‘The industrialisation of informal learning’ by Vincent Belliveau and ‘How managers learn’ by Peter Casebow, Training Journal, July 2010

This is the other big bandwagon in learning circles and it is one that forward thinking learning professionals cannot ignore. The development of Facebook and similar networks has changed the way that people communicate with each other and this is something to be embraced rather than ignored.

I am combining my reviews of the two articles because they follow on from each other and have similar themes. The key argument is that most management learning comes from informal interactions with colleagues and this trend is increasing all the time. Therefore learning professionals need to change their mindset away from conventional formal approaches to training and become involved with the informal side.

My initial response is that, though the opportunities may have grown because of the Internet, informal learning has always been important and it has never caused more formal training programmes to be unnecessary. It is true that the earliest advocate of the more informal approach – Reg Revans, founder of Action Learning - said that other ways of training were a waste of time but this extreme view has never been accepted within the learning community. All that is happening now is that the informal learning opportunities are more varied and can be harnessed more easily; if Reg Revans was still alive, I am sure he would be arguing for action learning sets through Facebook or MSN. He would however also be stressing the importance of a good facilitator and the need for direction.

The two articles clearly illustrate the challenge of trying to harness and influence informal learning channels; the first article argues strongly that employees learn most from informal communication with each other but there is no reference to whether they are learning good practice. It is possible for one manager to influence another to treat staff unfairly or discriminate in recruitment, this is learning but it encourages bad rather than good practice.

The article also argues that the biggest barrier to the development of informal learning is the average Learning Manager’s mindset. The temptation is to try to define and control in the same way as they do with more formal approaches; instead they must be prepared to provide opportunities but relinquish power. However the argument is still based on one questionable assumption - that all informal learning is good. There is an attempt to counter this point by saying that bad advice is acceptable because the manager will realise and learn from it later but this strikes me as optimistic in the extreme.

The second article mentions how training managers may overestimate the positive impact of their formal courses but fails to mention that this is also possible with informal learning. And while evaluation of conventional courses may be challenging, it is many times more difficult when informal methods are used.

The dilemma is - how far can informal learning be influenced and to what extent should learning professionals try to grasp the nettle? These articles say that we should encourage an atmosphere and provide resources for informal learning to flourish but do not really address the issue of who is to provide direction and quality control.

To read this article go to:
http://www.trainingjournal.com/