Learning Flexibility

Several years back, the training department which employed me welcomed a new manager. Now saying 'training department' is bit of an exaggeration. There were three of us, including the manager, looking after the learning needs of over 1200 employees. We all wore many hats in creating and delivering learning to our clients.

When the new manager came in, she proposed we have a more systematic process of designing our learning. The example she showed us was from a professional instructional design company. It was impressive. Sixteen steps in the process, check-in gateways, and review timelines. It was a well-constructed process that would lead to an impressively designed learning document.

My fellow employee and I looked at each other, took a deep breath, and gently talked with the manager that it was indeed impressive, but that we were a department of three, not an instructional design house of hundreds. We were not just designing, but meeting with clients, teaching classes, and attending to other duties that were assigned by the larger HR group. We simply didn't have the bandwidth to follow the same design process and had created ways that worked for us to reach departmental goals.

Fast forward several years. The company where I worked was consolidating its departmental learning functions into a centralized group. Each person in the departmental learning groups was invited to apply for several positions, including instructional designer. To conduct the interviews for the instructional design role, the company brought in a consultant from an instructional design house.

The interviews were brutal. Along with the interviewer being rude, her expectation was that we should all be instructional design experts. Later we found out that the plan was to farm out all instructional design work to this woman's company, so she was in fact interviewing us for a role reporting to her.

Only a few people were given positive reviews by the interviewer. Some were offered roles in the company. To my knowledge, none accepted as the salaries being offered were laughably low.

Those of us who were given negative reviews gathered a few days later to discuss our interviews. We all shared the same story of the interview process and the expectations of the interviewer. We talked about how in our job roles, we could not follow that formal a process and be expected to meet our deadlines. As one of my colleagues said, "I'm lucky I can get instructor notes in before the class has to be taught".

Many L&D practitioners have to wear many hats in their roles. We may be meeting with a client to discuss a curriculum one day, designing in Articulate the next, producing a quick reference guide the third, and teaching multiple sessions the day after that. That requires a creative mind, an attention to deadlines, and an ability to switch specialties at a moment's notice. It doesn't even factor in the other responsibilities we may have that are not learning related at all.

The best way to manage that person? Not through flow charts and gateways. Instead, look at the results. Have their clients improved business performance based on what was taught? Did you receive positive feedback on the instructor and the class? Did the client come back for further training or refer your group to one of their colleagues? What impact did your employee make?

Processes are important, but so is understanding what your employees need to do to satisfy clients, drive the business, and help their students do the same. It may not always be by-the-book, but it has been developed over time to be successful. Isn't that what you are in business for?