This month I accepted an invitation to speak at a PhD Research Seminar hosted by a London educational institution, my subject being “Action Research as a PhD Research Methodology”. It was an extremely interesting event attended by potential and already-engaged Doctoral students from across the globe. I received a warm welcome and an attentive audience listened to what I had to say, many of them staying behind to ask questions and pick up on points I’d made in the presentation. Later that afternoon, nursing a cup of coffee while waiting for my train, I contemplated the expectations that guide so many students to come to the UK to study.

It struck me that a great number of the students whom I’d met came from countries where the education systems had either been established during the days of the British Empire, or had used the English school system as a template for excellence. Their national systems hark back to a day when an English Public School education was the benchmark against which all other standards were measured. India is an example of a nation who have this as part of their history, benefitting, or suffering depending on your viewpoint, from the value patterns in education that were established during colonial rule. My mind immediately recalled a conversation at the Center for Creative Leadership (CCL) in North Carolina only two weeks earlier, one which offered a very contemporary insight into the Indian education system.

I was speaking to Lyndon Rego, Director of Leadership Across Boundaries at CCL. “The education system in India is broken,” he told me, “it serves a very narrow section of the population, and big business in India is telling us that the education system is not producing people with the skills that they need for the nation to grow.” We went on to discuss the work of the Leadership Across Boundaries team in creating cost-effective supplementary educational responses and the potential for RSVP / MLD to get involved in the design of materials to support these initiatives. Our discussion was about India, but I’m sure that there are many countries who work within the legacy of empire and a set of expectations about how an effective education looks and feels.

Putting my two experiences together I reflected on how many of the students who are produced by these systems gravitate towards the West, often the UK and USA, to seek higher qualifications, and whether they are being well served by what they receive? A century and more ago Britain’s educationalists were hailed as what we would now call thought-leaders, cutting edge innovators who were forging methods and systems to make education as effective and efficient as possible. Is this still the case, or have we somehow failed to keep pace in applying what is known about how people learn?

It won’t come as any surprise to anybody who follows my musings on learning design in this newsletter to hear that I would answer both of these questions in the negative. I don’t think we serve our students well, whether they are national or international in origin, and I vehemently contend that we have somehow lost our innovative edge in translating theory into practice in education. Our research into learning and education is second to none, but somehow there has arisen a disconnect between this theory and the practice that is evident in classrooms and lecture theatres in both the UK and USA.

To go into the reasons for this situation would take me into the realms of politics, and well away from the purpose of this newsletter. At RSVP, and more recently through MLD, I have been trying to challenge this inherent conservatism in education by providing the materials and processes that will allow educators access to materials that are better attuned to the complexity of how people learn. I’m not alone. I meet many people who recognise a need for change, people who have the bravery to work inside of our educational structures, and those, like me, who are outside looking in. Each of us is, in our small way, trying to make a difference because we believe that the consumers of education deserve better.

I think that the UK has the talent, the potential and the track record to once again become a thought leader in educational practice. Across the world, rightly or wrongly, a great many people still look to these shores to offer an example of best practice in education, and many make the commitment to come here to benefit from that expertise. Surely we need to take this role and responsibility seriously and move to a system where we are sure that what we offer is the best we can make it? I don’t know how this can happen, but I do know that if there is sufficient will to change the system we have the tools to make the change work. Change always involves learning and we’ve proved that we know how to learn – perhaps what’s lacking is leadership?

If that’s the case then being a thought leader in leadership education suddenly takes on a whole new importance.

education, experiences, learning, Research Hide

My colleague Graham Cook often takes the opportunity to make jokes about the length of time that I’ve been in the people-development profession, and some of the practices that, though seemingly humorous now, were cutting-edge at the time. Our MLD visit to the Center for Creative Leadership this month offered a whole new audience for those jokes, although it has to be said that many of the approaches that these days seem crazy to us in Europe have actually persisted much longer in the US. These insights led me to reflect on how we organise learning space, and how this has evolved.

Back in the heady days of the 70’s, when Transactional Analysis and sensitivity were our dominant grouproom influences, my working space had beanbags on the floor instead of seats, and a mattress in the corner in case anybody wanted to shed a few tears or act out their anger! There was no apparent front of the room, the flipchart was pushed to one side and was open to anybody to write on, the lack of focus reflecting the ideal of an equal sharing of power between the person facilitating the group and the group members themselves.

Then came the OHP, and with it the requirement for everybody to be able to see a screen. The beanbags became seats, the U-shaped table appeared, and the power shifted to the person at the front who controlled what was shown on the screen. Group dynamics and communication development couldn’t survive this change and we entered the era of development training and leadership courses. Soon the OHP gave way to the laptop and projector, and “death by Powerpoint” became an international plague, further increasing the extent to which the development of the working group depended on the skills of the presenter as entertainer. It’s interesting to reflect on the way that control over the technology has dictated how we approach people-development, and how both the experience of consumers, and the skills of trainers, have been detrimentally affected by this shift.

But just as we blame technology for this retrograde trend, developments in this very field may offer us an opportunity to re-balance the grouproom power balance. A large and exciting part of our design efforts have been focused on using iPads in the grouproom. What makes this different from much of the technology that has appeared in the preceding decades is the way that this individually controlled, but universally linked, technology can be used to facilitate a renegotiation of the power balance in the grouproom. Individual learners can take charge of what they see, share, contribute and record in a way that puts the emphasis back on them rather than the trainer.

I have to admit that this vision of the future, perhaps virtual, grouproom wasn’t one that I immediately related to – the spirit of the 70’s still runs deep in my professional psyche.

•The emphasis will surely be all about the interaction of people and tablets, rather than the true sharing that makes it worthwhile getting people into the same space?

•It’s obvious that the brilliance of the technology will distract people from the difficult issues that need to be addressed.

•How can we expect the facilitator to control the group when everybody has so much control over how and where they are working?

All perfectly legitimate concerns, but none of them create circumstances that can’t be addressed through good learning design that recognises the technology as a tool to support good pedagogical practice. And moving away from physically shared space might offer unprecedented opportunities for real and meaningful learning.

Let’s take as an example of a familiar pattern of learning interaction:

1.Information input

2. Individual reflection/Small groupwork

3. Share

4. Discuss

The Information Input stage can happen ‘anytime anywhere’, before or during the learning interaction. It can be centralised, high production value or pretty much home-made by the facilitator.It can be as content-inert or dynamic as required, and uniquely tailored to the needs of individual learners of groups.

The Individual reflection/Small groupwork stage can happen in the same physical space around a shared device, or remotely on different devices using shared screens. It can be synchronous or asynchronous, extended or time-bounded, elaborate or simple, structured or unstructured. The facilitator can observe the content and/or process, constantly or periodically, or allow it to happen independently.

The Sharing stage can allow individuals/small groups full creative control, or be tightly defined. It can be synchronous or asynchronous. Inputs can be amended in real-time to build on other inputs, they can be dedicated to one individual or sub-group or can be automatically incorporated to create a multi-group ‘collage’. They can also be attributed to an individual or group, or be anonymised by the devices.

Discussion can be a straightforward circulate and comment process, or an incremental building of content and understanding. It can be focused on the tablet or simply use the tablet to provide stimulus for traditional face-to-face interaction. The content can use rich media to generate stronger reactions across synchronous or asynchronous discussions.

In short, the mobile device has the potential to return the power in the grouproom to the more equal distribution that we experienced in the 70’s. It remains to be seen whether there still exists in the profession of trainer/facilitators the skills, or appetite, to capture and utilise this potential.

discussion, groups, leadership, learning, learning spaces, people development, reflection Hide

Next week RSVP Design (or at least the bespoke learning-design part of the company) moves into Pilot Programme mode. We’ll be phones off, mail off and 100% focused on delivering a new programme and simultaneously examining the potential effectiveness of that programme against the agreed learning outcomes. It’s always a fraught and exhausting time, not least when you consider that we’re our own worst critics and any perceived design flaws will always be spotted and noted for later attention.

And there will be flaws….

There are always flaws…..

That’s why we try very hard to manage client expectations around piloting processes, in particular explaining how we think of piloting and what its place in a design process is: and very often this comes as quite a challenge to client preconceptions.

We like to pilot early, and pilot dirty.

That is to say we try out the programme content and approach long before the learning materials are polished and ready for general release to groups of consumers. That way we can spot any problems with the major determinants of success e.g. programme structure, cultural compatibility with the client organisation, intellectual/practical pitch and mix, distribution of content against allotted time etc. This allows us to be absolutely safe in the knowledge that the learning design is right, so that the subsequent layers of instructional design and materials production are applied to a firm foundation.

OK we know that this doesn’t always make us look too good.

And we recognise that it places some strain on the trust that our clients have in us.

But our approach is based on one very clear, but often contentious principle:

The most important learning that comes out of a piloting process is the learning that is derived by the design/delivery team.

Of course we’re experienced enough to recognise the fundamental issue that this creates for clients and we try our utmost to work with them to manage this issue: but the fact remains that we have to negotiate what can be a sensitive area for many learning and development professionals:

How do we assemble a representative group of learners to experience new materials, and to offer us their constructive feedback, when what they will experience is unashamedly a ‘work-in-progress’?

And obviously this dilemma will be that much the greater as we climb higher up the corporate ladder – the more senior the population the less tolerant they will be of the draft materials they are asked to experience.

Well no…. that isn’t my experience.

I’ve found that if a piece of learning is strategically and tactically important to a company it should be relatively easy to identify an executive sponsor, (and if it’s not why are they doing it?). Once you have that sponsor onboard, and they invite the attendees to pilot that learning, there’s a much greater sense that the investment of time and energy in the pilot is for the good of the company, and therefore much easier to gain buy-in. Any difficulties I can recall from my many years in this business are situations where I’ve tried to pilot materials with groups of status-conscious middle managers who see the process as a great opportunity to further their political ambitions in front of their peers. But if they have been invited by a senior executive, who recognises the pilot as sufficiently important to warrant their personal participation, then it usually produces a much more constructive climate around the piloting process.

So next time you’re involved, in any capacity, in the process of piloting a new piece of learning, ask the questions that will allow you, and others, to understand exactly what the purpose of this pilot is, and what you are expected to contribute. After all, pilots come in a range of uniforms!

design, design client, learning, Learning Design, pilot Hide

I have a colleague, Ann Alder, who has developed a very practical, and stunningly effective, approach to ensuring that meetings work for the people who attend. I think that Ann’s guidelines must have saved thousands of wasted hours in organisations around the world: they are not easy to implement but if everybody concerned is prepared to buy-in, then meetings need never be the same again.

Central to these guidelines are those that work during the pre-meeting phase, i.e. everybody concerned should be very clear about the purpose of the meeting, and only those who need to be at the meeting should be at the meeting. This is the area that repeatedly gives me problems in my learning-design role. I’ve already spoken in an earlier newsletter about the importance of the first meeting I have with a design client, and central to this importance is ensuring that both parties have a deep and shared understanding of what the meeting is for. We’re taking the whole of the MLD organisation out to the US later this month for a series of meetings, and I’ve been trying hard to ensure that everybody concerned is very clear about the purpose of each one of those meetings. Now I’m reflecting on why this apparently simple piece of communication has proved to be quite so difficult.

Take for example the meeting we’re privileged to have with one of the major East Coast Business Schools. This was originally conceived as a way of defining and progressing a number of development projects relating to different learning materials. Each project has its ‘owner‘ in the Business School and they are all going to be there, together with individuals who have commercial or accountability interest across some or all of the projects. Even at this level of detail I’m sure that you can see that we’re in danger of contravening Ann’s guidelines in that our agenda creates the situation where for much of the meeting there will be people in the room who have no direct interest in what is being discussed.

The obvious action at this point in time is to move from one all-encompassing meeting, to a series of project-specific meetings. However, this would mean a great deal of repetition as there are agenda items that have relevance to all projects (the extensive, though not always obvious, functionality of an iPad is one such area). OK so why not cover the shared  agenda in one ‘all-invited’ meeting, then move to a series of project specific meetings? It’s a possibility, but this approach makes each project into an island, isolating the available learning and reducing the extent to which there can be a cross-fertilization of ideas. Ultimately it seems difficult to find a good way to arrange these meetings to fit with the “clearly defined purpose” and “only people who need to be involved, are involved” criteria.

Our solution is to try a different way of defining the differences in these meeting(s), one that is based not on content, but on how we want people to be when they attend. Our first meeting is a highly creative, free-format exchange of aspirations and ideas about what is possible across a suite of learning materials, driven by questions about beliefs about how people learn and what support we can create that will help them in those learning processes. The second meeting takes these principles and applies them across the suite of projects in a way that creates a design brief for each product. This increases the involvement of all attendees by asking them to monitor the meeting for any deviation from the principles, and also to listen for dimensions of other projects being discussed that could add value to their projects.

So next time you’re struggling with a dilemma about organising a series of meetings in a way that responds to multiple interest groups and agendas, try thinking less about what gets covered at what meeting and instead focusing on what you want the climate of each meeting to be. (Remember to publish this clearly so that all attendees know what to expect!) Then sequence the meetings so that the big-picture, blue sky thinking, creative (What?) meeting happens first, and make sure that everybody concerned is there.

Once people have been part of that first high-energy meeting you’ll find it a whole lot easier to keep their enthusiasm and involvement through the potentially more difficult (How?) phase of agreeing how to proceed.

business schools, creative, design client, ideas, managing meetings Hide

Corporate Universities are, almost exclusively, found as appendages of big corporations. In the USA the HR-driven corporate university has represented to a very high degree the choice of large organisations that need to process a large number of employees through diverse learning experiences. Over the past 20 years I’ve worked with many of these institutions, developing new learning content, introducing experiential methods and working alongside faculty to better target specific learning outcomes. I’m currently mid-way through an extended project with the CU of a major food and beverage multinational, creating experiential practice-fields for the leadership models they are introducing.

A brief down-time in this project recently led me to consider what characterises the way that CU’s approach the business of learning, the “What’s good and what’s not?” of Corporate Universities.

Top of the “what’s good?” list is the way that CU’s live and breathe their corporate culture. Learning happens in an environment which always feels like the concentrated essence of their corporate culture, an immersive learning environment that lives and breathes company ways of working. As an outsider it’s always a little daunting to first step into these unique environments, a state that I can describe in this way:

I’ve been invited here because of what I know i.e. I’m an expert, but this whole experience places an emphasis on what I don’t know i.e. I’m an alien in this place.

At this point I know I’m going to have to bring my ‘A-game’ to this job.

The result of this situation is that the learning that happens in a CU needs little translation or adaptation to be applicable in the operational part of the business. It was conceived, developed, delivered and evaluated in an environment that is totally geared towards the business of the parent company. People leave knowing what they have to do to deliver what their company wants them to deliver.

What this means for my work is that I will be given very clear design direction – I’ll be told very clearly what learning outcomes are needed, and given very strong feedback around whether my designs are a good fit with ‘how we do business’. As a designer I enjoy the challenge of very quickly assimilating the corporate culture and language, and producing seamlessly compatible designs – “going chameleon” I call it.

The flip side of this is that the walls (physical and metaphorical) around many Corporate Universities are pretty high and not easily breached by new thinking and new ideas. Let me say up-front that this is a generalisation, I work with some institutions that are extremely innovative and open to best-practice thinking. Indeed I can cite instances where particular CU’s actually lead the field in innovative learning practice: but for many their approach to corporate education demonstrates all the negative effects of “limited gene-pool learning”.

At RSVP Design we specialise in learning innovation, and that is, in most cases, why clients buy our services. We bring new ideas, new approaches, new thinking. And that makes it pretty disappointing when we can see where our approaches would breathe fresh life into some dated and tired situation, only to be told “that won’t work here” or “that’s not how we do things”. These situations, (and work with CU’s often produce them), are typified by a strange paradox:

“We’ve asked you to use your unique expertise to design something that we can’t, but we can’t accept your design because it’s different to what we do.”

I’m happy to say that my current work hasn’t encountered this paradox, it’s going well and the pilot programmes suggest we’re ready to deliver something special. The culture in the CU is strong, but open to well-informed, well-presented influence, just about the ideal situation.

Now if all Corporate Universities could hit that happy medium………

brain based learning, business development, change management, communication skills, effective lifelong learning, Experiential Learning, facilitation, Learning Design, learning tools, simulations, Training Tools Hide

An interesting feature of the learning design that I’ve been working on this month has been the fact that, in two separate instances, the clients have been unable to define the size of the groups to whom the learning will be delivered. I’m not talking here about a range of e.g. between 20 and 40 people (a common enough situation, particularly in corporate learning settings) but mind-bendingly large ranges – in one case this month we’re talking about “lower limit 12, upper limit 1500”!

So how do you set about designing a learning environment, with defined learning outcomes, when there is no way of knowing whether this is intimate, high-ratio group work or large-scale conference activity? In some ways the learning design is relatively easy – (the difficulty lies in getting the people who will deliver the learning prepared for the very different demands of the two environments) The secret is to design the learning materials in a modular format, so that each table of 10 or 12 in the conference setting becomes its own little learning environment.

I think of it as a fractal structure where every table-sized micro environment exactly reproduces the overall structure and content of the hall-sized macro environment.

One obvious difference in working at this larger scale is that there just isn’t going to be a skilled facilitator at every table – the cost in recruiting and/or training them would be prohibitive unless you’re going to run the conference event multiple times. But if we take this as one of the design parameters we’re working with, and our response is high-quality, self-directed learning, controlled and managed by a well equipped facilitator working from a stage, then we shouldn’t have to accept any diminution of what we expect people to learn, nor indeed any compromises in their experience of the learning event.

If the learning direction from the stage is well designed and scripted, and the learning activity is relevant and engaging, then what’s missing is the feedback that allows the central co-ordinator to monitor whether the table groups are understanding and assimilating the learning content. Traditionally this function has been the role of both the central co-ordinator who needs to ‘get mobile’ around the tables, and a support team who observe, monitor and possibly intervene to ensure that the desired learning is happening. It’s a system that is widely used because of it’s efficiency, but has a number of obvious flaws, not least of which is that the delivery team can’t be everywhere at once. The more challenging the learning the more demands are placed on this team, with the result that the learning objectives are diluted in advance to ensure that everybody keeps pace. The ultimate result of this has been that well intentioned learning events become a series of bland presentations from the ‘face(s) on the stage’.

However, consider this: technology now enables us to ensure that every person at every table in the conference hall is learning effectively. We can individually monitor learning progress and get virtually instant feedback about how the learning content is being received and assimilated. It’s easily possible for each table to vote, input data, comment on issues, and decide outcomes or flag up progress in a way that makes them active participants in a collective act of learning. The conference design is oriented around feedback loops where tables share their thoughts and observations across the whole event using iPad’s or other tablet devices. These loops are defined in both time and content as conference wide exchanges that move the focus away from the stage and towards the learning that is being generated by the participants themselves.

And where do we find the budget to invest in a mobile device for each table? It may be worth asking whether the thousands you paid to have the last guru / speaker promote their latest book to your employees gave you a great return? Or whether you could have (for the same investment) pre-loaded a video of their presentation onto a hundred iPads and got your people really interacting with the content in a way that generated real, local learning and tangible results?

From there it’s a small step to asking whether your people actually need to be in the same physical space to engage in this learning…………?

conference, facilitator, Learning Design, Learning environments, learning events Hide

Here at RSVP we’ve recently had a lot of contact with the Center for Creative Leadership. We’re developing, via our Mobile Learning Design (MLD) persona, Apps that allow CCL’s famous body of research and practice to be accessed via mobile communication devices.
As part of my research I’ve been doing some archeology in the past-papers and other written materials that have come out of CCL over the past 20 years – and I’ve turned up a gem that, I think, is well worth revisiting.

The piece in question is an essay that was first published in 1997 and revived as a blog in 2008 entitled Leadership in Permanent Whitewater: Playing with the Metaphor
http://lmeccl.blogspot.com/2008/07/leadership-in-permanent-whitewater.html
I can’t stress enough just how much I relate to the messages that are embedded in this essay, but it’s the powerful metaphor of organisations as whitewater rivers and leaders as intrepid kayakers that has a particular attraction for me. Not just because I’ve run a few rivers in my time – but because the metaphor is, if anything, more appropriate here in 2011 than it was back in 1997.

A lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 1997 but just listen to three of the ideas forwarded by the author Chuck J. Palus in the essay:

a) Chaos in organizations is not random.
b) Play is essential within organizations if people are to develop an eye for patterns within chaos.
c) Fundamental innovation can come from serious play at the fringes of organizations.

These ideas are totally aligned with my beliefs about the learning that organisations need if they are to survive and thrive in waters that are infinitely more challenging than they were 14 years ago. But I have to ask why, if these ideas are so valuable, is it so hard to access them? Why do they gather dust in archives and collections of past-papers? I think that the answer lies in the possibilities offered by the increasing range of new media through which ideas can now be brought to the world.

The original essay was published in a 1997 journal, the essay was revived in a 2008 blog, I’m linking back to it in a 2011 blog – I wonder which has been read by (and hopefully influenced) the most people?

I’d be interested in your thoughts – you’re obviously reading this blog, but did you see the essay first time round? Did you read the 2008 blog? Was it worth me bringing it to current attention? What other gems have you found in the archives and how did you try to breathe new life into them?

CCL, creative leadership, Experiential Learning, learning challenges, Learning Design, metaphor Hide

I read a really interesting BBC article describing how there is strong evidence that universally praising children can de detrimental to their growth, and encourages a ‘fixed mindset’ rather than believing they have the capacity to grow and learn (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13128701 ) . Of course the ELLI research ( see http://rsvpdesign.co.uk/trainer-training/ ) supports this article (both for children and adults) and we are heartened by the almost universal interest in ELLI from any organisation we speak to. There is also good research from other areas that children who value the idea of ‘I am someone who can learn’, and that ‘I can learn from mistakes’, are motivated to ‘grow and learn’ and ‘resilient’ when it comes to challenging learning situations. These type of children grow into valuable employees. I know some educational colleagues who wish they had praised their own children more for effort when they were younger, and now choose to celebrate ‘failure’ as a learning opportunity, even as their children have grown up.

It has prompted me to continue to think about how organisations can generate the same motivation to learn as the people who have all the successful and well researched characteristics of effective learners. I’m convinced that this motivation has to come from an organisational culture that respects individuals as capable of learning and change, and that their leaders should behave in a way that is consistent with that. This would mean abolishing ‘lists of approved training courses’, educating managers and individuals about the science behind effective learning, paying more attention to informal learning than formal learning, re-writing the charter for L&D & OD (or even seeking to phase them out, and give their responsibilites to line managers), and using ‘learning language’ in business contexts so it is seen as being fundamentally critical to achieving any organisational mission or goal. In fact research seems to suggest that’s what organisations who ‘thrive’ actually do – now we just need some good tools to help organisations achieve this …

RSVP Design has created a new joint venture – Mobile Learning Design – and we hope to create some tools that take advantage of the personal nature of mobile devices (smartphones, tablets etc.) to provide formal and informal learning support when people need it, rather than when it is offered. Please get in touch with us if this subject is of interest!

change management, cultural adjustment, effective lifelong learning, leadership, learner engagement, Learning Design, Learning Mindset, learning styles, learning tools, motivation, teaching, trainer training, Training Tools, whole brain learning Hide

As the spring weather moves towards summer my runs on the mountains and moors of NW England become longer, and I can once more indulge myself in extended and deeply-reflective hours of solitary endeavour. These long runs allow me to follow chains of thought that are difficult to maintain through the complexities of a busy work-life, let alone the happy chaos of home and family! Last weekend I found myself on the familiar terrain of a green ribbon of sheep-cropped turf crossing a sun warmed limestone plateau, perfect for fast miles and expansive thinking.

What occupied my mind was the way in which my work as a designer of learning has changed in a relatively short time, and how these changes might be interpreted to indicate deeper changes in organisational learning.

Not many years ago I would work with clients to define a design brief by asking questions such as “How many people will attend?” “For how long?” “Who are these people?” and  “What do you need them to be able to do when the leave the room (that they couldn’t do when they entered)?” This type of question defined the parameters of the learning environment and allowed me to get creative within clearly defined boundaries.

Not many years later I found that I was seeing a move away from this event-based approach. I was working much closer to the power-centres of client organisations, and now the questions were “What organisation-level changes are you trying to achieve?’ “What are the behavioural obstacles and opportunities?” and “What tools and processes do your leaders need to embed these changes?”. The learning environments were less defined, more business-relevant and called for much more depth and subtlety from me as a designer.

More recently still the shifting balance that is rapidly moving emphasis away from formal learning towards informal learning have required a whole different approach and a different set of questions. In 2011 the need for organisations to be agile, responsive and learning-efficient is apparent in every sector, although the results of a failure to achieve these conditions are frequently masked by more fundamental economic failings. Recent conversations with learning and development professionals in these organisations suggest that many are struggling to address these new challenges. Many are caught in the professional paradox of never before having had more responsibility for the future learning needs of their organisation, yet never before having so little control over the ways in which these needs can be addressed.

Perhaps the questions that I now use to frame a design brief are ones that could effectively be used to interrogate the more general learning landscapes within ambitious organisations? The kind of questions I now find myself working with are  “What are the learning needs of the organisation?” “Who are the people, inside and outside of this organisation, who could contribute to this learning?””What are your peoples’ strengths, and weaknesses, as learners?” and “What support do they need to take individual ownership of the organisation’s learning needs?”

None of these are easy questions to ask, or to answer, when learning and development is under such extreme pressure to deliver. Arriving at effective answers is business-critical, yet will only be achieved if we recognise that we can’t manage the learning of others in any meaningful way, but we must find ways of supporting their learning to benefit our organisations.

Not an easy route, nor a short route, but a challenge to be relished – a bit like this run!

business development, change management, effective lifelong learning, learner engagement, Learning Design Hide

Very often, when I describe and demonstrate RSVP Design’s range of experiential learning activities to L+D professionals, consultants and HR advisors, they respond in a predictable fashion. Something along the lines of…

“Yes, I do use games and learning activities like these with some groups but I couldn’t possibly offer these to some of my clients – they are much too senior.”

There seems to be a belief that the more senior a leader or manager in an organisation, the less likely they are to respond positively to learning through the ‘metaphor’ that a well-designed learning activity or simulation offers. It is perceived that these activities add value, for example, to a team-building event or to a management skills workshop for young employees but that they are, in some way, inappropriate for more senior leaders. There is a fear and anxiety about offering a form of learning that is seen as too trivial for senior executive education.

“I couldn’t offer that at Board level – they simply wouldn’t engage with it…..”

Our experience is exactly the opposite. The more senior and successful leaders are in a business environment, the more likely they are to engage with the learning activities we offer and to play, experiment and challenge their own learning and performance. They ‘get it’. They have the ability to see beyond the presenting activity and understand the processes it mirrors. They are also confident enough in themselves that they have nothing to prove – they are ‘comfortable in their own skins’ and able to demonstrate a willingness to step outside of their comfort zone -even if it means short-term failure – in order to develop their own, and their organisations’, performance.

Ben Bryant, a skilled and experienced psychologist, is  Professor of Leadership and Organization at IMD. He commissioned RSVP Design recently to work with him on perhaps the most senior programme we have ever delivered. The participants built geometric shapes out of plastic construction components, raced wheeled vehicles along the floor and connected complex webs of coloured ropes in order to solve a puzzle. They were completely engaged and immediately able to make the connections between what they were doing and the leadership capability they were at IMD to develop.

Ben explained this to us from a psychologist’s perspective. He confirmed that it is all about ego. These leaders are so senior they’ve left their egos behind. They don’t have to prove themselves – their track records stand for themselves. They can make the connections, see the big picture, be confident in their own abilities – confident enough to allow themselves to play, get things wrong, make a fool of themselves, knowing that that is crucial in learning and innovating. They can see the parallels in the ’simulated world’ and the ‘concrete world’.’

In contrast, we experience much more resistance from more junior team leaders and managers – the very people for whom these activities are often chosen. Many of them are likely to be working from a position of uncertainty and anxiety and they need to keep proving themselves to their teams and colleagues. They are reluctant to step into the unknown – concerned about losing the respect and confidence of those they manage. Asking them to leave ‘ego’ behind is a much bigger challenge. So, offering an experiential exercise becomes high risk for the facilitator and participating is high risk for the manager. It may be rejected as ‘demeaning’, when in fact it is just too scary!

Knowing this can help the learning designer to choose and frame appropriate activities and consider the appropriate level of ‘confrontation’ that the activity, and the facilitation, offers. The more successful and senior your team, the more likely they are to respond positively to the challenging experiential learning opportunities you offer. For all sorts of reasons, primarily to do with organisational politics, senior leaders are starved of in-depth, unfiltered, authentic feedback. Well researched, well-designed and well-facilitated experiential learning provides a rare opportunity for senior leaders to tap into the support and challenge that they are hungry to receive.

For more information about RSVP Design’s work with Senior Leadership teams, please contact us via the website

http://rsvpdesign.co.uk

creative leadership, Experiential Learning, facilitation, leadership, learner engagement, Learning Design, Learning Games, simulations Hide