Conversations
with Hubert Saint-Onge
Conflicting
Views on Training and CoPs
Table of Contents (Click on list item to go
directly to each topic)
Part II: Communities
of Practice, Forums for Learning
Part
II: Communities of Practice, Forums for Learning
Jerry Ash kicked
off this debate by referring to a previous discussion with Tom
Stewart back in the March STAR Series Dialogue whereby:
John
Barrett
wrote "During Hubert Saint-Onge's presentation at the Delphi/AOK
Summit he briefly but very clearly stated that training and development
should be done away with!!! As I recall the context, he was indicating
that CoPs were where all learning should take place. While
concurring that CoPs should be key in promoting knowledge transfer,
I must say I respectfully disagree with the notion that (hierarchical)
training and development should be eliminated."
 T&D
is Obstacle to Learning Organization
Jerry
Ash: Did
John misinterpret what you said in Palm Springs? How do you shift
all of an organization's development and training to a system
of CoPs outside the hierarchy and still accomplish the goals
of the organization? Can you give us examples of how you did
it at Clarica or some of the other organizations for which you
have worked? Even if the two systems "coexist," how
can they be made to work together so successfully that the traditional
functions of the hierarchy can be transferred to self-governing
(unmanaged?) communities?
Recalling Tom Stewart's reactions, how can you assign work like
training and development to communities of practice:
"Hubert Saint-Onge
stated I have been saying for quite some time that the classic
Training and Development function is the most important obstacle
to the creation of a learning organization."
Hubert
Saint-Onge:
The classic T&D function delivers training mostly through
the classroom, complemented by other means of instruction. I
believe that most of what goes on under this definition is largely
ineffectual in our current organizational contexts. A very small
proportion of the substantial investment put into T&D activities
actually hits the mark."
The first step in
making the change required is to move from "training"
to learning. This is not a small change. Training belongs in
an entitlement-based organization, one where the individual passively
waits to be given what they need to do the job. If it is not
forthcoming, then it's all the fault of the organization.
On the other hand,
there are no instructors in the learning environment. The learner
has to be self-initiated and assume responsibility for their
learning.
The lack of ownership
is at the root of the failure of the T&D approach to capability
building. Self-initiation consists of owning one's performance,
owning one's learning and owning one's career. The individual
has tools at their disposal to assess their learning requirements
and the resources to undertake the learning they need. An individual
has to own their performance and the consequences of this performance,
in order to have a sense of ownership for the learning they need
to undertake in order have the capability required to perform
at the right level. Of course, coaching is an inherent part of
the learning process in such an environment.
In my view the shift
to self-initiation is a key requirement for a successful knowledge
strategy. We are making available to individuals the full knowledge
base of the organization. Only those who are self-initiated will
take advantage of the knowledge tools and processes made available
to them. Knowledge and learning are in complete convergence.
Knowledge is the ability to take effective action. Learning is
the process of taking information and inserting it into one's
practice. In this context, learning (usually in the form of an
intranet). Second, knowledge exchange which links up members
with common learning needs through productive inquiries within
communities of practice. The first deals with knowledge as an
object and the second, knowledge as a flow.
I believe both these
components are required for a successful knowledge strategy.
I also believe that once these two components are in place and
available to all members of an organization, we have the perfect
approach to self-initiated learning. If I need to learn something
in the course of my work, I can then access relevant knowledge
objects and learn from them. I can also put forward an inquiry
in the community of practice where colleagues who may have encountered
a similar situation will be able to put everything in context
for me. I now have socially validated information that I can
readily turn into knowledge. In such a scenario, capability building
is not a classroom activity for days at a time. Instead, it is
completely done. There are no needs for classrooms or instructors.
Learning is working and working is learning. Capability building
is then self-managed and self-generated.
Paul
Cripwell,
J.P. Cripwell Associates, provided agreement: I am
reminded of the number of times I have worked in offices and
been asked if I knew how to do some operation in Word, Word Perfect,
Excel or some other software. Most of the time I have never done
the particular operation before. I try a few experiments, and
within a short time have the operation figured out and complete.
The person making the original request usually says something
like, "I have never been trained to do that." The first
time I heard it I was flabbergasted, but now realize that it
is SOP around an office, very much in line with what Hubert is
saying in his post of training vs. learning.
My solution, that
fits within Hubert's overall structure, is what I call "Learning
Under Deadline."
There are two parts
to this session, and the second half deals with this issue. Basically
the idea is that you have a task to perform within a deadline.
You know that you (or your staff) can complete this by the deadline
using the known techniques of the office software. As one would
expect, the manager will delegate this task and the person will
complete it using what they know. Nothing is learnt.
The second method
is to find a faster way. With a deadline looming there is pressure
to find the method. 99 times out of 100 there is a faster method
out there.
My favourite example
of this is many years ago when I was using Lotus 123 Version
1, and I had a long list of flights with a frequency per week
as one column. Unfortunately I needed to have a list of records
which had no frequency but represented each flight uniquely.
The problem, how to create multiple rows from a single row.
Method 1 was to
copy and paste the correct number of rows through the whole sheet.
This I know I could do and would require my complete attention
for a long time.
Method 2 was to
create a macro, but it had to be a special macro that could rewrite
itself with the correct number of duplicates. This I had never
done before.
I opted for Method
2 and spent many hours perfecting the macro. Once I was finished
I could leave the computer to do all the work and go for coffee!
Work done on time and I learned more about macros.
This is my solution
to promote the move from training to learning. It works for me,
and has been used successfully in a small number of cases, but
I find the majority of office work is still guided by the "Train
Me!" mentality. So in this respect I am totally behind the
effort to get rid of traditional T&D.
John
Barrett, who had identified the initial
conflict of opinions, felt T&D still has its place:
I do very much concur
that the more frequent individuals initiate the exercise of learning
the better the organization will be. However I can't agree that
"well done" T&D does not have its place, especially
when learning the basics of a practice.
Effective training
can provide for larger groups to move along at a faster pace.
It can ensure that everyone receives the same fundamentals (often
required in a regulated environment).
Additionally, it
can be an important vehicle for promoting a consistent message
or theme across an organization. And lastly the class room environment
creates its own community for learning, where for example questions
one never even thought of are heard from others in the class.
I don't believe
we need CoPs in lieu of training. Rather as individuals move
from rookie towards expert the best learning vehicle moves from
training to CoP learning.
Back
to top
CoPs: Skill Maturity Doesn't
Determine T&D
Hubert
Saint-Onge
reiterated that his belief that "training" and "learning"
spring from entirely different paradigms:
Training is based
on a set of entitlement assumptions that instructors know best
what needs to be learnt. Learning is based on self-initiation
where the learner is given a road map and the learning resources
required to acquire the capabilities they need to provide the
level of performance they need to be successful in their role.
Under this latter
set of assumptions, the learner takes ownership for his or her
learning because he or she owns his or her own performance. Under
training assumptions, the company assumes the need to instruct
the learning to make sure it is consistently imparted. The former
belongs in the knowledge era, the latter to the industrial era.
Some "classroom" activity can be taking place within
a learning context, but the classroom is the main delivery space
for training. The agile, fast moving organization of today cannot
depend on training to generate the necessary level of capability:
it is too time intensive and inefficient. Of course, some T&D
outfits are better run than others but it is the fundamental
premises that are no longer suited to the business context prevalent
in most organizations today.
There is no point
speaking of knowledge in an organization that does not actively
foster self-initiation. In a knowledge-driven organization, the
technology infrastructure is such that people learn as they do
their work: knowledge and learning are in complete convergence.
The choice between "learning" and "training"
is not based on the skill maturity of the learner. It is based
on what one believes is more effective at engendering capability
on a sustainable basis in today's organization.
Keith
De La Rue, Knowledge Development, KnowHow, Telstra, Melbourne,
Australia framed another appeal
for "Facilitated Learning:"
I support your concept
of self-initiated learning, but I would like to suggest that
there are strengths in facilitated learning when used in the
right context. I would be interested in your thoughts on one
approach that we use here.
We are engaged in
knowledge transfer on products and services to the business sales
force of a large telecommunications company. We use a number
of self-directed learning techniques, but also one facilitated,
face-to-face approach we call "Two Hours of Power"
(2HP). This was developed due to the apparent lack of success
(and cost) of much previous traditional training. There are three
main principles of 2HP - choice of facilitator, structure and
content.
We found that traditional
'trainers' here usually had little subject matter expertise --
a failing for our target audience, as they want questions answered
on the spot. However, our subject matter experts were often unequipped
to facilitate training. Our approach was to seek out people with
some expertise and some presentation skills who could be coached
to bridge this gap.
The structure of
the first hour of 2HP is a lecture session. The second hour is
then knowledge reinforcement of the key points - usually a team-based
role-play of a customer presentation, with prizes (king-size
chocolate bars) to the members of the winning team. Keeping to
the two hours is very important to our 'time-poor' audience.
Our content developers
usually have sales experience, and design the lecture content
to be very targeted at what a sales person really needs to know
- 'Why would my customer want to buy this product?' 'What is
the minimum knowledge I need to effectively sell it?' By aiming
more directly at the needs and motivations of a target audience,
facilitated learning can be a very effective technique for knowledge
transfer.
Back
to top
CoPs: T&D
Done "To" Them; Learning Done "By" Them
Deb
Wallace
stated the shift that we see occurring in most levels of education
is from teaching to learning (private and public sectors), moving
from a focus of a passive intake of information directed by a
teacher to a dynamic discovery of new knowledge initiated by
a learner. In the private sector, the shift has taken the form
of moving from "training and development" to "learning".
Summaries abound on how "learning" is different than
"training" -- if you'd like some references, I can
supply them.
What I've always
found interesting in working with adults is that they don't take
the time to stop and think about how they learn now as
an adult as opposed to how they were "taught" as a
child. Although Knowles introduced the idea of andragogy back
in the mid-70s, most of the adults that I have come in to contact
with still think about learning as something that is done "to"
them. They haven't been introduced to how to learn as
an adult.
We don't spend a
lot of time helping people to formulate new ways of learning.
Sure we provide them with new tools, we introduce new approaches
in workshops, but we don't as a matter of course take a few minutes
and ask people to stop and think how they learn best in the "real
world".
ASTD has outlined
four component skills related to knowing how to learn (cited
here from J. Meister's book on Corporate Universities -- McGraw-Hill,
1998):
- Ask the right questions.
- Identify the essential
components within complex ideas.
- Find informal ways
to measure one's understanding of pertinent material.
- Apply these skills
to the goals of specific job tasks.
It seems to me that
communities of practice are the best "training ground"
for learning as an adult. Adults are situated in practice, focused
on direct needs, the content and process have been validated
by peers, they're collaborative. Members of a community have
a much better opportunity to learn how to learn as an adult within
this collaborative environment rather than within an artificial
gathering of colleagues in a classroom.
 Part
I: Communities of Practice in Practice at Clarica
Part III: Communities in
Theory; Some Broader Questions 
Back
to top
|
