May 20, 2013
These three trends are driving big changes in the industry and make a strong case for bite-sized learning, according to Sebastian Bailey from this article found on the CLO website.
Three trends are driving big changes in the learning and development industry, and none have anything to do with informal learning, mobile learning or game-based learning. These trends are miniaturization, modularization and mass customization.
Miniaturization refers to the distilling of a learning experience into smaller, more easily consumed packages. Miniaturization is everywhere, from the size of 32 gigabyte flash drives to wafer-thin televisions.
This shift has repercussions for learning and development functions. Previously, a one- or two-day program would have been acceptable. Now the market is consistently seeking shorter and sharper experiences with immediate practical application. A poll of roughly 200 learning and development practitioners in February showed that more than 90 percent agreed that they will be looking to miniaturize their learning experiences in the year ahead.
For many learning practitioners, however, miniaturization is a challenge. Quality is often mistakenly equated to comprehensiveness. A review of the learning portfolio of Sainsbury’s, a supermarket in the U.K., discovered that among some very well-designed materials, the training manual explaining how to handle shopping carts ran more than 50 pages. Learning design needs to focus on results rather than coverage.
Continue this article online, by clicking here….
May 18, 2013
To broaden cultural intelligence across a global organization, build a knowledge management system that can gather, house and disseminate it.
Organizational silos often inhibit employees from easily accessing global intelligence, and the larger the organization, the more likely it is that critical information is not being shared. For instance, someone working in the office of regulatory affairs in Japan may be a local subject matter expert, but a colleague in another office who needs such information doesn’t know that expertise exists.
This is problematic because CLOs are now responsible for helping to drive globalization in their organizations. There are multiple facets to consider: expansion into developing markets; an increasingly diverse and multicultural workforce; new joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions; headquartering functional groups in different geographies; and manufacturing in multiple countries, to name a few. The CLO has to manage all of the global knowledge coming in and make it available to those who need the information to succeed. Building a knowledge management process to promote global intelligence sharing can help.
Where Is the Info?
There is plenty of financial, political and economic knowledge available in the marketplace and the workplace, but many organizations’ global initiatives fail because they lack cultural competence. They assume that what works at home will work elsewhere. Success in one context is no assurance of success in another. The key to success lies in using collective cultural intelligence, developing cultural competence in those working in a global context and in sharing this knowledge across the organization.
Continue reading this article from the Chief Learning Officer website, and written by Neal Goodman, click here…
May 16, 2013
Bosses who teach skills and habits to employees drive higher individual productivity and elevate team performance, according to this article from the CLO website, written by Mike Prokopeak.
There’s an old saying that those who can, do and those who can’t, teach. But in business, as it turns out, those bosses who can, in terms of generating higher productivity, are in fact teachers.
According to a study by economics researchers from Stanford and the University of Utah, replacing a low-performing boss with a high-performing one boosts productivity by 12 percent, which is better than adding a 10th worker to a nine-person team. The researchers call it the “boss effect,” and they identified it by examining the productivity of workers who change bosses.
“If the worker’s skills don’t really change with the move, then you see that there’s a productivity gain or loss that can be attributed to the change in bosses,” said Kathryn Shaw, a professor of economics at Stanford University and one of the study’s authors.
About two-thirds of the productivity boost workers generate from working with a good boss persists even after they switch to a new boss, according to the study, which examined 23,878 workers matched with 1,940 bosses in a technology-based business over a five year period. The effect on a worker’s output does eventually depreciate, but it can last up to several months, Shaw said.
May 15, 2013
What is required to build the workforce of the future? Find out by reading this article found on the CLO website, written by Peter Cheese.
A focus on outcomes, not just delivery methods, and greater emphasis on lifetime learning, instead of short bursts of training, can help develop tomorrow’s workers.
Skills mismatches around the world are growing. According to a 2012 McKinsey study, by 2020 the world may have a global shortfall of as many as 40 million skilled workers.
What’s more, in many mature economies there is high structural unemployment alongside growing job vacancies. In the McKinsey study, almost 40 percent of employers report a lack of skills as being the main reason for entry-level vacancies. Moreover, 36 percent of employers said the lack of skills was causing problems with cost, quality and time.
Meanwhile, across Europe and most developed economies, the nature of work has steadily shifted to higher skill and higher value-add jobs. This is the result of the growth of the services sector and the knowledge economy together with the automation or outsourcing of more routine and low-skill jobs.
In Europe, estimates project that during the next 10 years there will be growth of up to 18 million higher-skilled jobs versus an equivalent decline of 11 million jobs in low-skilled work.
When Oxford Economics, on behalf of recruitment consultancy Hays, asked companies what they are doing about the skills gaps, findings varied from further training of existing team members (25 percent) to expanding the candidate search outside the immediate region. Only 12 percent of those surveyed reported they were looking at “appointing people who do not currently have the skills for the role, but show potential to learn and grow.” Hays described this approach as a “teachable fit.”
May 13, 2013
Something big is going on in business today. More and more companies have decided to radically change their performance appraisal process.
Last week at our research conference we spoke with Adobe, Juniper, Kelly Services, and a variety of other companies who have decided to do away with traditional performance ratings and completely change the annual appraisal process.
Our research shows that this is a strong and positive trend.
Why the process must change.
Why do companies have annual reviews in the first place? Primarily they are an artifact from traditional top-down companies where we had to “weed out” the bottom performers every year. By forcing managers to rate people once per year we can have annual talent reviews and decide who gets more money, who to promote, and who to let go.
Coupled with the performance rating is the “potential” rating, which tries to capture an individual’s potential to move up two levels in the organization (the traditional definition).
This approach is based on a philosophy that “we cant totally trust managers” so we’re going to force them to fit people into these rating scales. And in many companies (around 20%) there are forced distributions.
Continue this article found on LinkedIn, and written by Josh Bersin, click here…