Coming to Grips with Reality: Multiple Learning Modes

I recently completed a projectwith a local government body that was combining the roles of two separate groupsof employees into one. In their new role, the learners needed to know newmethods as well as form new teams. Initially the job seemed straightforward,but things quickly became interesting.

It was a fascinating journeyto take this local body and 60 of its employees through a project that resultedin the learners’ increased self-awareness and more consistent customer service.My original plan was to implement an eLearning solution; as you will see, theresult was quite different: a blended program of learning that combined classroominstruction, field trips, a functioning knowledge base, and online communitiesof practice. You might even consider that some “social engineering” helpedfacilitate things.

What was unique about it washow we achieved this. Here is the story.

“Once upon a time…”

The organization saw learningas a discrete activity, separate from day-to-day work. Perhaps you’re workingin one of those organizations, too. After the local authorities scoped andapproved the project, they wanted to hire a trainer to do one-to-one training.The learners were the front-counter staff and the librarians in a rural governmentagency. All six of their service centers were in communities of 8,000 or fewercitizens. The combined front-counter staffs were to provide the contact pointfor citizens seeking to obtain services or other access to the local government.

Counter staff represented 18diverse internal departments whose functions ranged from registering burials,dogs, and committee submissions to fixing roads and parks.

A recently completed surveyindicated many managers didn’t think they had customers. This meant front-counterstaff members struggled to get some of the departments to respond to customerrequests and were sometimes unable to help customer resolution. Therefore,there was often a “them-and-us” attitude between departments and the counter staffmembers, which meant solutions for the customer could be fragmented, ambiguous,and slow.

I deduced a need for asubstantial shift in service and the team culture. I considered that moreinterdependent relationships inside the organization would mean better customercare. It was a challenging task in an organization of many independent parts.

To achieve this, themethodology needed rigor to sustain not only new learning but also thesubsequent supporting cultural changes.

The first plan and a reality check

The organization’s concept oflearning was mostly traditional: classroom-based and single event. I wanted tochange this paradigm and bring in eLearning, which I saw as an efficient solutionfor small isolated communities, since a key project deliverable was consistentservice across all the centers. Fortunately, the project team was flexibleenough to listen to my recommendations when they hired me. The project changedits learning approach from one-to-one knowledge transfer to a more rigorous methodology.

Isolated communities withonline connectivity seemed a perfect solution. Unfortunately, this did not passthe idea stage, since the technology (IS) department wasn’t ready to supportlearning, saying “No” to privately accessing YouTube; even using Wordle was out. New technology wasoff-limits. This big disappointment at that early stage turned out to be auseful reality check.

Finding alternative solutionswas frustrating but necessary.

The alternative: multiple methods

Research conducted by MichaelLombardo and Michael Eichinger for the Center for Creative Leadership (seeReferences at the end of this article) suggest that the strongest learningcomes from informal learning (70 percent), the next strongest from peerlearning (20 percent), and then from formal courses (10 percent). I had wantedto use this 70-20-10 model, emphasizing the 70 percent on-the-job experiences,enhanced by web-enabled learning projects. Jay Cross has publicized how thismodel works in his writings on informal learning (again, see the References).

(Editor’s Note: Readers should take noteof the caution advised by Don Clark regarding application of the 70-20-10 model,originally suggested by Lombardo and Eichinger and by the Center for CreativeLeadership as a prescriptive guideline for developing managers. While theauthor made a carefully nuanced and successful application of the concept inthis case, Clark’s comments are worth considering: “[S]ince [70-20-10] is a prescriptive remedy for developing managers tosenior and executive positions, it does not mean that it is a useful model fordeveloping skills in the daily learning and work flows that takes place withinorganizations, because it is being applied in an entirely different contextthan what it was designed for. Parts, or perhaps all, of 70-20-10 may be usefulfor developing professionals other than senior managers, but since the learningratios vary greatly between various groups of learners [and even individuallearners within a group], one has to be very careful about taking thisapproach.” Seehttps://www.nwlink.com/~donclark/hrd/media/70-20-10.html)

Howard Gardner’s “Multiple Intelligences”was also an influence. He outlines how learners need tools to use and materialto interact with in many ways. Instead of using one way of learning, I thoughtusing multiple methods to engage our semi-skilled, largely kinesthetic learnerswould mean deeper learning.

The project takes shape

I outlined four stages for thelearning part of the project: (a) analysis and design, (b) formal classroomdelivery, (c) informal learning, and (d) return on investment (Figure 1).

Figure 1: Project stages

Analysis and design(the “yellow stage”)

I decided that forming newteams from geographically isolated centers in a multi-discipline organizationwould benefit from a consensus approach. DACUM works well for this purpose, so the team leaders weremembers of the focus group and I facilitated this analysis process. (Editor’sNote: DACUM is an acronym for developing a curriculum. It is an occupationalanalysis processfor clearly defining the duties and tasks that expert workers perform.)

This process produced a basicskills list, containing 124 skills covering 18 distinct departmental roles andlibrary functions. This list became a valuable learning tool and assessmentguide.

Traditionally, a web-basedinformation repository helps staff give correct information to customers. Sinceadapting existing tools was the only technology option, my first focus was theexisting knowledge base, which was a pretty rudimentary and underwhelming resource.I thought this knowledge base, once it functioned properly, could be accessibletechnology, ensuring that the isolated service centers could give customersconsistent quality service. It was the beginning of our diversified strategy.

While collecting theinformation the departments wanted in the knowledge base, two separate groupssaid to me, “Those girls (the counter staff) should know what they’re doing bynow. Why do they still make mistakes?” This seemed an indicator of less-than-positivedepartmental relationships with counter staff

With one delegated staffmember and an affable webmaster, in four months we re-built the skeleton of theexisting knowledge base, called the Knowledge Tree. There were 200 pages. Ninemonths later, there are over 400. At the height of the project rollout, the toplearners used it, on average, more than 64 times a day. This pragmaticmulti-purpose tool worked well because it’s a business tool as well as a placeto learn. It was the introduction to making learning an everyday activity.

Once the Knowledge Tree wasfunctional and complete, we could see the impossibility of counter staffknowing everything; how could anyone retain all that? Each department saw onlytheir own isolated knowledge components. Functioning in isolation, they had noreason to have a collective view of the organization.

The next task was to design assessments.(See Jane Bozarth’s article “Design Assessments First,” in the References.) Ialso wanted to show the client organization, which was new to L&D, that youcould have a practical return on investment. At the same time, assessmentswould give the learners (the counter staff) a vehicle to show their competenceto the department managers.

The three means of assessmentwere:

• Online quizzes
• Observational assessments
• Scenarios

The foundation of all of theseelements was the basic-skills list developed earlier in the analysis stage.

All of the departments eventuallysigned off on their relevant skills on the basic skills list, the KnowledgeTree pages, and the assessment questions.

Course delivery (the “green stage”)

Two factors drove thislearning stage: constraints on new technology, and the strainedinterdepartmental relationships. In the outlying areas away from the headoffice, few frontline staff members had contact with the departments. Byrunning old-fashioned classroom courses, with departmental subject matterexperts (SMEs) as speakers, the departments would have constructiveconversations with our learners. Conversely, learners would getdirect answers and build trust with the department SMEs.

We identified eachdepartment’s key staff members and asked them to present the skills ourlearners needed in order to represent them on a course that addressed theskills from the signed-off basic list.

These key staff speakers werecrucial, and every organization I have been in has had them. You have them,too. They are the problem-solving “go-to” people. If you ask them an atypicalquestion, most of the time they will know the answer. If they don’t, they’ll quicklyfind out and get back to you. They are pleasant to deal with. This modeled howwe wanted staff to work with customers.

With great logisticaldifficulty—we had to keep the front counters operating—most learners completedthe 18 courses. Counting all the times a learner was on a course, there wereover 1,100 attendances. There were also field trips available to learners inthis stage, building knowledge and solidarity across eight different areas.

Informal learning (the “blue stage”)

In the next learning stage, Iintroduced informal systems to support the traditional classroom events.

As the learning progressedthrough each of the centers, it was apparent that responsibility for learningwas in the wrong place. Historically, in the dependent, top-down culture, counterstaff could not show initiative. Shifting learners to change and takeresponsibility for both their learning and their actions was critical toproject success. The needs analysis had not articulated this cultural factor.Changing this component became imperative before any future online communitiesof practice would work between the isolated communities.

I introduced the concept ofself-management in a soft-skills course I designed and ran on customer service.The small section on self-awareness, where counter staff learned about theirpersonal communication style, was usually the favorite part. Most had never learnedabout their preferences, or even realized they had communication preferences. This new self-awareness beganscaffolding their self-management; now they knew their preferences and those oftheir team members, and had some understanding of adapting to other styles.

I also mentioned that, as acore part of the project, they were now in charge of their own learning. As apractical matter, this meant finding an average of 15 minutes daily learningtime. They would each decide when and learn a topic they didn’t yet know, orwork on an emergent skill.

They also received a packageof support materials that included the basic skills list from the needsanalysis. They were to use this list for self-assessing their individual skillsfor each upcoming course—both before and after the event. It was another toolfor self-management.

I then described their key learningresources:

• The knowledge base—to learn new/less familiar topics
• A training database—for practicing the software system
• Departmental course speakers—to clarify or request more details
• Fifteen minutes learning time—to build learning habits and write about them
• The basic skills list—to find and narrow any skill gaps
• Their peers, ako/buddy and team leader/coach—to give and consolidate learning (Editor’s Note: “ako” is a Maori term that refers to a reciprocal teaching/learning relationship; there is not an exact equivalent term in English)

There were two journals in thepackage. One of them was for recording what they learned. The learning journalbecame a pivotal tool.

They would write up in thejournal what they’d learned in their 15 minutes. The informal learning now builton the formal courses and field trips. My early preference was for them towrite online as a shared formative learning tool, but instead this handwrittenjournal was the nexus to reflective practice.

Some curious learners began writingimmediately. Styles vary—from works of art through three-word bullet points todaily streams of consciousness. The journals are as unique as each learner.

Journaling was the mostdifficult learning component. Work is not a place where they previously hadtime to pause and consider how theyworked or learned—or its implications.

Some learners struggled, needingmore support. Using headings in the journal such as “What I learned today”helped. Motivational emails, sending examples of bloggers’ self-reflectivepractice, putting up posters, and plain old talking face-to-face were ways Iinspired—and dealt with resistance.

Only three staff members refusedto journal, complaining to senior managers, the HR advisor, and union representatives. This greatly influencedstaff negativity.

It would have been easy toignore these few. However, as a project team we kept backing each other,sticking to our agreed processes, and, while supporting staff, stayed focused onfuture results. Although extraordinarily difficult at times, this worked.

Simultaneously, I taught andcoached the team leaders in basic coaching skills. Each learner had personalcoaching time with their team leader, bringing their journals. The writinghelped begin meaningful, regular coaching conversations.

Coaching and journalingtogether have been successful. Staff members now use reflective processes,telling me journaling builds confidence—they write independently simply becauseit is useful.

Visible ROI: The assessments (the “orangestage”)

Learners contact me whenthey’re ready to do assessments. The online quizzes, designed to be fun andtake only 10 to 15 minutes, boost their confidence. Quirky answers inmultiple-choice questions have them smiling. Quizzes also bring personalaccountability. Although few staff members achieve 100 percent, they enjoylearning through the feedback conversation because I ensure it’s positive.

On an organizational level, quizzeshave highlighted mistakes in areas where we had assumed competence. These wouldhave gone undetected without this formative measure.

The behavioral and scenarioassessments take place before final commendation.

Using Peter Senge’s version ofthe learning organization and interpreting his systems thinking into thisenvironment has meant learners now document new ideas and glitches. Thelearners’ naïve enquiry brings fresh perspectives to existing systems. Bydocumenting these, learners win movie tickets, and the organization wins withbetter processes.

Conclusion

Despite meeting obstacles thatare typical in complex change projects such as this, I was pleased with theoutcome, namely that staff members are now able to:

• Perform front counter and library skills competently
• Use online tools and reflective practices
• Self-manage learning
• Work more cohesively as positive teams
• Contribute ideas and fix glitches, benefiting the whole organization

With limited access totechnology, the learning model changed to multiple learning modes, becomingprerequisite skills for technology-enabled learning. Learners first needed tohave self-management skills before they reached the stage Harold Jarchedescribes, where “Work is the learning, and learning is the work.” Staff membersnow have more options and learning methods they can use.

Significantly, internalcustomer conversations have better problem-solving outcomes, and externalcustomers report service has improved.

References

Bozarth,Jane. “Nuts and Bolts: Design Assessments First.” Learning Solutions Magazine. 3April 2013. https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/1146/nuts-and-bolts-design-assessments-first

Center for Creative Leadership. “The 70-20-10 Rule.” LeadingEffectively e-Newsletter. 2011.
https://www.ccl.org/leadership/enewsletter/2011/NOVrule.aspx

Cross, Jay. Informal Learning: Rediscovering the NaturalPathways That Inspire Innovation andPerformance. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass/Pfeiffer, 2007.

Cross, Jay. “What’s informallearning? (in under 3 minutes).” Jay Cross blog. 22 June 2012.
https://www.jaycross.com/wp/2012/06/whats-informal-learning-in-under-3-minutes/

Gardner,H. Multiple Intelligences: The TheoryIn Practice. NewYork: BasicBooks,1993.

Jarche, Harold. “Work is learning and learning is the work.” Life in perpetual Beta (blog). 17 June 2012.
https://www.jarche.com/2012/06/work-is-learning-and-learning-is-the-work/

Lombardo, MichaelM. and Robert W. Eichinger.The CareerArchitect Development Planner, 1st ed. Minneapolis: Lominger, 1996.

Senge, Peter. The Fifth DisciplineFieldbook: Strategies and Tools for Building a Learning Organization. New York: Crown Business, 1994. 

Smith, Mark K. (2001). “Peter Senge and the LearningOrganization.” infed. 2001.
https://infed.org/mobi/peter-senge-and-the-learning-organization/.