Training/ Learning/ Training Has Jumped the Shark

Push-Pull

The naming convention of “Training” is coming back, from what I read online sometime last week.

So in my time in the biz, the label on the door has gone from Training to Learning and now back to Training.

But I am not sure that many of the intentions and practices for those who rename/ rebrand themselves will change sufficiently as a result.

Why would they?

And besides that is merely one of many required means to be in place to make it all happen.

Are the ends Learning? No.

Training? No.

Mobile? No.

EPSS? No.

Performance? Yes.

Hmm. Performance.

After all, it is really “all about performance” ultimately, at the enterprise, process and performer levels.

How effectively AND efficiently we enable that, performance capability, is both our goal, and our measure.

Yeah, that’s the ticket.

Effectively and Efficiently Enabling Performance at All 3 Levels

Or why bother?

# # #

One comment on “Training/ Learning/ Training Has Jumped the Shark”

Guy, as you know, I couldn’t agree more. But even when the training/learning/performance pro gets this, it doesn’t mean that they are empowered to truly influence performance in their current role. In the enterprise/function/department structure, we need business leaders who get this too. (The right environment/culture, I think, in EPPI-speak, but I’d specifically add “leaders”). On a good day, I’d probably debate that if we taught the things that business leaders REALLY need to know in business school (HPT for starters, and folks like Gilbert, Rummler, Harless, and dare I say, Wallace), we might not even need a “training department” as it exists today. But, sadly, since that’s not the case, it might be interesting to expand your diagram to call-out the need for an ecosystem and executive team that understands and supports performance work. Because without out that, even the best performance technologist is going to be swimming upstream, day in and day out, trying to do the right thing, but fighting against his/her own company (leaders), every step of the way. In my opinion, this is an equal challenge to the fact that many people in the field of training/learning don’t see the full performance picture. Chicken and egg, to some degree, but I see both as part of the challenge facing us. Mike

LikeLike

Mike Kunkle

May 29, 2013 @ 9:10 am

Guy, as you know, I couldn’t agree more. But even when the training/learning/performance pro gets this, it doesn’t mean that they are empowered to truly influence performance in their current role. In the enterprise/function/department structure, we need business leaders who get this too. (The right environment/culture, I think, in EPPI-speak, but I’d specifically add “leaders”). On a good day, I’d probably debate that if we taught the things that business leaders REALLY need to know in business school (HPT for starters, and folks like Gilbert, Rummler, Harless, and dare I say, Wallace), we might not even need a “training department” as it exists today. But, sadly, since that’s not the case, it might be interesting to expand your diagram to call-out the need for an ecosystem and executive team that understands and supports performance work. Because without out that, even the best performance technologist is going to be swimming upstream, day in and day out, trying to do the right thing, but fighting against his/her own company (leaders), every step of the way. In my opinion, this is an equal challenge to the fact that many people in the field of training/learning don’t see the full performance picture. Chicken and egg, to some degree, but I see both as part of the challenge facing us. Mike

LikeLike