PR News Online reports: "Interaction Associate’s 2011 "Building Trust in Business" survey sounds a big warning for businesses and their executive leadership: Even as employees express trust in peers by saying they share and collaborate more easily with colleagues, they remain wary and di

That’s right. I object! Over the years, I have spent a lot of time crafting them, chiseling them so they fit, viewing lists of verbs to ensure each LO began with the proper verb, reworking other people’s, and getting irritated when learning professionals commit the cardinal sin of starting their LOs off with the words "learn" or "understand". (audible gasp) What madness is this? I have diligently written learning objective (LO) statements at the front of every set of training documentation I’ve written, on one of the first few .ppt sides in the decks, woven them into CBT modules, and on flip charts when facilitating live. I would just as diligently use the learning objective statements when crafting or contributing to evaluation plans. And hated doing it all. One day, I had an epiphany. What real good do these things do? What person in a leadership role somewhere decided that these things we call learning objectives justifies the existence of  training departments, the budget for them and we "trainers"? More importantly, that their existence proves that peopled learned what they were told to learn, as stated in the LO statements?  Being the rebel that I am, I started leaving LOs out of slide decks and off from agendas. Guess what? No one commented. Not sure they even noticed. Let’s get real, just because these static statements appear at the front of content doesn’t mean that is what those who are engaged with the content will learn. (the "learners, participants, etc.") What we call learning objectives are not "one size fits all"-or even most. If we’ve done our job well when conducting a thorough needs analysis, interviewing subject matter experts, synthesizing the information and crafting the information into what the "learners" need most to know to perform better on the job, then the job is done. Complete. Fini. If your content and curriculum is designed and provided to address performance on the job, then what is to be different post-training has a place in performance planning documents and discussions. Not as a slide or items to be checked off while completing the content. Picture every participant of a "click Next" elearning module thinking, "Yippee! Three learning objectives checked off. Done."  Perfect. No wonder we’re not taken seriously. Here’s the thing. Having a plan for what the learning intervention is and is to be is absolutely a good idea. When that plan aligns with corporate goals and strategy is something I’ve been talking about, writing about, and striving for for more years than I’m going to write here. But too often, these LOs, these things that people complete as a mandatory element to "good" training design don’t even come close to doing that. I know what you’re thinking. But what about (so-called) compliance training? And, how will I provide completion data to leadership? While I have much to say about how ineffective so-called compliance training is, I won’t do so in this blog post. My response to those questions, and others like them is, nothing changes.Your involvement in making recommendations for the post-completion evaluation plan isn’t different. Performance planning documents and discussions with whatever metrics leadership requires don’t go away. I’m proposing that everyone in our profession get better at living in a world where the language of performance and outcomes is what we do and spend time on. NOT crafting those silly 3-5 learning objectives at the outset of any training documentation. Filed under: Training & Learning Tagged: ASTD, CPLP, Development, Instructional design, Learners, Learning, Training

Does this concept resonate with you? Organizational silence can hurt your business, without you even being aware of it. Rob Bogosian answered some of these questions:

Apparently, David Kelly is interested in learning how many of us work. I don’t know that he wanted me, specifically, to respond to this request. Or, maybe my invitation got lost in the mail. Yep, that could be it. I’ll play along. I’m so-o-o not interesting but ya never know. Maybe I’ll be famous someday and this information will be a key part of my posthumous archives or something. Locations: My home on pretty Lake Wisconsin. Though I have a 3 bedroom house, I have taken over my living room for working because I can see the lake. In the field, meaning at senior housing locations throughout the midwest. Current gig: Manager of Learning & Development for Brookdale Senior Living (BKD; www.brookdaleliving.com) where I manage training for approximately 200 senior living communities of various sizes Current mobile device: I have two. Personal is a fabulous Motorola Razr (Android) and for work a Blackberry Bold (I like the keyboard, what can I say?) Current computer: Ha! The joke is… I live alone. I have a Dell laptop for work, a second Dell for contract work. Personally, I use a "Big Mac", which is a 2-year old 21″ iMac and a 5-year old Mac Book that is still good enough for web surfing and Facebookin at night by the television. One word that best describes how you work: Bursts. Creative bursts. Bursts of activity. Bursts of quiet creative thought.  Apps/software/tools I can’t live without: Skype. PDF-Mergy (Chrome suite of tools). PowerPoint (yes, really! I work in helthcare. We make something out of nothing sometimes. Magic really.). MS Word. OUtlook because it rules my life. Snipping Tool. Mr. Sketch markers, blue painter’s tape, and flip charts, because I am the McGuyver of facilitation. Truly. My best time-saving trick: I resisted synching my devices for years, meaning personal and work. But, it is both a life and time saver! Outlook calendar on my iPad has kept me on schedule MANY times when I might not have been near my work laptop. What’s your favorite to-do list manager? Post-it notes and leaving notes in my Outlook calendar Besides your phone and computer, what gadget can’t you live without? I have two. My travel multi-plug and music. I facilitate a lot of sessions. Music has to be there. What everyday thing are you better at than anyone else? Well, my super powers are many, but I am pretty good at boiling things down to their essence so we can get started. And, proving that none of it is nearly as important as everyone thought it was-in a lighthearted, humorous way. What do you listen to while you work? NPR "World Cafe" podcasts, all types of music, and I’ll admit I’m addicted to Netflix Are you more of an introvert or extrovert? I am both. Equally. I’m beginning to think many of us who do this work are. We need the quiet times to think, charge our creative batteries, and begin again. We need the out loud thoughts and conversation to keep us honest and grounded and in touch with our "customers".  What my sleep routine is like: Sleep? When I travel, which is often, I sleep very little. Though I am largely unplugged from social media, I am plugged into what I’m working on at the moment. When I get home, I’m exhausted and often build a coccoon around myself until I am ready to emerge the butterfly many of you know. Fill in the blank. I’d love to see ______ answer these same questions: Key industry thought leaders. We are interested, aren’t we? What’s the best advice you’ve ever received? Teach. Actually, the almost direct quote is, "If you don’t choose to leave here and teach it will be the biggest mistake you’ll ever make. You have a gift." Huh. At the time, all I could think was, what should I do with this gift? Now? Look out! Filed under: Training & Learning

Darcy Winslow, a pioneer in sustainability, as a 20-year leader at Nike, helped steer the organization to socially-responsible corporate practices.

Recently, I found myself involved in a lively debate via Twitter on the use of the word "Learner" when describing those who participate in learning. When I say lively, I mean lively. Just know, the feelings were at least as strong about "Participant" and "Attendee". Several people in our industry feel this is no longer an appropriate reference. I respectfully disagree. At least until we determine a strong alternative reference that many-to-most can agree upon. New employees and new associates, as such, are used when describing a subset of the full group whenever needed. I don’t see how this is objectionable. Do you? In fact, I believe a qualifer like this is is necessary when in conversation with leadership, planning for the future, determining needs, and more. At times, it is also necessary to refer to the various departments in the same manner. For example, finance, operations, clinical, etc. The organization is huge with a matrix organizational construct. Being specific when referring to associate work groups saves time and is universally understood. Learner also works when discussing concepts and practices with learning professionals -no matter what their industry- across the globe. Some suggest simply calling them "Workers" or "Employees" is all that is needed. Does this adequately define the group being referred to? For me, these terms are widely in use for a variety of other reasons and broader reference. I don’t think this is the full answer. So, the question is still out there. What should we call them? I’m okay continuing to stick with "Learners, Attendees, and Participants", until further notice. But, I’m open to suggestion. Wha cha got? Filed under: Training & Learning

Ashley Welch had a rich conversation with Wilford Welch. Wilford is an international business consultant, author of The Tactics of Hope, and an expert in the leadership excellence of social entrepreneurs.

  In the past couple of years, much has been written about and against the efficacy of so called "Smiley Sheet" evaluations. These evalutions exist to capture reaction-level feedback from the learner population. I don’t get it. If we are truly walking the talk of ISD, Contiuous Process Improvement, Social Learning, and Working Out Loud, then some feedback is better than no feedback. When did gauging reaction and receiving immediate feedback become a bad thing?   If it is true there are no bad tools, then it is unproductive to malign this type of evaluative feedback. It is a viable alternative in a variety of different circumstances. If the feedback you’re getting isn’t working, then there is some work to do to improve the evaluative process. The level of effectiveness depends largely on the effort spent crafting the evaluation.  "Crafting the evaluation?", you ask. Yes. There is a lot to consider when crafting a well-written evaluation-no matter what "level" it is addressing. (my opinion) Too often this is a minimal, "drive by" effort tacked on to the completion of the curriculum.   To consider: Format, Layout, Writing the Questions, Types of Questions, Blending Types of Questions, Number of Questions, Timing of When the Learner Population Receives the Invitation to Evaluate the Curriculum, Whether the Learner Population Has Been Informed They Can Provide Honest Feedback and How the Feedback Will Be Used, and so on and so forth.      So where does it all go so wrong? (again, my opinion) Too often, the evaluations themselves contain only standard or general questions that don’t get to the heart of what is to be addressed through delivery and completion of the curriculum. (Why, oh why, do we ask about the temperature of the room? The food?) Therefore, the key to getting feedback that matters and is more effective lies in what you learned during the needs assessment. What specific needs were articulated and to be addressed with the development of the curriculum? What specific outcomes is completion of the curriculum being addressed? Were there specific timeframes for completion or other conditions of the learner population to be taken into consideration when crafting the feedback questions? Was this learning experience new for the learner population, in any way? For example, was new technology used? See? There is much to consider when crafting the questions. Take the time. Review the background information carefully. Test the questions. Rework, if needed. Don’t use it until it is the best it can be. Do "reaction" evaluations aadministered upon completion of the curriculum work when addressing changes in performance and behavior? The answer is obvious: a resounding "No". But I maintain, it IS a valid method for gathering immediate feedback on things like ease of use, technology, and interface. It is also valid as a method for checking in on whether the learner population grasped key aspects of the curriculum and know what is to come next. And isn’t using social media, especially Twitter, essentially the same thing? Right? Right.    One more thing. Effectiveness also depends upon doing something with the feedback. Don’t make the mistake of conditioning your learner population to ignore the feedback step because nothing is ever done with the information they provide. Even better, acknowledge the learner population and credit them for the updates and changes.   So… if we hate reaction level surveys and lack of quality results, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Hate the player. Not the game. Filed under: Training & Learning Tagged: 4 Levels, Evaluation, Feedback, Learning, Level 1, Reaction

Yep. It’s true! In my opinion, REFLECTION is a highly underrated learning strategy-and not used nearly often enough. Extensive studies of the brain, research into how we learn, and neuroscience all back me up. Yes, there are more fancy names for it, too. Constructivist theory, pedagogical approaches, brain-based learning, etc. Pick one you like. Moving […]

Carol Sanford, author of the book, The Responsible Business, talks about her experience working with Fortune 500 companies all over the world.