Comments on: Performance, training, education and learning

By: Harold Jarche » Learning through social networks

Harold Jarche » Learning through social networks — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:08:14 +0000

[...] year I put down some working definitions in the field of performance and learning: My own working definitions of these terms [these are not [...]

By: Dave Ferguson

Dave Ferguson — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:08:11 +0000

Jennifer, I think you’re largely on target. “Due diligence” as you describe it is often a polite way of saying “sheep-dipped.” E.g., if as a corporation I’ve required all my employees to complete a course on EEO and sexual-harassment rules, then if someone sues because an employee violates those rules, I have an immediate defense that all employees knew, or should have known, the requirements.

The first thing the lawyers will ask for in discovery is the content of the training course; the second is the roster that proves you attended it. Arguments about how learning occurs won’t go far in court.

For most of last year, I was heavily involved in procedures relating to pharmaceutical manufacturing. I haven’t thought too much about what the alternative would be to the existing system of voluminous standard operating procedures combined with employee training, much of it “read and understand.” (That is, read the update to the SOP, and sign to say you understand what you read.)

I say “alternative” in terms of what could demonstrate capability to, say, the Food and Drug Administration.

By: Harold

Harold — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:27:04 +0000

It seems the health & safety regulators have bought into the notion that a course equates to performance (NOT). The company understands performance, in that they know that they have to run a course to get certified.

By: Jennifer Nicol

Jennifer Nicol — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 23:37:48 +0000

Are we talking about what training goals SHOULD be (at least in our esteemed opinions!) or what they ARE.
I recently heard an HR type from my organization say that the purpose of a mandatory e-learning course on occupational health and safety was to allow the organization to demonstrate it had fulfilled its “due dilegence” in making sure we know the rules. Silly me, I thought it was so we would work more safely!

Perhaps we need a “Devil’s Dictionary” of training, a la Ambrose Bierce.

By: Harold

Harold — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:59:57 +0000

Thanks, Dave. I too would like to drop the “e”, but that’s a minor point. As you say, talking isn’t training, but most of it is still designed that way.

By: Dave Ferguson

Dave Ferguson — Sun, 01 Jun 2008 01:55:44 +0000

As always, I’d like to drop the e- out of some of this stuff, but I certainly agree that “learning” isn’t the only word that applies.

Most of us work for organizations, and organizations (whether GE, the FAA, the Nebraska legislature, or the the Society of Jesus) are about performance. Some of them measure the results of the performance in terms of profit, some in term of services delivered, some perhaps in terms of remuneration of the incumbents.

I like your separation of training, education, and learning. It’s hard for many leaders in organizations to realize that you can’t make people learn. (It’s hard for some of them to realize that talking isn’t teaching.)

A focus on performance means that an organization can say, in effect, “these are the things we need you to accomplish in your job.” For some of those accomplishments, the organization recognizes that people don’t know how to achieve them, and so it provides training. More and more I think “training” applies mainly to fundamentals for newcomers (“how to process an auto loan”).

Beyond those basics, the organization can set out the accomplishments and standards, and can support individuals in finding effective ways to achieve those things.

That’s a lot messier than what’s gone on in the past, but if pressed many people will agree that the status quo hasn’t necessarily produced tidy results.