There were several really interesting sessions. We plan to put up a series of posts that recap some of the thoughts shared in those sessions. This is the first post in that series.

Do you need a CLO?

The first session (titled: Organizational Learning: Views from the Leadership) of the Summit was a panel discussion where senior executives from HPCL, Tata Teleservices, & Aditya Birla Group and the Director of TISS constituted the panel. The panel shared some useful insights about the unique situations they face and how L&D happens in their organizations. The key question put up to the panel by the moderator was – Do you need a CLO in your organization? To which, sadly, the majority response was on these lines – The department/division heads already perform that role so we probably don’t need a CLO. That’s definitely not what we were expecting to hear!

Thankfully, when the discussion was thrown open to the audience, the audience seemed to think quite the opposite. Several people from the audience (from companies like Dow Chemicals, Reliance Capital, Raymond, & Lupin) shared their thoughts in favor of having a CLO. The nail was precisely hit on its head when Susan Bloch (CLO at Aditya Birla Group) asked the panel this: “would you replace your CFO with COO tomorrow?”

The answer is NO. The jobs of a CFO and COO need specialized skills and experience and it is impossible to replace one with another just like that. Similarly a CLO needs specialized skills and experience and that cannot be performed by any division/department manager. They (department managers) simply don’t have grounding on how learning takes place or which learning interventions work in which situations. They don’t really know how to keep pace with ever changing landscape of learning theories, models, & technology. Most importantly they don’t have the focus that needs to be brought to organizational learning. They are just too occupied with their other KRAs and learning will simply be the last one they would want to focus on. I think everyone in the audience got this pretty straight. A show of strength later on saw more than 90% people in audience going with YES to having a CLO in organizations.

Jim Kirkpatrick (is SMR USA’s vice president of global training and consulting, and presents workshops for and provides consulting to Fortune 500 companies around the world) and Wendy Kirkpatrick (is a director of Kirkpatrick Partners, LLC and a certified instructional designer)  have written a paper which honors Don, and takes a fresh look at Kirkpatrick’s Four Levels. You can download the paper here.  (registration required)

The whitepaper delves into the many issues associated with the use and implementation of the model to evaluate training. The authors espouse Five Foundational Principles

1. The end is the beginning – An incisive comment: ‘For decades, practitioners have attempted to apply the four levels after a program has been developed and delivered. It is difficult, if not impossible, to create significant training value that way.’ They go on to add it’s important to distinguish a plan to build effective training & the evaluation methodology from the actual collection of data.
2. Return on Expectations (ROE) is the ultimate indicator of value – Despite what they might say, training professional tend to jump into the task of designing and developing learning without a proper needs assessment. Learning professionals do nothing to track the expectations of the business stake holders. Without this critical assessment, it’s not possible to map expectations to observable and measurable success outcomes.
3. Business partnership is necessary to bring about positive ROE – The authors point out that they do not believe that training events in and of themselves can deliver positive bottom-line outcomes. They go on to add that research suggests that 70% of learning happens on the job in many different ways. In this context, they emphasize the role of the supervisor or manager after the training event. Reinforcement and coaching by such individuals directly correlates to improved performance and positive outcomes.
4. Value must be created before it can be demonstrated – Research has identified statistical correlations between the four levels. In short, it suggests that providing excellent training does not lead to significant transfer of learning to behavior and subsequent results without deliberate and consistent reinforcement. They mention that learning designers are putting most our time on designing, developing and delivering training and getting only about a quarter of the result. This is mainly because we spend virtually no time on follow-up reinforcement activities to promote behavioral change that leads to results.
5. A compelling chain of evidence demonstrates your bottom-line value – Authors mention L1 and L2 as consumptive metrics, L3 and L4 are classed as impact metrics. While working at L1 and L2, we are talking only about costs – because we only talk about number of programs, attendees (typical L1 and L2 data). If we had the data for L3 and L4 metrics, the data would point to the value the training delivers. They go on to mention that a chain of evidence connects the four levels and will actually show the contribution the training has made to the business.

Other than listing and describing the Five Foundational Principles, the authors also introduce a revised new-look Kirkpatrick Model. The authors mention that the model retains the fundamental ideas that Don (& the authors) have been communicating, it’s now said to offer a more complete illustration so both learning professionals and their business partners can create maximum training value. They further give detailed information about the model and various examples. The last example they give of ‘The Window Washers’ makes an excellent case for ‘not just training’.

Anyone interested in evaluating learning programs based on Kirkpatrick’s Four Level model should read this paper; if offers great insights, I’d recommend it.

MindLeaders’ white paper “Leadership In Crisis: How to Maximize Leadership Development and Succession Planning” examines the importance of effective leadership to an organization’s success, especially at a time like this when a severe worker shortage is predicted in the coming decade.

The paper looks at how organizations generally select and develop leaders, and the typical outcomes of such approaches—even in a successful global corporation like Coca Cola.

It identifies the main problem as the lack of connection between leadership development and succession planning programs, and then goes on to describe several reasons why organizations fail to successfully mould existing ‘stars’ into effective leaders.

The paper next describes the characteristics of an effective leadership development program, and provides tips on how to go about putting these in place.

To illustrate how leadership building practices can impact performance, the paper presents a scenario of a star performer recently promoted to a managerial role. She is required to carry out performance reviews for some of her team members, but is unsure of her ability to coach and mentor her team; nor does she understand some of the company’s decisions well enough to explain their purpose to her team members. Unhappy with how the reviews go and with the direction in which her career is heading, she begins to look for openings in other companies.

Had the manager been provided with leadership training, and had her development as a manager been properly planned and monitored, she may have had better success and would not have been looking to leave.

The paper finally presents a list of factors to consider when selecting a learning and development company to help establish effective leadership development programs, and gives an overview of how MindLeaders’ products and services can help organizations to this end.

How well are your leadership development programs linked to succession planning?

Click here to download the white paper.

MindLeaders’ white paper “Training In Troubled Times: Delivering on ‘What’s To Follow’ With Training” encourages organizations to take L&D decisions during a recession with two goals in mind: (i) surviving the current downturn and (ii) exploiting the upswing that will eventually follow.

Cost cutting exercises during a recession often involve changes to organizational processes and tasks. If L&D budgets are slashed, how will employees be trained to work effectively and efficiently as per these changes? And how will organizations develop the skills they need to ensure they make the most of the next boom?

The white paper examines how training cost cuts may be perceived by different stakeholders (investors, customers, employees). It also advocates viewing downturns as opportunities for organizational ‘soul searching’. All too often, when things are going well, organizations don’t focus on improvement. Tough times force them to ‘introspect’ and rout out the inefficiencies.

During economic downturns, L&D programs have to compete for budgets. L&D program managers have to demonstrate that the programs on which funds have been spent have resulted in positive contributions to business operations.

The white paper suggests four types of metrics that can help L&D departments demonstrate this, while pointing out that specific measurement parameters must be defined based on each organization’s business model. It also stresses the importance of defining L&D programs that are in line with organizational strategies.

The paper goes on to present some points to keep in mind while setting up an effective L&D solution. It then takes a look at the case of an airline company who successfully made it through the 2001 recession and is still going strong today, and identifies the key management and L&D decisions that contributed to the company’s success.

The paper ends with a list of factors to consider when selecting a L&D provider, and an overview of how MindLeaders’ products and services can help organizations to this end.

The message is clear. Those organizations that invest in employee development during tough economic times will emerge better equipped to thrive during the good times.

Click here to download the white paper.

Some data that’s emerged is quite interesting.

“Fewer practitioners (39 per cent) are involved in “introducing or extending e-learning” this year, a fall of 6 per cent on 2008.”

It’s disappointing to read that a little more than a third of the respondents will introduce or continue their eLearning programs. Perhaps this ties into the current economic conditions or their company’s track record and results in implementing eLearning. Perhaps its individuals in L&D not being innovative enough when leveraging technology for learning; either way it’s hard to tie down to a specific cause. In all probability it’s a combination of these and more.

“When asked what activities L&D specialists spent most time on, only 8 per cent of respondents cited the design and implementation of e-learning, compared with 43 per cent who prioritized delivering courses.”

This has always been the case with L&D; they’ve prioritized on delivering courses rather than spending time and money on the design and implementation of learning. Charles Jennings, former global head of learning at Thomson Reuters and now an independent consultant commenting on this “It seems that many of us are still locked into courses and curricula,” Giving more attention to e-learning, he said, would help the transition to more personalized, collaborative and flexible learning, available when users wanted to access it.

Jennings goes on to add “Many may have tried e-learning once, but had a poor experience and decided it doesn’t work.” Yet although everyone has also had non-productive experiences with teachers, he said, teachers don’t all get written off. He makes a valid point, about teachers not getting written off because of non-productive learning experiences under their tutelage. Organizations that have failed with their eLearning experiment the first time, should consider the time ripe to try again.

“A quarter of respondents say they are not involved or consulted at all in the roll-out of new IT systems. Furthermore, only 11% feel that the implications for learning, training and development are taken into account when changes to IT infrastructures are planned.”

This bit was concerning to say the least. More and more now, IT systems form the underlying network for information exchange in the organization – it’s these very networks that support and enhance learning and performance. For this reason, it’s imperative that L&D be involved in considering the impact these IT systems will have on learning and performance. Allowing L&D to be involved in specifying certain requirements based on learning and performance needs allows an organization to better leverage investments made in IT system. That is, in addition to fulfilling operational needs, they can also provide some additional learning and performance related benefits to the organization.

“More than a third agrees that ‘Learning and development in my organization is seen as an important part of business improvement.’”

We were happiest to find this in the survey! Organizations are rapidly realizing that learning and development is critical to business success. Organizations now understand it also provides less tangible but important benefits related to the ‘human’ aspects of the enterprise.

MindLeaders’ white paper “Why Employee Development Matters: Creating Strategic Advantage Through Your People” looks at how to set up effective employee development programs to grow and exploit employee knowledge to the benefit of both organization and individuals.

Acknowledging the importance of employee development as a key tool for employee retention and engagement, the paper gives an overview of common challenges faced by such programs in the workplace.

It admits that while eLearning courses offered via an LMS have proven to be reasonably effective, they still do not address the tailoring of training, which is an important facet of an effective employee development program.

The paper further points out that employee development is important at all levels within an organization, and uses an example of a recently promoted Sales Manager to illustrate this further. The Sales Manager needs to carry out a performance review for her team but has not been trained on the process and associated behavioral skills. She finds herself having to provide negative feedback to one of her team members; this review doesn’t go well, and the employee shows no signs of improvement. Had the Manager gone through an effective employee development program, she would have been able to draw on relevant skills and resources to help her carry out a more successful review.

The paper then presents a list of factors to look for in a company that helps define and set up employee development programs. It concludes by introducing MindLeaders’ Personal Learning Service (PluS), where personalized learning plans are created for individual employees by human Learning Advisors, with inputs from managers. Progress against the learning plans can be monitored, and plans can be modified to remain in line with changing goals and conditions.

If you’re planning to implement employee development programs in your organization, or are looking to improve your existing programs, this white paper could provide you with some useful insights.

Click here to download the white paper.

Talent management is about recognizing (potential) value, utilizing it optimally, keeping it engaged, and constantly growing it. That’s the challenge faced by Human Resources (HR) and Learning and Development (L&D) functions today.

MindLeaders’ white paper “Companies with the Best Talent Win: How Learning & Development is Vital to Strategic Talent Management” examines the process of strategic talent management and highlights the role of an integrated L&D program in the successful implementation of a strategic talent management program. While L&D becomes a core service for the program’s success, talent management software systems become tools that can enable smooth implementation and management of the talent management strategy. This white paper presents some of the common challenges faced by strategic talent management programs, and gives the reader useful pointers on how to go about setting up an effective strategic talent management solution. In doing so, it highlights the need for HR and L&D to work together to effectively develop and manage a company’s employee base.

The need for an L&D program is further illustrated through an example of a new sales manager who finds it difficult to carry out performance reviews, with a description of how things could have been different if the company had had integrated talent management and appropriate L&D support.

Finally, the paper presents a list of factors to consider when selecting an L&D company to help in the implementation of a strategic talent management program.

So don’t get caught short! Ensure that you have the right people with the right knowledge, skills, and attitudes to meet current and future business needs. Strategic talent management is equally applicable now as it would be in a time of booming economies. Perhaps even more so, as companies can put slow times to good use by investing in developing organizational talent.

Click here to download the white paper.