The phrase “Best Practice” has never sat well with me. To me, it is a little like suggesting everyone should shop at Selfridges for their clothes, when actually a little tailor down the road may be able to make something perfect for you. It may even be something shop bought, but then tweaked a little to be the perfect fit. When we started to discuss “Best Practice” in our second Friday L&D Mastermind natter on Clubhouse, Rob Moors in his inimitable style threw in “Best Fit” as an alternative.

Interestingly, the dictionary definition of Best Practice:

“Commercial or professional services that are accepted or offered as being correct or most effective”

So by very definition, what is most effective for one multinational organisation of 10,000 employees, in the IT Industry, may not be the best fit for an SME os 250 employees in the financial services industry.

In preparing for the natter, I found a great factsheet from the CIPD called “Learning and Development Evolving Practice”. This seems to have some of the elements of both best practice and best fit. In the factsheet were 10 “shifts” as they described them:

  1. Focus on business needs not just L&D priorities.
  2. L&D outputs informed by metrics not guesses.
  3. Learning underpinned by research and evidence.
  4. L&D shifting to a curator-concierge approach, not just creator.
  5. User choice and co-creation, not prescription learning.Measuring learning value, not volume
  6. Social learning,  not just formal.
  7. Just in-time learning and in-the-flow, not delayed.
  8. Bite-sized learning not just feasts.
  9. Digital, mobile learning not just face-to-face.
  10. Measuring learning value not volume.

These were useful discussion points, where we agreed with some and not others wholly. Here are some of my thoughts:

1.Focus on business needs not just L&D priorities.

Absolutely! This has been my battlecry for so long and why I wrote my book, “How Not To Waste Your Money On Training” and developed an online course by the same name. Bums on seats and no-shows may be important to us, but does it really help us to design solutions that will have impact? Does it help L&D to have a reputation of being problem solvers or prolong the label of being order-takers?

2. L&D outputs informed by metrics not guesses.

If we in L&D don’t seek out the important metrics for the business by consulting with the stakeholders, then why are we surprised that the business does not always value our contributions? If a stakeholder comes to us with a problem that has a ready made solution we should be asking them for evidence to support the fact that it is a problem!

3. Learning underpinned by research and evidence.

This ‘shift’, for me, has implications that the learning is done to the individuals and that journey of discovery and mind set shift has to be directed. In face-to-face training sessions, we can encourage and facilitate a mind set shift that steers a team or group to a new path, yet undiscovered. This 3rd shift seems to negate that fact that learning can be a valuable journey of discovery. Learning about outdated methodologies in management techniques is an obvious ‘no-no’, but collaboratively coming up with a new way for an organisation can reap benefits.

4. L&D shifting to a curator-concierge approach, not just creator.

Assuming that L&D are the sole creators of the new learning individuals need, has always been flawed. Allowing people some choice in where, how, what and when they learn gives more agency. It could also add to their confusion. My thoughts on this, are that there is a little of both. L&D should use their expertise in learning, to offer a good range of options. They facilitate the outcomes rather than impose them and partner with the stakeholders to achieve the performance improvements the business needs.

5.User choice and co-creation, not prescription learning.

This follows on from shift  number 4 above, where learners are given more agency through choice and partnering. Prescriptive learning does not always give people a choice to fully discuss the whys and wherefores of the solutions proposed and allowing a mind set shift.

6. Social learning, not just formal.

There is no reason why formal learning cannot also be social. When we think about what has happened through the pandemic, people have yearned for human contact and valued the time physically together. That said, the opportunity afforded us through the pandemic allowed us to explore how technology can keep us connected. This should be leveraged against any face to face meetings.

7. Just in-time learning and in-the-flow, not delayed.

Another one that I struggle with. There are some examples where I would not want training to be just in time or in the flow of work:

  1. Surgeons or anyone in critical patient care, though I would not mind my GP looking up the latest information aided by AI.
  2. Professions where lives may be in danger – the ability to practice and perfect is crucial.
  3. A financial advisor who was advising me on my long term investments, I would want them to know the full range of options BEFORE speaking to me.
  4. Solicitors, advocating on my behalf.
  5. Customer facing ‘experts’

To name a few… smart AI used to aid decision making  is something that can possibly be utilised more.

8. Bite-sized learning not just feasts.

I agree with not overwhelming learners with too much information, but if there is too much time between the ‘bites’, the connectedness of the learning may be compromised. Learners learn at different paces and in different ways. Some individuals will only ‘get it’ when they have had a chance to mull it over with others, test out options and talk through what may be an opposing view.

9. Digital, mobile learning not just face-to-face.

In an era where there are many ways we can learn, even on our mobile devices, it would be foolhardy not to take advantage of the range of these methods. The more new technology we explore the wider the range of methods that are available to us to learn from.

10. Measuring learning value not volume.

Not surprisingly, the ‘shift’ list from the CIPD factsheet ends where it began. ‘Measuring learning value not volume’ is closely linked to the first  one ‘Focus on business needs not learning priorities’. If we are clear about what the business need is, then once the learning is complete, the value of that learning should be measurable. If you are not sure how to even begin this then my online course and book ‘How Not To Waste Your Money On Training’, will help you immensely

.

 

Sign up to receive regular updates and news

Sign up to receive regular updates and news

Read how we use your data here

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This

Share this

with your friends!