How many speeding tickets have you gotten? I’ve been slappedwith four, but it has been 10 years since my last ticket. I guess you couldchalk it up to those crazy days of youth-filled exuberance. Or maybe I was justbeing stupid and irresponsible, when you consider that speeding was a contributing factor in 30 percent of all fatal trafficaccidents in 2012. For whatever reason, I behaved inappropriately anddeserved discipline, even if it was frustrating at the time. This included afine as well as driver education to keep points from being added to my license.I have now passed the course in every available format—in-person, VHS, DVD, andeLearning. Gold star for me!
Speedingalong
Figure 1: Speeding along with eLearning content (Source: https://www.pexels.com/photo/road-car-blurred-morning-sun-46277/;used under CC0 license)
If you’ve ever completed driver education, I’m pretty sureyou’ll agree that it’s insufferably boring and almost completely irrelevant. Iwas pulled over for a very specific reason: driving just a few miles per hour fasterthan I should have without regard for the possible consequence. But, ratherthan address my specific behavioral failure, the government put me through thesame generic traffic course that everyone gets. After all, they need thisoption to support the estimated 25 to 50 million traffic citations issued every year. My training included topics like safe following distance, roadsigns, and driving under the influence, none of which related to my problem.Not only was the content irrelevant, it also came with a required seat time,meaning I could not progress until the timer on each section elapsed regardlessof my knowledge or effort. So what did I do? I moved through the content asquickly as possible and then multitasked until the timer expired. I passed thetest. I checked the box. So that’s all the effort I should have to put in,right?
Does this strategy sound familiar? It should, because we dothe same thing to our employees all the time under the guise of “requiredtraining.” Every organization has some version of training that L&D knowsis downright horrific, but we just can’t escape it for whatever reason. By“horrific,” I mean the understanding that the content is not only unappealingbut also unlikely to improve performance. Sometimes it’s associated withonboarding topics that have legal requirements, like workplace harassment andconflicts of interest. There are also external compliance considerations whenregulatory agencies provide generic content that your employees must complete.And then there are always the subject matter experts who provide 300-slidePowerPoint presentations that they want turned into verbatim eLearning modulesbecause employees absolutely mustread every single word—and in one sitting, of course. In each case, learning isreduced to a content dump followed by a ridiculously easy, but sometimes alsoconfusing, knowledge assessment the employee must pass—or else.
Meanwhile, outspoken L&D pros (like Clark Quinn,Jane Hart,and myself) are calling for change in the way we support our people. Theprevailing mantra suggests that L&D provide only the right content to theright people at the right time in engaging ways to drive real business results.I couldn’t agree more, and I’ve seen just how powerful concepts like microlearningand adaptive learning can be. After all, leaning isn’t the goal. Performance iswhat really matters! This all sounds awesome, and I have yet to run into anL&D pro who doesn’t agree. However, in real life, L&D teams also haveto meet requirements set by their organization as well as regulating bodies.Sometimes they just have to get it done, even if they know the content is junkand will likely disengage their employees. If they don’t, they aren’t doingtheir jobs and could face potential consequences, including receiving theirwalking papers.
So what should L&D do when we are absolutely required todeliver “bad training”? How do we ensure it won’t cast L&D in a negativelight with the people we support, or damage engagement during futureinitiatives? And, since there is probably a reason employees are being requiredto complete training on these topics, how do we find ways to drive truebehavior change despite the known limitations of the content? I’ve been askedthese questions over and over as I share my thoughts on modern workplacelearning. Here are my suggested tactics, based on similar conflicts I’veexperienced while supporting highly regulated organizations. Remember that I’mreferring to those times when L&D absolutelymust execute using less-than-quality, predetermined content and cannotinfluence learning strategy decisions. Hopefully these experiences are few andfar between.
1.Be honest with yourself
This whole problem gets a lot simpler once you admit toyourself that you have to check a box. For example, if a regulator requireslegal defensibility by getting employees to complete a generic quiz and refusesto collaborate on a more meaningful solution, give them what they need in themost expeditious and frictionless way possible. Regardless of your bestintentions, there is no rule that says every training experience has to beamazing. The basic requirement is simply that it has to accomplish the desiredobjective. Sometimes—and I mean sometimes—it’sperfectly acceptable for that objective to be timely completion simply becauseyou have no other choice. Of course, this shouldn’t be the norm.
2.Be honest with your audience
If you know it’s bad, then your employees definitely know it’s bad. But if youaren’t clear with your intentions, employees may assume that you delivered abad experience on purpose and, therefore, dread the next time training isforced upon them. Provide honest, transparent messaging to set expectations.Clearly state the value in completing this training for the employee and theorganization. If the only reason you are doing this is because a regulatorrequires it, say that. If there is valuable information included within the training,point it out. Follow up this honesty with sincere gratitude for your employees’time and compliance. Your employees will appreciate it. Otherwise, they’lldoubt your ability to support them when a real need arises. Of course, you haveto align your communication with the opinions of your stakeholders so as toavoid irking or downright insulting anyone.
3.Find the key learning points
Like I said, there’s probably a decent reason for whyemployees are being required to complete this bad training. That means there’ssome relevant, useful knowledge hiding within the otherwise generic, bloatedtraining content. Identify those key learning points for use in your audiencemessaging and other potential support strategies. Just telling employees whatto look for within the content based on their unique needs can make anotherwise tedious experience just a bit more worthwhile.
4.Introduce reinforcement
Once you’ve identified the valuable knowledge within the badtraining content, determine how you may be able to make use of it to drive realbehavior change. This could include a variety of strategies, from simple jobaids and reference information to more dynamic reinforcement and observationstrategies. For example, once I was required to administer an annualcertification test for employees who sold a particular product that facedconsiderable government regulation. Rather than only push the test once peryear, I used the assessment to build a supporting wiki page and reinforcement-programquestions. Employees received content during daily microlearning sessions thatcontinuously adapted to their specific needs. Rather than just tell stakeholderswho had passed the test once, I could also report on and address individualknowledge gaps for every employee at any time. I checked the box, but thensurrounded the box with an approach that aligned to our greater learning andperformance strategy.
5.Share impact
You may not be able to influence a “bad training” strategythe first time, but that doesn’t mean you should stop trying. If you introducesupport elements to improve the employee learning experience, share the impactto help justify suggested enhancements for the future. In other words, when yousend out the spreadsheet with the pie charts and list of completions, includean extra page with more meaningful data and insights. If the stakeholder whorequires this training is within your sphere of influence (e.g., internal legalteam), they are more likely to respond to measurable results as opposed to justL&D know-how.
It’sbeen 10 years since my last experience with driver education. Given thatpassage of time and radical technology evolution, you’d think the learningexperience would have become more engaging and relevant. Given thecircumstances, I’m not that hopeful, and I’d prefer not to find out. If you’vebeen slapped with a ticket more recently and opted to complete the training, pleaselet me know what you thought. And, if you find yourself gaming the systembecause the experience is so inferior, use it as motivation the next time youare faced with the need to deliver bad training in your workplace.
