We recently conducted a survey that was sent out to our certified High Performance Learning Journey community to find out more about the use, design and implementation of High performance learning journeys after completing the Champion certificate level.  19% of the community answered our survey and we’ve now summarized our conclusion and observations.

The survey results confirmed a number of our beliefs when it comes to the implementation of High-Performance Learning Journeys, the trends in the market, and where challenges lie when implementing such approaches.

Following the HPLJ certification, the great majority (91.5%) have applied their learning when designing and implementing their L&D initiatives. This supports the utility of this approach in the contemporary L&D environment. We have also found that over half (53%) of respondents have used the HPLJ approach on several occasions.

A relevant and applicable methodology

There has been a wide application of the approach when it comes to the types of programs designed by the respondents. The majority of the programs related to the area of leadership, but the HPLJ methodology was also adopted in programs that address: Executive Development, Management and Supervisory Skills, Sales, Project Management, Technical Training, and On-boarding. This supports HPLJ’s relevance for a wide range of L&D initiatives, rather than being useful for just a single type of training. Furthermore, the survey responses showed that there is a limited need for compromise when it comes to the implementation of the HPLJ approach, and, as such, that the methodology is relevant and applicable in its entirety.

Trends of more virtual sessions

Two of the trends that we have noticed—a decrease in face-to-face training requests and an increase in the number of virtual instructor-led sessions—were supported in this survey. Both internal L&D and external providers noted the decrease in the number of face-to-face sessions (internal L&D 87% & external 74%) and the increase of virtual sessions (internal L&D 89% & external 84%). This points to these trends continuing beyond the recent Pandemic, and as more of an ongoing future trend.

Barriers and obstacles to overcome when implementing the HPLJ methodology

The HPLJ certification addresses a number of the barriers experienced in the course of implementing a Learning Journey and respondents were ask to share their own experiences having carried out their own journeys. On a positive note, social learning and completion rates were not seen as much of a barrier as might have been expected. However, the survey results also supported the long-held view that proactive action needs to be taken in order to address other expected barriers. Manager engagement is still regarded as one of the greatest hurdles to successfully implementing such journeys. Secondary to this was the challenge of being able to stretch the learning journeys as far as would have been liked. Manager engagement is key because the manager plays a central role in supporting on-the-job application of learning in the workplace, as well as enabling the learner to spend sufficient time on—and demonstrate the positive impact of—what has been learned. Being able to stretch learning journeys over time becomes a challenge due to a lack of understanding by managers and other key stakeholders. Instead of longer journeys, in which skills and approaches are really trained and supported, managers and key stakeholders prefer short, hard-hitting initiatives. Many respondents commented that this is more of a hoped for, rather than a guided application model, which rarely delivers the required outcomes.

There still does not seem to be a greater awareness of Learning Journeys outside of the L&D community, meaning that key stakeholders more often ask for what they know: events. This means that the ability to sell and educate key stakeholders as to the value of such an approach is still required. Part of the challenge here is that L&D is not particularly seen as a decisive factor when it comes to bringing about business results. There is still a view, or hope, that change can be brought about simply and cheaply with fast training initiatives. This was further supported by the view that creating Learning Journey resources was seen by the business as being too extensive, and that the required results takes too long.

In conclusion, the results of this survey point to the HPLJ methodology as being a widely applicable approach with a growing base of practitioners. Furthermore, the trends in the market support the increased relevance of this approach as we move beyond the current pandemic. More work is still required in convincing organisations of the relevance of the HPLJ approach and the value that it can provide.

What’s next?

A deep dive webinar on how to overcome barriers and other obstacles associated with selling, designing and implementing High-Performance Learning Journeys

Watch the webinar here!

The Covid Pandemic has challenged the way that many Learning and Development departments and training providers deliver training. There has been a necessity to move away from face-to-face classroom training and instead deliver virtually. This has spurred on the adoption of both Learning Journey methodology and the adoption of a Blended Approach to learning – where both digital and live training are utilised. Both of these have been aided by organizations’ rapid and widespread adoption of digital as a means to deliver training, which was a barrier for many to really embrace these approaches prior to the pandemic.

Both the Learning Journey methodology and the Blended Approach to learning were areas that Promote has championed for the last few years. However, there has been limited demand for such programmes, largely because it’s been easier to apply traditional learning approaches and organizations have been wary of trying something new. This changed with Covid 19 and its extended impact on how organization’s deliver training. Companies now realise that they need to adopt new approaches and move ahead with the new reality of Learning and Development, rather than waiting to see when Covid will end and “normality” will return.

The new normal enables new opportunities

This “new normal” enables us at Promote to apply both the Learning Journey and Blended approaches to a wider degree, which has included the creation of a four-month leadership learning journey in partnership with a couple of our customers. Putting the theory into practice has led to some interesting lessons when it comes to implementing such approaches. What it has shown is that this is not just an adequate alternative, but is actually a better alternative for such training initiatives. We can produce better results, create more impact and performance, and at a lower cost to the customer organization. Some lessons have also become evident, that whilst these approaches may be similar to many which have gone before, changes are required to really realise the results that organizations are looking for.

Engagement is key

Engagement is a key factor for any programme. Without it results are negligible and the application of the learning can be very limited in the majority of cases. There are different elements when it comes to Engagement, whether it’s Participant Engagement, Manager Engagement, and even Facilitator Engagement and changes in approach need to be adopted with all of them.

The content of the programme needs to contain a balance between Group Learning and an Individual Focus to be relevant and applicable by participants. This furthers the idea that Learning and Development initiatives need to have an increased Focus on Application of the learning delivered in trainings rather than on the accumulation of the knowledge itself. We only see impact when participants apply their learning in key situations which actually deliver the performance outcomes that we are after.

Our Learning Journey also incorporated programme dynamics such as spreading learning over Time, ensuring that the Duration of the programme itself, and its constituent parts, were of the right length. We also had to ensure the right level of Content, to provide learners with the key understanding and ability to apply the learning in their everyday working scenarios.

The result: we’ve cracked the learning journey code

The challenge has been similar to completing a multi-dimensional jigsaw puzzle, where different elements come into play at different times and in different ways over the course of the journey. In doing so, we have learned a number of lessons when it comes to Cracking the Learning Journey Code.

In our guide below we’ve concluded our learnings and put together a guide for you who also would like to learn more about cracking the Learning Journey Code.

Back in 1994,  I wrote a book with colleague Steve Gill titled The Learning Alliance: Systems Thinking in Human Resource Development. The premise of this book is “…that learning adds value and improves human performance only when it is viewed and managed as an integral process within a larger system…”

In that book, we identified Five Myths about which we said “… the more that these myths are believed and practiced, the less likely it is that L&D will be producing value.” (p. 40).

Here are the myths and what we said about them back then. Fast forward now nearly 30 years. To what extent have we busted these myths? Are they still shaping practice in ways that they impede value? Or have we moved beyond them?

What do you think?

1. Training makes a difference
   In our impact evaluation studies of training programs (leadership development, manager skills, etc., etc)  we always – always! – find that in the same program, some people used their training to produce worthwhile results, and some did not. But the training was nominally the same for all of them. What makes for the difference?  What makes the difference is almost always in the “before” and after” environment how were they prepared for and introduced to the training; what were expectations for their using it, or not; what kind of support did they get to apply their learning, and so forth.

2. The purpose of training is to achieve learning objectives
   Nearly all the books and articles you can find about training design talk at great length about the need to express learning objectives in clear, concrete, and especially measurable terms. Good advice, as far as it goes; but too many practitioners let the story end there. New learning only provides the capability. What turns capability into value is behaviors – application of the learning in new or improved performance. A focus only or even mostly on learning frustrates value.

3. The L&D professional’s job is to manage successful training programs
   The fallacy in this myth lies not in the word successful, but in the word programs. The training business is flooded to the gills with training programs and content – with more vendors selling more programs and content every day.  The myth extends to the habitual belief that processing people though these programs with efficiency is the L&D department’s job. Wrong, if it ends there. The job is to help the client organization use learning (the stuff that is presumably in these programs) to accelerate the execution of important change and strategic initiatives.

4. Training is L&D’s job
   Most larger companies in the world have a training department. This fact attests to the emergence of training as a profession and the importance of the role in today’s organization. (Note: back then there was no such thing as a CLO). The implication of the name on the door is that the function therein is responsible for producing the performance improvement and results that are the reason for training’s existence. But turning learning into performance requires an alliance wherein trainees supervisors, their managers, and senior leadership all have a role to play in making sure that there is alignment, focus, intentionality, and accountability for the performance focus and support that must be embedded within the training initiative. In short, it takes a village to get results from training.  Delegating learning and performance accountability to the L&D function is a fool’s errand.

5. Trainees should enjoy the training they receive.
   No quarrel with the premise that training is often (though not always) more effective when it is enjoyable, and we certainly do not promote learning designs that are on a par with root canals. But focusing on satisfaction (think the ubiquitous “level one” survey) is the value-buster.. At the root of this myth is confusion about who are the rightful customers of training. If training is meant to help the business perform, then the legitimate customer for training is senior leadership and the managers of trainees – those who are accountable for the goals that trainee performance should be helping to drive, that the training is presumably meant to impact.

Busted myths?

To what extent have we busted these myths? Please let us know your thoughts by voting at our mentimeter poll: VOTE HERE!

The results: