‘Engage for Success’ by Richard Moorer, Training Journal, April 2013

The Training Journal should be concerned about the proportion of their articles which come from consultants trying to sell their wares, as opposed  to learning professionals in companies who are facing the practical problems of implementation.  This is not to suggest that consultants cannot come up with new ideas and concepts - in fact they are a major source of innovation - but articles like this, making too many statements of the blindingly obvious, do not easily convince the sceptical reader.

The author’s precise title is a ‘Solution Architect’ and he starts by confirming the benefits of an engaged workforce - hardly something you could argue with - and suggests that an effective Learning and Development strategy needs to be built around this need for engagement.   It is then argued that engagement will only take place if two criteria are met:

·         Consultation with each individual about their learning needs and

·         A clear link to performance and progression in those consultations

The suggestion is that, too often, the silo-based  nature of organisation structures means that learning and performance are not linked closely enough and this is the main cause of lack of engagement.  Whilst this point is valid to some extent, there is much evidence to suggest that there are many other factors at work, in particular the different nature of organisational cultures.  Those who have run courses for companies will know that there are some cultures where there is instant engagement in learning, a feeling that the participants are lucky to be there and that any course is a great opportunity.  Yet there are others where the negative atmosphere is obvious from the start and there is a fight to create interest.  While the above engagement factors may be part of this, our experience is that the causes go much deeper, for instance the example set at the top of the organisation and the history of  commitment to learning.

Whatever the cause, it is wrong to assume that diagnosing this lack of engagement as the key issue will necessarily solve the problem, particularly if the reasons are deep within the culture.  I have a similar reservation when it comes to the second key point made in the article, the need to link everyone’s learning plans to the company’s strategic goals.  This is obviously ideal but not as easy as the author makes it sound.

It is this lack of practical guidance on how to produce the necessary linkages that makes this article frustrating and reminds you of the common complaint about management consultants; they diagnose problems and suggest generalised outcomes, but without enough practical suggestions on how to get there.  Nor is there any acceptance of the challenges involved in linking individual needs to company priorities and strategy; for instance what happens if the two are not compatible.  In reality you cannot give everyone what they want and sometimes employees and managers are not aware of what is possible and necessary for their development.

There is an interesting reference to the use of e-learning as a way of personalising training and increasing motivation; the suggestion is that e-learning is ‘highly efficient, customised and cost-effective as a way of delivering training’.  This is questionable at a number of levels.  Firstly e-learning is not always motivating,  indeed it can be a lonely experience for those who like to learn with others; and our experience with using e-learning as pre-work for courses is that the take-up can be disappointingly low.  Though customising to individual needs may be feasible in some cases, the customisation to company language and issues may require significant investment and can be the opposite of cost effective for the business as a whole.

There is also a useful reference to the need for e-learning to be available on mobile devices as well as through more conventional PCs.  The valid point is made that any customised e-learning must be more than transferring ‘face to face’ learning material to that format; there must be a re-think of how people learn on PCs and mobile devices.  I would also like to have seen reference to the need for the highest possible levels of interaction, not a feature of many existing e-learning programmes.  MTP has found this to be the key to our success with e-learning and virtual classroom delivery.

This article is very good at stating the desired end state.  It is however weak when it comes to providing real guidance on how to arrive at this perfectly integrated and harmonised situation, with individual learning and organisational objectives perfectly aligned and  everyone motivated towards strategic goals.  Perhaps the author believes that readers will require him as a ‘Solution Architect’ to achieve this nirvana; a more practical approach would have provided a more convincing argument. 

Read the original article;
http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2013-04-01-engage-for-success/