How to make Social Learning work

‘Building a Social Learning Strategy’ by Randy Emelo, Training Journal, November 2013

The evidence from our discussions with clients and, in particular from our Learning Effectiveness Network meetings, is that ‘Social Learning’ is the biggest issue on the minds of many learning professionals right now. And this article makes a good attempt at defining exactly what Social Learning is and what is necessary to make it work.

Spaced-out Learning

‘Spaced-out Learning’ by Howard Kiewe (talking to Harvard’s Dr Price Kerfoot) Training Journal, October 2013

I visited Harvard University many years ago and was immediately struck by the elegant atmosphere of the place.  I also observed the reverence of the students for their professors and the lack of challenge to the latter’s concepts and generalisations.  I was at Ashridge Business School at the time and was used to stroppy managers challenging every assertion; I recall being amazed and jealous at the same time.  It showed me that the power of the brand can extend to management education and the magic of Harvard’s reputation is still around today.

What can we learn from Sir Alex Ferguson?

‘Ferguson Formula’ by Anita Elberse, Harvard Business Review, October 2013

I could not resist reviewing this article.  Who would have thought that a former dock worker and rather average Scottish centre forward, who moved into management at the early age of 32, would end up as an example of best management practice in Harvard Business Review?

The article was written in parallel with Sir Alex Ferguson’s visit to Harvard where his class was apparently ‘standing room only’.

Time to ‘Rewire your learning'?

‘Rewire your learning’ by Gerry Griffin, Training Journal, September 2013

This author is billed as the founder of ‘Skill-Pill Learning’, a company name which immediately made me want to challenge everything he writes.  But, having overcome my prejudice, I found the article to be thought provoking, covering the key issues that learning professionals should be addressing as the world of technology and social behaviour change the way we deliver learning.

The Making of Tesco - book review

‘The Making of Tesco’ by Sarah Ryle, Published by Bantam Press

It was not a good start to read on the cover that the author is from Tesco’s Corporate Affairs team.  I was therefore quite surprised to find it to be an excellent book, surprisingly open and objective about the many challenges on the way to Tesco’s success. It is true that the self-criticism is stronger when it refers to the distant past but it is still more than would normally be expected from a company sponsored publication.

I may not be typical because of past involvement with Tesco but I found this to be a compelling story of rags to riches and of a brilliant entrepreneurial founder - Jack Cohen - who had to be displaced before the company could grow to its present size and reputation.

Can you curate?

'Can you curate?' by Sam Burrough and Elizabeth Eyre, Training Journal, September 2013

I like to read and review articles in which a new term or concept is being introduced, to make sure that we are not exposed when talking to Learning & Development professionals.  I personally try - not always successfully - to resist the temptation to say that new concepts are in fact not new at all, but are instead merely the recycling of old principles under a new label. And, sure enough, as I read the first few paragraphs of this article, I could not see that 'curation' was anything new or relevant.  Surely curating is something done by museum staff, rather than anything to do with Learning & Development. 

How experts gain influence

‘How experts gain influence’ by Anette Mikes, Matthew Hall and Yuval Millo, Harvard Business Review, July/August 2013

There are a number of features that make this article in the Harvard Business Review unusual and, for me, worthy of special attention.  Firstly it is by three Brits who have done well to get their work into such a prestigious publication; secondly all three authors have titles that show a financial specialisation.  Accountants writing about influencing may seem an odd combination but, to all of us at MTP, this is of particular interest after our recent research on Finance Business Partnering.  Influencing is seen as a key skill by all those companies who contributed to our research.

Assessing the impact of Baby Boomers' retirement

‘Accelerated Skills Development’ by Sam Ponzo (Dupont), Training Journal, August 2013

I chose this article for review because, unusually in this particular journal, it is written by someone in an Learning & Development role in a major company, rather than the usual consultants selling their wares.  I have always had a sneaking admiration for Dupont because of the association with the famous ‘Dupont Hierarchy’ of financial ratios which we have shown to countless non-financial managers over the years. (But I was rather taken aback one day when a manager from Dupont told me that he had never heard of ‘their’ hierarchy!).

Brain networks & management behaviours

‘Your brain at work’ by Adam Waytz and Malia Mason, Harvard Business Review, July/August 2013

I chose this article to review because it seems to challenge some of the conventional thinking on the way in which the brain works.  It casts doubt on theories that we have come to accept as conventional wisdom, for instance that there are left and right hand sides of the brain that control different types of behaviour. 

The Real Business of IT - book review

‘The Real Business of IT’ by Richard Hunter and George Westerman, published by Harvard Business Press

This book has an impressive feel to it, with the Harvard endorsement and authors who represent a good combination of academia and consultancy.  Hunter is a VP from Gartner - well known as specialists in IT consulting - and Westerman is a researcher at MIT, another strong brand.  The credibility of the book is strengthened by references to their research and to real issues in top companies such as Intel.  It would have been good to have had more in-depth interviews but the clear conclusions and practical approach make up for this deficiency.

‘Align IT’ - book review

‘Align IT’ by Richard Wyatt-Haines, published by Wiley

This is the second book on the management of IT that I am reviewing as part of course development for a client.  The first was criticised for being too generic and lightweight, criticisms that could not be applied to this book.  This is a much more substantial work - over 400 pages - and is constantly relating points to IT; but it is not an easy read and I would expect most of those who buy it to use it for reference rather than to read through.

‘IT Leadership Manual – Roadmap to becoming a Trusted Business Partner’ - book review

‘IT Leadership Manual – Roadmap to becoming a Trusted Business Partner’ by Alan R Guibord

This book is one of three that I am reviewing to help in the development of supporting material for our new training programme on Business Partnering for managers in IT, which we recently piloted for British American Tobacco.  The above title suggested that this book would be directly relevant to this programme but, as I have found during many of my reviews, books do not always contain what is says on the cover.

The sad truth about this book is that reads more like a generic text on leadership, rather than a tailored manual for IT people.  It is not in any sense a manual; it makes limited references to IT and offers very little on business partnering.  It can therefore only be described as a disappointment for those who have the expectations built up by the title.

The coverage of leadership is quite readable and practical but the overall tone and level are pitched very much at those who are just starting on a management career.  The first half of the book is mainly focussed on the individual and self-awareness; it is not until chapter 5 that there is mention of the skills of relating to others and this topic is covered at a fairly obvious and basic level, for example:

·       -  ‘Be passionate’

·        - ‘Be honest’

·         -‘Be a good communicator’

·         -‘Build your own team’

There is coverage of the need to build relationships and to network but limited mention of specific skills and how to develop them; no guidance on empathy, questioning or challenging and only a cursory reference to influencing.  There is a helpful section on the need for an IT person to adopt a selling approach and to achieve consensus but no advice on how these skills can be developed and improved.

My main criticism of this book however is the absence of the two key elements promised by the title - references to IT and to business.  For someone whose biography mentions work with Oracle and Microsoft and claims to have held CIO positions, there are surprisingly few references to what happens in IT departments or major companies.  Where there are practical anecdotes, these are at a personal level, mainly from when the author ran Computerworld magazine.  And there are very few examples of interactions with colleagues in other functions, which is what a book on business partnering should be about.

The common failure to quote what happens in respected major companies is a regular theme of my book reviews.  It is of course much easier to sit at your desk and churn out generalisations.  I know from my recent book on Finance Business Partnering how difficult and messy it is to get companies to agree to be quoted; it took us over six months to get BAT, Invensys, Rolls Royce, Shell and Unilever to agree to the chapters that featured them; but it was worth it in the end because it is the practices of companies like these that readers want to know about, not simplistic platitudes.

After finishing the book I looked at the index, just to check that my overall impression was backed up by the references there.  My views were confirmed.  No references to big companies, few references to IT, hardly any mentions of business partnering.  This book could only be of benefit to someone just starting their career as a very general and basic ‘101’ on leadership.

Buy the book here 

‘Re-appraising appraisals’

‘Re-appraising appraisals’ by Tim Baker, Training Journal, July 2013

This article caught my eye because the topic of appraisal is of interest - and often the subject of vigorous debate - for most managers and particularly for those in Learning & Development.  It is unusual for anyone we meet on courses to shower praise on their organisation’s appraisal system; more often there are complaints that the process is a waste of time or fails to happen as it should. 

The author starts with a transcript of the famous appraisal interview in ‘The Office’ television series and, though this is a nice reference, it doesn’t seem quite so funny in writing and goes on rather too long.  But the point is made; in the wrong hands appraisal interviews can be a disaster, particularly if the system is over-formalised to comply with a group mandate. 

The author’s contention is that the conventional appraisal system does not work.  His justification for this is his research into 2,000 managers and HR professionals in Australia and New Zealand.  He does not present any evidence to prove that this response would also apply in other regions but I have no doubt that it would.  But I am also convinced that you would find a similar response if you asked about budgeting or strategic planning systems in big companies; any system which is imposed top down is seen as providing little value to those who have to cope with the detail.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is not benefit to the company as a whole.

The adjectives quoted to describe the problems of appraisal systems include costly, destructive, formal and stressful; other complaints included form filling, monologue and a lack of follow up. This is very much in line with concerns we have heard about when organising courses and were no surprise.  But the research only begs the question - what else would replace it?  The author admits that performance management is one of the most challenging issues that companies face and that good feedback is the key to success. So an alternative is needed.

The alternative suggested by the author is a framework of five conversations, to take place over six months.  Each conversation has a separate topic and these are:

·     Climate review

·     Strengths and talents

·     Opportunities for growth

·     Learning and Development

·     Innovation and improvement

My initial reaction to this was that it feels time consuming ,a complaint that is often made about appraisal systems; ‘we just haven’t had time to fix a meeting’ is a common whinge, often from those who are looking to avoid the interview.  Finding space in the diary ten times a year sounds even more time heavy but then I read on to find that each conversation should take about 15 minutes.  This may allay complaints about time commitment but it is difficult to imagine meaningful conversations on such wide-ranging topics in that timescale.  An hour would seem realistic and ten hours a year is perhaps not unreasonable for something as important as this.  Whether managers would in practice remember to fit ten such meetings is another matter; I wondered why not once a month, which might be easier to remember and to fit into calendars on a regular basis.

The article describes the likely agenda for each conversation and there is nothing that one could argue with; the themes are very much what a good appraisal interview would cover anyway.  What this framework seems to be doing is spreading it over a longer period, which may have its advantages but also raises questions of practicality.  Would managers be more likely to comply with this system and why would the complaints above not apply in just the same way?  Calling a meeting a conversation doesn’t necessarily change the dynamic though it is possible that more frequent meetings might lower the stress levels.  A further concern around time is that the author argues for each meeting to be recorded in writing but with ‘simplified templates’ which I guess everybody involved in any kind of appraisal would want to see.

A more convincing argument is that the separate meeting on Learning & Develoment would allow more focus on that aspect of the appraisal, though dealing with strengths/talents and L & D as separate topics might not ensure the best possible linkage.  Less convincing was the author’s rather vague claim that ‘several organisations have replaced their old appraisal system with the Five Conversations framework’ and ‘the feedback has been generally very positive’. As I often remark in my article reviews, it is difficult to achieve credibility without named examples of real success; most organisations do not mind being mentioned if the product is good and even a description of the size and sector of the companies involved would make the claim more credible.

This article introduces an interesting and different approach to appraisal but seems to depend rather too much on management discipline to ensure that such regular meetings are held.  When choosing this article to review, I had hoped for more depth on the psychological aspects of appraisal; I remember once reading an article that claimed that appraisals were doomed to failure for a different reason; because most people think that their performance is better than it really is and better than most of their peers.  Thus appraisals are always going to disappoint.  Exploring that issue would be more interesting than this article’s emphasis on changing the title and the frequency.

Read the article here

‘Think like Zuck’ - a book review

‘Think like Zuck’ by Ekaterina Walter, published by McGraw Hill

I came across this new book, hot off the press, while in the USA recently. It was selling so quickly that the book store had to take the last copy out of the window for me. The book follows the trend first started in the 1980s when Tom Peters and Bob Waterman had the bright idea that the best way to learn about management is to follow the actions of managers in successful companies. Their book ‘In Search of Excellence’ sold a million copies and many authors have followed the same pattern since, as typified by the several authors who have tried to capture in print the magic of Apple’s Steve Jobs.

This book is a similar attempt, but directed at Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Facebook, whose story was captured in the film Social Network and who has become an icon of the emerging world of social media. The timing of the release of the book is perhaps unfortunate as we find that ‘Zuck’ - as the author calls him throughout - has recently had to apologise to those who bought shares when first offered to the public a year ago. Their value has gone down by a third and there are well publicised concerns about decline in market share.

But on the positive side, the guy has created a company which is worth 60 billion dollars so it would be churlish to suggest that we cannot learn from what he has created. We don’t have to like him – and if you believe the film there is not much to like – but we can still take lessons from his experiences. This is certainly the contention of the author though the sycophantic tone of the introduction does make one wonder whether the analysis has been sufficiently objective. The description of the amazing growth of Facebook in the first chapter is quite selective, with nothing about the disputes with the Winklevoss twins and the forcing out of his fellow founder Eduardo Saverin, stories that made such good drama in the film.

It becomes obvious early on that the author has not had any direct cooperation from Zuckerberg and his company but has instead tried, from afar, to conceptualise the essential ingredients of such dramatic success. The implied assumption is that there are lessons to learn that can be applied elsewhere by readers who follow the same principles, just as we should have done when we read books about Apple and Google. The alternative view – which is perhaps too negative – is that maybe these guys just had uniquely brilliant ideas at the right time and/or were just luckier than you and me!

Whatever reservations we may have about this type of book, it is worth examining what the author has come up with as Zuck's secrets of success. These are classified into five key elements, each of which provides the basis of one chapter. However, I began to have even more concerns about the book’s conceptual rigour when I saw that these five elements all begin with a 'P', just like the five principles of marketing. These are different ‘P’s which are shown below:
- Passion
- Purpose
- People
- Product
- Partnerships


On the positive side, each chapter does make some good points about successful management of a growing business but I never felt that these points are unique to Facebook; successful executives in almost any business would emphasise the importance of being passionate about the business, of having a purpose that makes a difference to the world, the need to hire great people and to ease out those who are not integrating with the culture.

These are the sort of messages that are delivered and which it is difficult to argue with. In some cases the book veers too much into clichés and statements of the blindingly obvious; 'Passion + Action = Results' was one unfortunate example; 'successful leaders are purpose driven' another. There were a few references to other major companies – with Apple getting most mentions – but the only other company discussed in detail is one called Zappos, apparently an example of good people management and a winning culture. I did like the framework they use to describe their culture but then found out that the company – an on-line shoe retailer which I had not heard of before – was sold to Amazon in 2009. I would have preferred to hear more about Amazon and how it integrates such corporate cultures with its own.

The chapter on Partnerships does contain some interesting points and focusses particularly on Zuckerberg's partnership with Sheryl Sandberg, his Chief Operating Officer. The author’s model of the need for 'Visionaries to combine with Builders' is an interesting one and follows much the same arguments that were used by Google's founders when they brought in Eric Schmidt to run the business at a crucial point in their growth cycle. But as I read about Zuckerberg's capacity for partnerships, my mind went back to the film and the treatment of his school-friend Saverin, the break-up of his relationship with Sean Parker. I know it was only a film but other books on Facebook have told the same stories; the author loses credibility by being too selective and not showing both sides of Zuckerberg’s management style.

But despite all these reservations it is an interesting read, with some good learning for those with limited experience of management thinking. But don’t think that the content – in particular the five P's – were necessarily the key drivers of Facebook's extraordinary success. They are just good management principles that we should all try to apply. But we might also need a brilliant idea at the right time – and an awful lot of luck – to create a $60 Billion company!

Buy the book

Making your audience care

'Make me care’ by Martin Sykes, Training Journal, June 2013 

I chose this article to review for two reasons. Firstly the author is from Microsoft and you get so few articles written by people from top companies; secondly, the topic is around the skills of presentation, which often get overlooked with the modern emphasis on interaction and group activities. Certainly our experience of working with top companies is that many of their managers need to improve their presentation skills; in many cases their potentially excellent messages are lost in an excess of data, thrown together on Powerpoint without too much thought. Senior finance people are the worst culprits but they are not alone.

So what is the Microsoft message? The interesting title provides a clue; the author says that more important than preparing technically perfect content or jazzy slides, is thinking about the needs of your audience, caring about what and how they learn. These may be obvious points to the experienced trainer but they are well made here; even those of us who are experienced can fall into the trap of meeting our own needs.

One of the key messages of the article is the importance of relevance and the need to be able to say, right up front, why this learning is important and what it can do for those who are being asked to listen. Again this may seem obvious but it is easy to forget and the discipline of answering that question before each presentation is a good one. Our experience at MTP is that this question is even more effective at the development stage, to ask the programme sponsor what participants will gain from the experience; the WIIFM question – what’s in it for me? The author uses another phrase to make the same point – Cui Bono or ‘for whose benefit?’

The author then moves on to a related point about the need to tailor the material and the messages to each different audience, rather than assuming that you can get away with generic content each time. Again this is a message very close to our hearts at MTP because our whole business is founded upon the need to tailor learning to company culture and practices. In a broader context it is the reason why so many generic, public courses run by Business Schools and Consultancies have ceased to exist.

The author’s further argument is that a key part of tailoring material is knowing what to leave out. So often the presenter - particularly the technical person who loves his subject - wants to show everything, often assuming that others have the same aptitude and affection for the subject. Finance Managers presenting columns of figures are a good example of this problem. The key skill is being able to select material and to do this according to the relevance and learning capacity of the audience.

The article’s other key message is the importance of telling relevant stories as a way of engaging the audience. He encourages presenters to tell stories that are personal to them, as this will engage the emotions more than one about somebody else. However the principle of relevance should ensure that the personal story is not about self-aggrandisement and is restricted to the required learning, with no unnecessary detail. The suggestion is that each story should contain three elements, why, what and how, with the how being the confirmation of relevance and likely action. (This reference to stories reminds me of an occasion in the early days of MTP when I heard a relatively new tutor telling a ‘personal’ story of what had happened to me many years before. I asked him afterwards where he got the story from and he said it was from another MTP tutor who had obviously sat in on one of my sessions!)

Another framework for presentations is suggested by the author and that is CAST. CAST is again no more than good training practice but it allows the author to reinforce the main principles:
• Content that the participants needs to understand
• Audience; relate to their learning style and capacity
• Story with the right structure
• Techniques of learning that are appropriate

The last bullet point adds another valid message. Powerpoint is not always the best medium for learning; sometimes it can be a whiteboard, sometimes a hand out, sometimes nothing at all. I would also have added two other related points; firstly that sometimes the presentation is not the best way of getting the message over, group work or a Q&A session may often be more effective; and secondly, the best results may come from a mix of learning media.

This article may not add much for the experienced and successful presenter and would probably be wasted on those who have been involved in training for some time; one would hope and expect that they have found out these principles for themselves. But for the inexperienced presenter who is failing to meet the needs of audiences, the article could be very valuable. My only criticism would be a failure to emphasise the importance, and the skills, of achieving interaction and generating discussion, but perhaps that would require another article.

Read the article here

Finance Business Partnering – the search for value

Our recent experience with clients such as Rolls-Royce, Shell and Unilever has found increasing use of Finance Business Partnering as the model for cross-functional communication and decision support.

Recognising that this subject has received little attention in academic and research circles, we have carried out our own extensive surveys and interviews with organisations such as Aviva, BBC, BAT, Diageo, Invensys, Roll-Royce, Shell and Unilever, and Alan Warner, one of MTP's founding partners, has written a newly published book on the subject. 

The book covers the topic from two complementary angles - the experience of MTP in developing learning programmes for world class companies and focused research into what these leading companies are actually doing, the challenges they face and the lessons learned. 

The concluding chapter then puts forward some provisional conclusions which should contribute to a healthy ongoing debate about the best ways to define, identify and develop the right set of skills for the Finance Business Partners of the future.

If you would like an electronic copy of the book at no charge, or more information on how MTP can support the development of Finance Business Partners in your organisation,  simply contact us either by email at learn@mtpplc.com or on 01296 423474. 

The New CFOs - a book review

The New CFOs; by Liz Mellon, David Nagel, Robert Lippert and Nigel Slack, published by Kogan Page.

I chose this book because it is highly relevant to our own work running courses for financial people from international companies; we do not normally deal at CFO level as our focus in on business partnering at operating unit level but it is interesting that many of the issues are the same.

I have mixed feelings when I see a book written by four authors and wonder how that can work, particularly as they are from different countries and backgrounds. Three come from the USA and one (Nigel Slack) from the UK and, as far as one can see from their biographies, their backgrounds are from general management and academia, rather than the Finance Function. It could be argued that this has some advantages and encourages objectivity but one would have expected at least one out of four to have worked in Finance. At times this lack of practical experience showed.

The book starts with an excellent four page foreword by Zarin Patel, CFO of the BBC, which could stand alone as a summary of what it takes to be a great CFO. In some ways this is a problem for the authors because this foreword creates expectations that are hard to follow. In particular it makes the reader hope for lots of views and examples from CFOs of similar stature but these are not forthcoming.

The week before reading this book, I came across a report from Ernst & Young titled ‘Finance forte – the future of finance leadership’. This was published in 2011 and contained no more than 30 pages, yet it was full of real life examples from top companies. It made interesting comparisons between the career routes of top CFOs, some MBAs, some accountants, some specialists in one sector, some who move around. But the impressive aspect was the companies they worked for;  GSK, Nestle, Phillips, Unilever etc.

In contrast, this book is very short on such examples; I only counted seven references to company CFOs and while Google and Siemens were impressive, GenPact, Liberty Africa, and UBM were less so. I know from our own recent book on Business Partnering that getting approval for inclusion of content from top companies can be laborious but four authors should have been able to produce more than this. Fictitious or disguised case studies in which Gordon or Larry have to decide how to work with Mark or Sally do not sit well and do not live up to the expectations from the title and the reputations of the authors.

So what is there in the book that is worth recommending? The second chapter on strategic leadership makes some very good points, stressing the importance of communication skills and the need to see things from a broad business perspective. These are very similar messages to those that we cover in our work on Finance Business Partnering; it is reassuring that this is reflected at higher levels too.

The later chapters on control and risk management also make some sound points but it was then that I began to wonder who this was aimed at. Would an aspiring or existing CFO need to be advised how to use the well-known risk matrix and be informed about the importance of robust controls? This confirmed my own conclusions that, once finance people rise to senior level, the emphasis should be on behavioural and business skills; it is unnecessary (or too late) to cover financial principles. And some of the content betrayed the lack of financial expertise of the authors - a definition of investment taken direct from Wikipedia was particularly unimpressive and ‘avoid being a number cruncher’ is not advice that any financially qualified person should need.

There was an attempt to provide a practical tool near the end - a questionnaire that allowed self-assessment of CFO potential on a five point scale. I was ready to be impressed until I saw some of the questions; are you a great communicator? Can you manage business risk? These are not great questions for a five point scale and should be someone else’s opinion rather than your own. It all added up to an impression that this book had been strung together by authors who have approached the topic in an academic rather than practical way.

So it is difficult to find a reason for recommending the book, apart from the foreword and the one chapter on strategic leadership. It is expensive to buy and not value for money. A good CFO would not see it as a worthwhile investment.

Postscript
I reviewed the electronic version and found that, unlike some previous e-books I have reviewed, it had a comprehensive index. The idea is potentially brilliant; you press the entry and it takes you to the page. Unfortunately the hit rate was only about 50%, which may have been my poor finger work but which I suspect was partly poor indexing. However, my overall impression was good; I had previously favoured hard copies of business books but the overall experience confirms my view that e-books are the way forward.

Buy the book here;
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-New-CFOs-Financial-Revolutionize/dp/0749465174

Developing & Improving MOOCs

‘You MOOC, iMOOC’ by Bob Little, Training Journal, May 2013

I have chosen this topic for this latest article review because MTP has recently been asked by two major clients to work with them to develop new learning material, using the MOOC approach.  We had not previously been involved in working this way and we are in the early stages of development; it looks to be an intriguing concept with much potential.

First let’s clarify the terminology by defining what must be the ugliest sounding name and acronym in the history of learning; MOOC stands for Massive Open Online Courses, a title which instantly grates on those of us who have been brought up to value tailored learning for relatively small groups.  But an ugly title and acronym should not make us pre-judge a new approach; it must be valued on its merits.  Effectively MOOC describes self-created online material which is offered to large numbers on an open access basis, usually with short and simplified content.

My overall impression is that the article is surprisingly negative about the central topic and, though this makes a pleasant change from typical Training Journal articles which push consultants’ products, I am not sure that this criticism is fairly balanced.  For instance it skirts over the significant economic benefit from making learning available to large numbers at a relatively low origination cost, particularly compared to conventional e-learning packages and virtual facilitation.

Apparently the doubtful distinction of inventing the term ‘MOOC’ goes to David Cornier in 2008, when he used it to describe a course offered by the University of Manitoba, and its main use so far has been in the Higher Education Sector.  The early part of the article argues that many applications of MOOC are repeating the mistakes of the early days of e-learning by producing text and pictures on screen, without opportunities for interaction.  Someone called Poonam Jaypuriya is quoted at length, complaining about the lack of interactivity and engagement; this is where the term ‘iMOOC’ is introduced, a name given by this person to MOOC which embraces interaction.

It is argued that this failure to create interaction leads to extremely high drop-out rates; Stanford have introduced courses of this type which have been offered to 100,000 people but admit to a drop-out rate of 85%.  This is believed to be due to information overload and a failure to take account of different knowledge levels.  The rather unambitious view seems to be that such drop-out rates are inevitable and that you still have large numbers of learners who would not otherwise have been reached.  My own preference would be to find ways of increasing the engagement levels.

One way of achieving this aim is through better quality material; the suggestion from the article is that much of the content is boring, reproducing lecture notes or showing bland videos, an approach that is bound to fail.  I would argue that there is a need to choose a mix of media, and add interactive features like multiple choice questions and ‘drag and drop’ options.  I would also argue that this learning approach requires that key skill that is so hard to find; the ability to structure potentially complex content in a way that is attractive, concise and simple while maintaining conceptual rigour.

However, the author argues that the truly effective MOOC must go further.  It must encourage interaction through other features that particularly appeal to younger users - simulations, games and, most important, the subsequent use of social media to share ideas and views on content. 

The ambitious goal is for MOOC to be the starting point for ‘Life-long networked learning’ whereby learners are brought together to explore and learn in a structured way after the initial MOOC input.  There should be pockets of learning sited around the web and the instructional design should have this as its main objective.  A number of ways of doing this are suggested and the words used make it sound much easier than it is in practice; aggregation to provide accessible web pages or newsletters, remixing and repurposing material to fit the needs of each participant; feeding forward, sharing material and ideas with others.  This felt to me like jargon being used to disguise how challenging this is; trying to structure something for which the appeal to participants is often its lack of structure.  And the author admits that the dependence on learner proactivity is a serious barrier to delivering this critical phase.

So my overall view is that the article is a useful description of MOOC and its strengths and weaknesses for someone who has not come across the concept before.  However, the author is too negative about failings which are more about poor learning design than about the concept itself.  With the right learning objectives and a commitment to tailoring, it can be a powerful new tool for cost effective learning.  The author is also perhaps too optimistic and superficial about the challenges of establishing a system of networked learning, a holy grail that is likely to be the subject of much searching for Learnning & Development professionals in the future.

Read the article;

http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/articles-features-2013-05-01-you-mooc-imooc/

Innovation as Usual by Paddy Miller and Thomas Wedell, HBR Press

This new book, by a professor at the Spanish Business School IESE and the Head of a New York consulting firm, challenges some conventional thinking about innovation, in particular the preference for away days and taking people out of the business to encourage ‘blue sky’ thinking.  Instead the argument is that innovation must not be separated from the job but must instead be part of the everyday activities of all key people, not just a chosen few.  All must be 'innovation architects' which, by no coincidence, happens to be the name of the co-author’s consultancy firm.

This argument is supported by emphasis on six key behaviours or, as they are described, ‘the 5+1 keystone behaviours’.  The extra one is that of persistence, without which the other five will wither.  These five behaviours have a chapter devoted to each of them, a nice simple structure that makes the book easy to navigate.  The five behaviours are:

·        -  Focus

·         - Connect

·         - Tweak

·         - Select

·         - Stealthstorm

All except the last bullet may seem rather obvious but there are important points made in each chapter, not necessarily breakthroughs in thinking but useful reminders of good practice.  The message around Focus is that it is important to provide key people with guidance around the areas where they should be thinking creatively, in particular the company’s strategy should make it clear where that focus should be.  ‘Focus beats freedom’ is their message.  Though this point is well argued, my initial response was that this is too dogmatic; there must be occasions when free thinking is desirable; more about this later.

The need to Connect is about having access to external sources, the key message being that true insight comes from contact with a range of perspectives; thus innovators must seek and be given opportunities to access external domains where the views of customers, competitors, suppliers and other external bodies can be sought.  It is also about maximising internal sharing, providing ‘creative space’ for this to happen.  The example quoted is Steve Jobs’ design of Apple’s headquarters to maximise opportunities for such interactions (it was surprising and perhaps significant that this was the book’s only mention of Apple, see later).

The arguments behind Tweak and Select are that there are usually too many ideas to implement so a process of filtering is essential.  Tweaking is about challenging because many initial ideas are flawed and need rejecting or changing at an early stage, for which there must be rigorous testing processes.  The further and less obvious point is that the normal selection processes contain inbuilt bias which affects judgment; there is a need to have systems which encourage objective, thorough analysis, irrespective of where the idea has come from.  This requires gatekeepers who have been properly trained and what the authors call a ‘engineered decision environment’.  This seems sensible but hardly different from the innovation funnel processes that exist in many top companies already and which are sometimes criticised for slowing down decision making.

Stealthstorm is a less obvious heading and is about the importance of managing ideas through the corporate culture and the political influences which impact decisions.  Rather than trying to remove innovators from the politics, there should be concerted efforts to embrace it, to remove anything which is counter cultural.  The idea is to encourage innovators to ‘play politics’, to use this as a positive factor to guide projects through the system.

At this stage of the book I began to feel frustration because I was looking for a debate about how this argument fitted with the other school of thought, that you must take innovators away from the politics and the culture if they are to be truly creative.  The most well-known example of this was Steve Jobs in his early Apple days, creating secret ‘Skunk-works’ where a team could work in isolation, away from the bureaucracy and culture.  The fact that the book does not quote this example or any others of its kind, suggests that it is only looking at one side of the argument.  I would like to have seen a debate and maybe some guidance on the different stages or types of innovation when the different approaches apply.

So in this sense the book disappoints, though it makes some valid points and provides some useful guidance for those who want to bring greater awareness of innovation into the normal workplace.  On balance however, I feel that its contents probably justify an HBR article rather than a book.  It is padded out with some rather obvious points and theoretical arguments.  It would also have benefitted from more examples from top companies; there were some good stories but too many were disguised or anonymous, thus reducing their impact.

Buy the book 

‘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/

The Trusted Advisor by David Maister, Charles Green and Robert Galford, published by Simon & Schuster

This is not a new book but thirteen years after publication, it is still to be found in book stores.  Also the wonders of Kindle and iBooks mean that we now have far easier access to works like this that pass the test of time.  My reason for choosing this book for review is that Maister’s ideas have seen a revival because of the increased development of the Business Partnering concept in major companies.  In MTP’s dealings with clients and other contacts with interest in this area, we have come across a number of favourable references to Maister’s concept of the Trusted Advisor, which is the title and central theme of the book.

It is true that the authors regard their main focus as professional selling but the content fits surprisingly well into the context of Business Partnering, including those operating within the Finance and IT Functions.  Indeed the messages seem just as relevant as the work of David Ulrich who specialises in Business Partnering though, in fairness, Ulrich has never claimed that his frameworks apply outside the specific HR context.

As might be gathered from the title, the authors regard trust as the essential ingredient in any successful business interaction, the ultimate goal for anyone who wants to be listened to.  Maister and his co-authors are very much into frameworks that can easily be recognised and applied.  Early on he refers to the four stages of a business relationship, moving through different bases as the partnership matures, from service to needs to relationship and finally to the ultimate goal of mutual trust.

We had already seen this four stage framework in our work on Finance Business Partnering but had not come across his other powerful framework - the ‘Trust Equation’ - before.  This seems to be both ingenious and insightful, containing the four essential factors in the establishment of trust - Credibility, Reliability, Intimacy and Self-orientation.  As you read the last of these four factors you feel that you want to challenge the framework because surely self-orientation is the last thing you need in a trusting relationship.  But this is where the ingenuity comes in; the equation requires the first three elements - C, R and I - to be divided by S for self-orientation so that the lower the S, the higher the T for Trust.  So the message is to think of the needs of others rather than self, an obvious point but one that is well made.

I was less keen on his five stage sequential process for trust building - engage, listen, frame, envision, commit - because it implies that there is a logical progression in building relationships, when clearly each one will be different and may require flexible approaches.  It also implies that the other parties are passively waiting for you to go through the five stages at your order and pace, when in reality they may have their own agenda and process.

The book is also strong on practical tips to apply content.  The chapter on listening skills is excellent and ends with 23 tips for good listening and 10 pitfalls to avoid.  This may seem over the top but it is all good common sense stuff.  The book is also easy to read and of reasonable length, about 200 pages.  Indeed most of the useful content for those interested in Business Partnering is in the first 120 pages. After this point there is a closer link to the selling process though the reader should not miss the final chapter which contains more practical guidance via a ‘quick impact list to gain trust’.  Some of this content is cheesy and blindingly obvious but there are also some memorable pieces of advice that any sales person or business partner should follow.  I particularly liked ‘never over-deliver or under-deliver, just deliver’ and ‘assigning blame will entrap me, taking responsibility will empower me’.

This book is highly recommended for those who want to improve their business relationships with partners and customers, internal and external.  It is perhaps a strength that Maister adopts a client selling orientation because that is what, to a large extent, business partnering is about.  And many of those that we see in service functions like HR, Finance and IT are having to come to terms with this challenge.  This book will help them along the way.

Buy the book;

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Trusted-Advisor-David-Maister/dp/0743207769/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1366032861&sr=8-1&keywords=The+Trusted+Advisor+by+David+Maister

‘Flying the Flag’ by Virginia Matthews, Director Magazine, March 2013

Like many in Director Magazine, this article promises more than it delivers and ultimately fails to justify the headline of the section in which it is placed - ‘The Expert – information you need from the people you know’.  The topic is the business position and strategies of the major UK business schools but the author fails to convince that there is expert knowledge available.  As is typical of too many Director articles, there are selective and self-serving quotes from those representing vested interests.

The first quote is from the Head of the Masters Programme at Cass (City University) Business School which has launched a joint programme in ‘quantitative finance’ with Singapore Management University.  The rather questionable claim is that ‘the pre-eminence of British Education is here to stay’, a claim that those at Harvard, INSEAD and IMD might want to question!  They might also roll their eyes at the further reference to the ‘UK’s great research and teaching standards’ and ‘extraordinary achievements’.  I believe that some of our business schools are pretty good but this is way over the top. 

Despite this questionable start, the article still provides some interesting information and insights into trends in management education.  It follows the quote from Cass by admitting that, though some UK institutions may be extending their influence abroad, the number of international students coming to UK business schools is in consistent decline.  Overall enrolment is at an eight year low and is 21% down on the numbers only three years ago. 

Just when it is in danger of becoming interesting, the article strays from its main theme when it tries to make references to the implications for SMEs - Small and Medium Enterprises - but the links are tenuous to say the least.  The Head of Henley’s Executive Education claims that the expansion of business education into Asia somehow opens opportunities for SMEs, with business schools offering inside knowledge and even arranging meetings for SME managers.

Apparently Henley is expanding physically into Asia with a wholly owned campus in Saudi Arabia and a planned launch into Malaysia.  Strathclyde Business School has chosen to make similar moves into Africa.  This strategic response to declining numbers at home is seen as the best way to counter increasing competition from the major consulting firms and specialist training organisations.  Despite the increase of on-line learning, Mike Brooks of Henley believes that ‘getting on a plane to deliver learning remains the best option for delivery to students’.

This is still in line with the views of many buyers in top international companies - though increasing numbers are changing their mind as virtual classroom technology and expertise develops - but it does beg the question of why you therefore need a campus in Saudi Arabia as a base for those who are to catch the planes.  MTP’s experience is that the physical location of those who deliver business training is becoming less and less important, it is the ability to be flexible and to tailor material to each company and culture that matters.  And those who try to compensate for falling numbers in the UK by establishing expensive overheads abroad are exposing themselves to much higher risk.

There is however no doubt that the route of collaboration with institutions in other countries can pay off and the IOD finds room in the article to describe its own educational activities in a wide range of countries.  The author quite reasonably asks the IOD’s Director of Learning & Development, Ryan Ahearn, why countries that are wanting to develop their own skills should look to the UK and the answer is that ‘the UK’s professional qualifications are well respected overseas’.   Ahearn suggests that partnership with local institutions is the way forward, helping such organisations to develop their own resources.

Susan Roth of Cass Business School continues the self-serving tendency by claiming that ‘British Executive Education is embedding ethical behaviour in the mindset of a new generation of business leaders’.  I am quite prepared to believe that our ethics are more acceptable than most countries but the activities of our banks in recent years might cause sceptical students to doubt our pre-eminence in this area.

However, in the battle for the gold medal in self-serving and patronising comment, Mike Brooks of Henley surpasses even Cass and the IOD.  He makes the questionable claim that ‘Western Business Schools, as opposed to home grown ones, have a clear edge in thought and understanding’.  Even more outrageous is his view about business training in China that ‘where bald research and data’ as apparently delivered by consultancies is no substitute for the ‘in-depth understanding and translation’ which Henley can provide.  I wonder how the Chinese feel about that.

This is followed by a more balanced comment from Susan Hart of Strathclyde who stresses that collaboration must be two-way and that we must forget any ideas of imposing our western views offshore; instead we should be learning from those in other parts of the world.  Maybe she needs to visit Henley!  Bill Shedden of Cranfield also adopts a more balanced approach by emphasising the importance of customising content and the benefits of delivering webinars on-line.

Each of the contributors are encouraged to make comments about the issues for SMEs but these are contrived and few coherent points are made.  No-one seems to accept the key problem for SMEs - that they are too small to develop their own tailored training activity.  Their managers are therefore limited to generic, publicly available business courses that mainly contain content that is more suitable for larger businesses.  How many Harvard or LBS case studies feature SME issues?

The article would have been more convincing if it had explored this issue in more depth rather than allowing business school representatives to make questionable claims and contrived links to SMEs.  My main conclusion from the article is that I would have great concerns about the future of those business schools who think that the UK is so pre-eminent and that physical expansion into developing countries is the right strategy.  But as Business Schools are among MTP’s key competitors, I guess I should be grateful. 

Read the original article;

http://www.director.co.uk/MAGAZINE/2013/03_March/Flying%20the%20flag_66_06.html

‘ROI and Data in Training’ by Tom Quayle, Training Journal, February 2013

Every now and again we see an article which appears to present a new angle on the Holy Grail of training evaluation and this one is by a consultant from an organisation with the curious title of ‘The Chemistry Group’.  The title of the article suggests that the author has a new formula which provides data for evaluation of training by the ROI (Return on Investment) metric but the reality is quite different.

This is not to suggest that the article is completely without merit.  But it is more about selling the idea of training to stakeholders than it is about evaluation.  It starts off with an equation  – ‘ROI = (V1 –V0)’.  This should not put off those who find such equations too complex; it is really an obvious point dressed up as a mathematical formula.  V0 is the value of the business now, V1 is the value after the training being planned and the ROI is the difference, hardly rocket science.  Apparently IBM and other IT companies ‘live and die by’ this rather obvious equation and believe it to be essential to make a business case for major investments.  This is certainly true in principle but hardly a great revelation and it does not address the key issue of how that difference in value is isolated and evaluated in a training context.

So what is there in the article that is helpful?  The main point - sometimes disguised in language that masks its power and simplicity - is that, during hard times, training budgets have to be justified and sold effectively.  The good sales person will be aware of the triggers that engage those who control the funds available.  And the best way to convince most senior people that the investment is justified is to put pound or dollar signs on the benefits.

Apparently the author’s organisation has been collecting data on sales people over a long period, to determine what differentiates the great from the good.  The conclusion is that great sales people focus on value to the recipient, which apparently most HR and Learning professionals fail to do.  Because we may have reservations about the validity of ROI calculations, we do not bring them into the key conversations around training investment.

It has to be admitted that the author has a point here.  The cynics – or realists?: - may have serious doubts about the validity of pre or post ROI calculations in a training context but this should not prevent them from talking about likely benefits and their relationship to the investment.   The even more powerful argument is that you will achieve this much more effectively if you understand the key performance indicators of those whom you are trying to convince, preferably measures that are easily quantifiable.  The ‘conversations with customers’ will then be much more focussed and positive.

The author argues that the essential need is to initiate a dialogue with key stakeholders, identify the value generating KPIs on which they are measured and encourage them to think in terms of value creation.  The conversations should avoid mentioning training directly but instead focus on the ways in which the behaviour of participants will be changed.  These need to be narrowed down to two or three variables which should be the focus of the conversations.  There must also be an understanding of the blockers and the challenges that are likely to get in the way.

All this does not mean that ROI has to be proved; it means that the stakeholders’ eyes have to be opened to the potential benefits.  You do not need to promise that every participant will deliver a return; instead you might say that ‘it only needs one person to gain a new customer or make a 1% efficiency improvement to pay for this course’.  The author suggests that the use of ‘what if’ scenarios is the best way of making this point, though the long and rather simplistic conversation contained in the article feels more like a space filler than a genuine example.

My overall assessment is that this article has some useful tips for those who are trying to sell investment in training to sceptical and reluctant stakeholders, in particular how to position conversations around the benefits rather than the costs.  It does not say anything about the much more difficult task of proving at a later stage that these benefits have been delivered, without which there may be disappointment for the stakeholders who were convinced by the selling pitch.  This is only a criticism because the title of the article leads readers to think that it is about delivery of ROI, which is what initially caught my attention and made me choose it for review.

So maybe, on second thoughts, the author’s labelling of the article in very much in line with its content; though there may be doubt about the long term value, his short term sales technique is pretty good!

Read the article;

http://www.trainingjournal.com/feature/2013-02-01-roi-and-data-in-training/