LEARNING'S NOT OPTIONAL; NEITHER IS COMPETENCE!

Learning and development folk are keen to share their knowledge of the four stages of learning - yet it is the result of that learning that workplaces want to see.

I have taken Noel Burch's 1970's model of the four stages of learning and adapted this into the stages of competence.

Most of us can identify with a new job in which we felt incompetent.  In fact, the first day we had no idea of many aspects of the subject or role or work environment.  Through exposure, we gradually learnt the ropes and we became conscious of our existing knowledge and skills.  At the same time, we became aware of the cavernous gaps in our competence and confidence (we usually kept this to ourselves!). 

Then, through learning, we became competent at what we were doing.  After months of practicing and doing the same stuff we could be deemed unconsciously competent - we had got so good at the task or the process we could do it with little or no thought. 

Sadly, with years of experience, we can sometimes end up with unrealised incompetence. We've always done what we've always done, so we always do what we always do.  This occurs in spite of the reality that the tools, technology, timeframes and talents required to perform competently have definitely changed.

When we reach the stage of unconscious competence, staying current is a key factor to maintaining competence.  Therefore, we have to continue to learn so we can stay current. 

Staying current means we have to embrace change and welcome a more flexible, adaptive style of working.  Perhaps most important of all is the role managers must play in ensuring everyone is held accountable, including themselves, for maintaining the competency needed to survive in a rapidly changing world.

  

Who's Accountable for Learning?

Who's accountable for the transfer of learning: the learner, the trainer, the manager or the learning environment?

Companies around the world collectively spend millions of dollars each year on staff training yet many of those companies do nothing to check that learning occurs and then do nothing to ensure learning is maintained long after the training. In fact, many of the companies do little to determine that training matches the desired performance outcomes. In house or external training appears to be selected by title with little analysis of content or the intended or proven measurable outcomes.

It is rare for companies to invest the time to develop and conduct diagnostic assessments prior to training to clearly define specific learning needs. As a result staff get sent off to training that is not properly aligned with individual or organisaitonal needs. Only some managers sit down with employees to determine specific performance gaps and then source training with appropriate learning outcomes.

During training many trainers completely overlook the need for formative assessments. They may include activities and knowledge checks but these are often shallow and of little real learning value. Post course assessments to measure learning is frowned upon and seen as a punitive meausre by many and longitudinal assessments of demonstrated learning are rare.

No wonder return on investment of training is so hard to determine. The metrics for performance are often not in place prior to training, the training is not linked to clearly defined quantifiable learning outcomes and after training the learner is somewhat abandonded as no one seems to care if learning did occur.

Exploration of these issues and ways to address them will unfold in future posts.