Rethinking the learning function for a post-pandemic world.

2020 was an interesting year for the training function. On the one hand, never was there a need to support and train employees to deal with new realities, yet on the other hand, corporate university campuses fell silent as no one could travel. Learning technology platforms saw a surge in their use, with individuals consciously taking it upon themselves to learn new skills or address contemporary issues like resilience, stress management, etc. Many organizations committed significant amounts of money for upskilling and reskilling, yet others cut heavily into training budgets. It speaks to the fact that training is still relevant and essential, but training departments may not be.

I see three significant shifts responsible for driving the rethink on training departments. Firstly, changes are happening faster outside the organization than inside. The pandemic that has prompted many a disruption -in supply chains, investments in technologies and the working from home phenomena have rapidly upended the traditional management model. The Future of Work ain't what it used to be-it; indeed, it is already here. 

Secondly, the individual employee has become far more vested in the learning process- and now demands that organizations provide training for the whole person, not just for skills. One organization tried to bulldoze six-sigma training on everybody to find that most employees did not show up; they were more interested in happiness or mindfulness courses. Unless organizations consider employee needs seriously at a more holistic level, they will cease to be employers of choice. A broad set of training options for employees to choose from, as opposed to management to impose on, will become a valuable employee value proposition in the future. Additionally, a 'sub-shift' occurring in the workplace is the individualization of training that often calls for customization based on the individual needs and appropriate coaching that extends beyond the training to work habits. 

The third shift is that digitized learning technology platforms are here to stay. Online options, once an afterthought, have received a new lease of life. With learning technology companies offering complete solutions- from learning content to performance management to coaching to digital nudges and credentialling, such platforms provide more than a mere training program. They offer a broad-based set of solutions that may be easier to measure for effectiveness- an issue that had dogged training departments for a long time. 

With these shifts, the role of the learning departments in organizations are changing. Unless learning organizations consider and repurpose themselves to be performance architects, they will be obsolete. Even before the pandemic C-suites executives complained, their employees were behind on new skills and blamed their learning/training function. With some of the problems exacerbated during the pandemic, the concern is even more significant. 

To survive and thrive, the learning department (variously called the training function, Corporate University, etc.) needs to elevate itself as a strategic and proactive partner to build organizational and individual capabilities. To do so involves carefully rethinking and reframing through strategic choices the function has. Gone are the days where they deliver a one-size-fits-all training. Gone are the days where the learning function is but a prominent content deliverer. The learning function needs to be focused on creating a learning operating system that fast, scalable, and measurable in terms of its effectiveness. Just like the treasury function is essential to manage a company's financial flows, so is the learning function necessary for managing an equally critical asset- capable employees. 

I am sharing one best practice about how an organization is redesigning its training plan. This organization (a large multinational telecom company) rebooted its entire training strategy, focusing on general principles, purpose, and learning focus. It mapped out its whole approach, as shown in the following diagram.

Firstly, it broke its broad areas of training into six areas of learning it thought were essential for the organization: compliance training, necessary hard skills (the organization was rolling out lean six-sigma training across the board), reskilling (to help employees with new skills so that they can do new jobs in the future), upskilling (contemporizing skills for existing jobs that are being reshaped by advancing technologies), leadership development, culture skills (also called necessary soft skills) and finally, contextual knowledge (essential developments that the company needs to keep abreast of, like bitcoin, blockchain, or AI). 

Secondly, the training department looked at the nature of learning, if it was unique (that required organization-specific content or needed to be customized), standardized (content that is relevant for the industry, for instance, design-thinking, or agile working, and was available externally, though it may need to be customized specifically for the organization's use), 'common' training, those training that is available off the shelf and more universal (conflict management, strategic thinking, etc.). Finally, the organization also added coaching as a learning intervention as it felt that one-on-one coaching was critical for talent and leadership development. 

This step, i.e., determining the nature of learning, unique, standard, common, or coaching, was critical to work through who would provide the training. For instance, (this may not be true for every organization) they considered diversity and inclusion training as standardized, but unconscious bias training as unique. While they were keen on ensuring that everyone benefited from D & I training, they preferred to train employees on the unconscious bias using their own examples. Also, they wanted senior leaders from within the organization to lead this training to drive it as a culture change, not just a cognitive understanding of the subject. 

The final piece of the framework was to consider an ecosystem of providers and partners who will support the organization in its endeavors. Here the team decided which unique learning opportunities needed managing in-house. The learning department would drive the unique content, though they may sub-contract pieces to external vendors. Secondly, they looked at areas that were so highly commoditized that all they needed to do was create a course list provided by high-quality digital learning providers that employees could pull content from on-demand. Thirdly, they evaluated more targeted learning technology providers and prominent consultants to offer more standardized and customized courses that employees can enroll and, where necessary, get certified. The most significant change they brought about was partnering externally with world-class institutions for contextual knowledge relevant to the organization. For instance, they partnered with MIT (on technology and supply chain topics), Wharton (finance and strategy related topics) in areas where cutting edge thought leadership or research-based understanding was needed. For coaching, they restricted the coaching focus to the high-potential talent that was being prepped for bigger jobs and empaneled coaches to support such individuals. 

With this framework, the learning organization restructured itself, appointing one leader for each learning focus area. 

It is still too early to see how successful this organization's approach has been, but insiders speak of some apparent changes that have happened since they used this framework. Firstly, the role of the learning organization has changed. They have become more of orchestra conductors than players themselves. Their role is to manage the ecosystem and not try and do everything themselves. They feel that this has given them flexibility and reach they did not have earlier. Secondly, they have become aggressive 'content scouts' to ensure that they are looking for new providers and new content to be ahead of the game in providing capabilities for the organization just in time. Thirdly, this approach gives them a great deal of flexibility in managing both content and costs, as they can morph appropriately to the budgets and organizational constraints. The flexibility is also in terms of available technology. Many providers have platforms that could be leveraged instead of the organization trying to invest money in them. They have given up on their own LMS or LMX platforms other than for what is necessitated by compliance requirements as they have not found, after several years of experimenting, a workable LMS/ LMX platform. 

Perhaps the most significant change the organization has brought about is the thinking that learning is no longer a privilege reserved for an exclusive few; instead, it is a necessity, something that should be available to every employee. In doing so, they shifted capability building as catchup to it being a competitive advantage. 

What do you think?