Pivot: Some Thoughts on L&D Personas

I’vebeen hearing a lot about personas lately. Not the kindplayed by actors or assumed by authors, but the equally fictitious characterscreated by some L&D teams to better understand their target audiences. TheseL&D professionals are using a designthinking approach to generate composite characters that represent theirlearners and remind themselves that the new learning solution they are workingon is not intended for the design team, but for others with different needs,motivations, and behaviors.

Personasallow L&D teams to ensure that the (usually) absent end-user is an integralpart of the design and development phase of any new learning project, and moreimportantly, that each iteration of the solution is tested against thepersona’s needs, not the project team’s preferences.  And yet, many L&D teams still unwittinglydesign and develop their online learning solutions with their L&D manager’spreferences top of mind.

Designmust design for the right personas, which are their learners. And learningleaders must avoid embodying the following undesirable L&D managementpersonas:

Do as I’ve DoneDorian

Do as I’ve Done Dorians prefer new training solutions tolook, feel, and function like the courses they already know or developedthemselves … 15 years ago. They remember how intimidating computer-based training was back then, and insist that everycourse have a robust “How to Use This Training” section and “Click Next toContinue” reminder on every page. Having expended great effort to ushereLearning into their workplaces, they now tend to be risk-averse and prefertried-and-true tell me-show me-let me try instructional design and PowerPoint-ishclick-through programming over more recent trends like microlearning, branching scenarios, or gamification.

WhenL&D teams design for Do as I’ve DoneDorians, they are in fact doing their target audiences a huge disfavor.Like all professions and industries, eLearning continues to evolve with newinstructional design approaches, new courseware and development tools, andperhaps most importantly, much higher expectations from learners for theeLearning they want to take.

I’ll Get Us MoreMoney Morgan

I’ll Get Us More Money Morgans are fearless when askingfor bigger L&D project budgets and unruffled when scope creep begins togallop. These L&D managers know that creating quality eLearning takes timeand talent—both of which cost money—and that project schedules can slip due tocircumstances beyond the team’s control. However, when securing larger budgets theysometimes lose sight of the fact that well-managed projects should notnecessarily cost more or take longer. What’s more, they don’t always weigh therelative importance of a project to the organization’s strategic goals.

L&Dteams like working for I’ll Get Us MoreMoney Morgans because they knowthey don’t have to pinch pennies when creating quality learning solutions. Butthose same project teams can also overlook the fact that throwing more money ata project doesn’t always mean it will turn out better. Instead, they should designand develop to the project budget and schedule, not counting on a changerequest along the way.

Never Say No Norah

Never Say No Norahs have honed facilitation skills andget along with everyone, including the most demanding of stakeholders. Thesemanagers don’t get fussed about extra tweaks after approvals are signed. Theyknow that it’s important to get things right—especially for large orhigh-profile training programs—and are happy to oblige subject matter expertsand project team members who want to make “just one more minor change” to theeLearning solution.

L&Dteams that rely on Never Say No Norahsto sign off on their new learning solutions should never circle the launch datein ink because these managers are unwilling to impose hard-and-fast projectreview cycles and schedules for fear of losing their colleagues’ support onother initiatives. The result is that employees who need training wait weeks ormonths while courses are fine-tuned to death.

We Gotta TrackitTravis

ThisL&D manager loves learning management systems, especially the reports theygenerate. In fact, We Gotta Trackit Travises want absolutely everyinteraction in each eLearning course tracked and reported. To be fair, they understandthe importance of reporting and endeavor to provide upper management with ampleevidence of the efficiency and effectiveness of their training programs. Butsometimes they go too far, demanding that eLearning courses track every click alearner makes and that supervisors receive reports of how long it took eachemployee to read each screen (not to mention their responses to practicequestions.)

WhenL&D teams design for We Gotta TrackitTravises, they risk placing more importance on countinginteractions and questions than on whether the course contributed to improvedworkplace performance. Besides, when adult learners are told upfront that theirmanagers will be reviewing the results of their eLearning, they will take thecourse for what it is—an exercise to promote rote recall rather than what itshould be, which is practice and exploration in a safe environment.

I Know Better Iona

I Know Better Ionas love the design process and know itwell, as they may have been a learning designer or developer before moving intoa management role. However, they love designing courses so much that they oftenforget their role as the project authority. They revert to old habits when theyimpose “just a few” extra design features to eLearning courses that are readyfor launch and simply require their sign off. Instead of reviewing the fully-developedcourse from a management perspective, they get caught up in font choices andcolor palettes—or worse, insist on completely new scenarios or content.

L&Dteams who design for I Know Better Ionas areoften frustrated by their managers’ micromanagement and lack of confidence intheir expertise, not to mention their design decisions. When the often-subjectivepreferences of I Know Better Ionas replacethe stated needs and preferences of the target audience, the course in questionis doomed to missthe mark for both employees and management.

In conclusion

WhenL&D teams incorporatedesign thinking and create personas based on learners, they keep theirgoals, motivations, and pain points top of mind. But when they unwittinglysubstitute learners’ personas with those of the L&D managers who sign offon the projects, they lose sight of whothey are designing for, and why theyare creating eLearning in the first place.