I was wondering. What role do workplace principles play in developing business skills. I mean, we tend to stick to teaching purely practical skills - like how to do this or how to do that.
Perhaps there is also a place for some online or classroom sessions on principles or ideas for (especially) managers to think about. There is so much out there published by business gurus that we never discuss with our people. I'm thinking things like communication style or team behaviour.
We also tend to teach theories as if they were facts. We write it up on the flipchart and say "Here is the XC theory. It states that Y is true. So let's see how we can apply it in the workplace". We never present two conflicting theories and then ask the participants to apply what they have experienced and know to question and evaluate the theories and choose the one they feel is most relevant to them. It is only by doing this that we can get our people to start to think critically and think for themselves ~ which is a key business skill.
What do you think?
Chris
Replies
Everyone has their own learning style but a particular learning style does not equate to a particular learning strategy. After all, if they don't know a particular strategy exists, how can they adopt it? Different parts of the world seem to prefer different learning strategies - even though learning styles are shown to be universal across all cultures. I think that's why it's important for us as educators to introduce our learners to a range of learning strategies - some of which they will have never heard of before.
After a few runs, evaluating what is working or not with regard to the presentation of ideas will hopefully enable trainings (maybe ideally a combination of compliance and seminar type trainings) to continue to evolve.
I definitely support the idea of the trainer giving examples but not coming down firmly on one side as correct. Relating back to the beginning discussion of how theories are often presented as facts...
Chris
I think this is where the seminar approach is useful. In this approach, the learners do some pre-reading or elearning which covers the ideas and concepts. In this pre-reading or elearning, the background and examples/results of studies are outlined with some discussion or thinking exercises to follow. Then, in a seminar-type classroom session, the instructor, taking the role of facilitator, opens a constructive dialogue on the issues and practical inplications of this theory or concept. Each group then writes up their conclusions on their own PPT slide to share with the class. Here individual participants, each with his or her unique work situation and background is able to decide and define what these concepts mean to them and how they plan to incorporate them to their working context or not, as the case may be. I remember this being very powerful at the recent kick-off seminar we did for the logistical staff.
By listening to their peers, the participants will also have a chance to evaluate their own position - this is far more powerful and useful than an instructor, who very often has a completely different background, telling the participants what's what.
Our role in this kind of seminar is not the sage on a stage, but rather a host who asks probing questions and highlights parts of the reading material/elearning to provoke thinking and further discussion - to get the participants to engage critically with the subject matter rather than blindly accepting the trainer's pronouncements.
At a later date, the Instructor can hold CENTRA or WEBEX meetings with the participants in small groups to see how, if at all, the concepts/ideas have impacted how the participants work. This model is the opposite to compliance - it is impowering, as instead of us evaluating the participants to see if the training was successful, the participants are evaluating the concepts/ideas to see if they match their own unique work situation, personality and background.
With skill, patience and adaptability, we should be able to get even Chinese learners to embrace this kind of learning. I don't think it's for us to decide what is and what is not good or going to work with Chinese participants. Our participants can be the only ones who can make that determination. Our role is to bring learning opportunities to our learners and let them decide what they want to do with them.
This is, of course, different from the compliance-type training all organisations want us to deliver. I think both are needed.
Cheers
Chris
'make a lot of statements but don't support them with any imperical evidence'.
This is a great sentence as I reckon it describes one of the problems about 'teaching' transformational skills. Sometimes everything is airy fairy with no real substance and I reckon Tiffany's comments were spot on that CN learners prefer facts presented by a qualified person. So can we 'teach' our CN learners transformational skills? How?
I reckon transformational learning is 70 and 20 but it definitely needs the 10 learning to get it going and present the idea to learners, but again -How?
Also, and I am thinking while writing here, would the transactional learning be best seen as the out-of-classroom learning that takes place at the workplace? I am refering here to the 70 and 20 of what is often called the 70:20:10 model (aka 360 degree learning model).
I mean transformational, not transactional
Fantastic choice of article! I like the distinction they draw, much better than my attempt, at transactional vs transformational learning.
The only hole I can find in the article is that they make a lot of statements but don't support them with any imperical evidence, such as from studies done to compare the application of the two. But anyway, taking the article at face value, I like the ideas they express. The way they described transformational learning reminds of me of some of the continuing professional development programmes we see in large organisations, often involving a coaching or mentoring element. It seems to me that many of the participants of these programmes do not perceive the difference between the kind of transactional stuff we deliver in the classroom or in elearning and the kind of transformational learning needed in a mentoring or coaching context.
Also, and I am thinking while writing here, would the transactional learning be best seen as the out-of-classroom learning that takes place at the workplace? I am refering here to the 70 and 20 of what is often called the 70:20:10 model (aka 360 degree learning model).
Thanks Mark for adding this, I feel our discussion is on a much more productive footing and can really go to some interesting places now...
Chris
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Perhaps it is for the participant to decide if there is a benefit or not. Our job is to expose the participant to these ideas; the rest is up to them to work out what they want to do with it. The way I see it, in this type of training, our job is to open their eyes, not control their minds, opinions or behaviours.
This is of course different from code of conduct training or how to do X training, where the recipient of the training has little or no choice in how to behave ~ their opinions on the other hand, are, as it should be, up to them.
Cheers
Chris
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next