This is the thesis of the book I’m working on. It’s not yet beta; this is alpha. Give me feedback and I’ll continue to post as I write.
Overview
In the network era, learning is the work. It is the survival skill and the key to prosperity. This book advocates investing in learning that demonstrably improves organizational performance.
Pragmatic and grounded in experience, this is a re-think of how organizational learning can increase profits, spur innovation, and help businesses prosper.
This is a book for managers about applying common sense to build a workforce that improves performance naturally, without prodding. It’s about eliminating training bureaucracy and sacred cows that have failed to keep pace with the times. It’s a new way of looking at how people become competent in their work and fulfilled in their professional lives.
In today’s volatile, unpredictable times, learning is the key to corporate responsiveness and survival.
While learning is ascendent, training is in decline, for workers are embracing self-service learning; they learn in the context of work, not at some training event divorced from work.
Learning and development professionals won’t like this book. It explodes too many myths; it declares training departments obsolete; it deals only with learning that improves organizational performance.
Learning is not schooling. Quite the contrary. For the most part, the learning we propose does away with instructors, classrooms, report cards, and graduation. In the new business learning, everyone is a teacher, the workplace is our classroom, on-job performance is the measure of success, and learning continues throughout one’s career.
Embedding learning in work reduces overall spending while improving performance. Abandoning obsolete notions of training cuts costs. Relying on natural, peer-based learning improves business results.
Push and Pull
Organizational learning tends to be mostly push or mostly pull. Push is the sort of learning you encountered in school, where authorities selected the curriculum and lessons were imposed on you. Pull describes the way you learn from Google or discovered how to kiss a lover. With pull learning, you select what you want to learn and how you want to learn it.
Pull learning is more cost-effective. It doesn’t require as much in the way of control mechanisms, structure, and outside assistance. Furthermore, lessons learned through pull are more likely to stick because they’re relevant to perceived need, delivered when required, and usually reinforced with immediate application. Pull learning delivers more bang for the buck.
Organizations that increase the ratio of pull to push can lower their overall investment in learning without sacrificing results. Given the greater payback of pull learning, the objective is to achieve greater results while spending less.


Why am I advocating cutting the overall spend? Because it’s an easier concept to sell. Managers have been skeptical of the value of training for decades. One hopes that the lure of the Holy Grail of achieving more from less is an offer they can’t refuse.








{ 1 trackback }
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
See my blog post about your presentation in London at the Learning Technologies Conference (Feb 09).
http://daretoshare.wordpress.com/2009/02/09/jay-cross-at-learning-technology/
See my post about your recent key note presentation at the Learning Technologies Conference in London Feb 09.
Jay a book about performance that explodes the myths is long overdue and I agree with your synopsis above. I think one of the keys to managers pulling learning is the quality of the feedback (formal or informal) they get on thier performance and their ability to envision another way of doing things.
My business supports the informal pull approach and we have loads of evidence of how to make it work successfully, but there is still a time when you need to take an employee out of the work place and immerse them in an experience to change their perception and fundamental understanding.
We look at three levels of learning:
1) Just-in-time = pull
2) Explore = pull (I’ve got a bit of time and this is important and I’m willing to explore the learning)
3) Deep dive = more formal learning where the learner is immersed in the learning often outwith the work place.
Finally, the more the learner realises that improvement is required and the more important the need to learn and perform better, the more they will pull learning towards them. Obvious but often forgotten.
good luck
In a world where learning is all pull, how does one deal with people’s blind spots? — the “I don’t know what I don’t know” so I’m not likely to be looking for it. Is there an assumption that by connecting with others and peer learning, one would eventually uncover these blind spots?
I agree completely with the premise of your alpha idea, Jay. I wrote something based on a similar premise after reading the 2009 CLO Intelligence Report Executive Summary which I don’t feel reflects a fast enough change in the mindset of L&D:
http://orbitalrpm.com/2009/2009-clo-intelligence-report-no-seat-at-the-table-with-this-data/