, companies will begin positioning themselves for the next cycle of growth. Are you ready to help your company do this? 

Something to consider is working with your company’s talent management program (or starting one). Learning programs are key to talent management programs (see our white paper). And effective talent management is key to a company’s success. Consider recent research from Bersin and Associates which points to the incredible business returns experienced by those with intermediate or advanced talent management programs.

·        They have 17% lower voluntary turnover rates

·        They have 41% lower turnover rates among high performers

·        Their median revenue per employee is 26% higher

·        They are 28% less likely to have had a major layoff in 2009

·        They are 109% more capable of retaining high performers

·        They are 87% more capable of “hiring the best people”

·        They are 92% better at “responding to current economic conditions”

·        They are 144% better at “planning for future talent needs”

So if you don’t know what’s next for your learning program, talent management seems like a great place to start. What do you think? Are things starting to turn around? What’s next for your program?