TrendWatcher
We've Got Your Business Case for Learning Right Here
By John Gibbons from i4cp | January 18, 2012, Issue 541
I've always been a very business-focused HR practitioner
and researcher. I firmly believe that if we are serious about driving
business results through the smart mobilization and management of
talent, we need to hold ourselves accountable to demonstrating how
talent provides differentiated value for our companies.Yet in my years of doing this advocacy and research, some of the most passionate resistance I've encountered to embracing this accountability has come from the learning community. In fact, at times I've actually encountered overt hostility expressed by learning professionals when discussing the topic of holding themselves accountable to delivering business results. Why such resistance - especially in light of the intuitive understanding of the value of learning? I think there are a number of reasons including, but not limited to, some of the following:
- The learning community has traditionally attracted brilliant people who are talented teachers and coaches, but who are often not well prepared to empirically evaluate the long-term changes in behavior of learners, let alone demonstrate the impact that those behavioral changes have on the performance of their organizations.
- The link between human capital management interventions and business performance outcomes is a derivative relationship. In other words, the impact is realized through one or more steps of cascading influence, ultimately leading to better business results. This multi-step relationship has been amply explored over the past decade, launched largely by concepts introduced by Heskett, Sasser, and Schlessinger in their 1990's classic, The Value Profit Chain.
- Additionally - unlike compensation, staffing or even performance management models of influence - learning is likely to be even more derivative than most others human capital management methods. For example, an array of management competencies may impact the retention of good talent which, in turn, may have gradual positive impact on innovation and productivity.
- Compared to other forms of human capital management, learning has a longer maturity curve. In other words, since learning is a continual process of knowledge and skill development that extends over the course of a career (or, indeed, a lifetime), does it make sense to expect learning professionals to demonstrate tangible value in the short-term?
Related Content
As a result of these and other reasons, learning professionals
have been subjected to criticisms by colleagues and executives that
their contributions have only "squishy" business impact.
Further, since the impact of learning on business performance is more
difficult to demonstrate (and at times to understand), perhaps
learning's true value must be only marginal at best. So
it's no surprise that when the economy goes south, some of the
first budget cuts are targeted at learning.
And because the positive impact of learning on business performance is derivative, so are the cuts. Evidence-based approaches to HR take into account not only the impact of an intervention, but also lost opportunity as a result of failing to introduce an intervention. As a result, the negative consequences of cuts in learning budgets and programs are just as difficult to demonstrate as the positive impact of having programs in the first place. This creates a vicious circle of potentially damaging stop-and-go approaches to learning that track the availability of disposable cash of a company.
Fortunately, I'm pleased to announce that this particular cycle may have come to an end. i4cp has just released the latest iteration of its annual issues survey, The Best Get Better: Critical Human Capital Issues of 2012, and some of the headlines are not only eye-catching, they are specifically of profound importance to the learning function. Analysis shows that high-performing organizations - those that are better at driving financial performance, market share and customer satisfaction - also happen to be extraordinarily more effective at managing the learning function than their low-performing counterparts. While intuitively this difference is not a surprise, the sheer magnitude of mastery of learning compared to low-performers is extraordinary. Consider the following:
And because the positive impact of learning on business performance is derivative, so are the cuts. Evidence-based approaches to HR take into account not only the impact of an intervention, but also lost opportunity as a result of failing to introduce an intervention. As a result, the negative consequences of cuts in learning budgets and programs are just as difficult to demonstrate as the positive impact of having programs in the first place. This creates a vicious circle of potentially damaging stop-and-go approaches to learning that track the availability of disposable cash of a company.
Fortunately, I'm pleased to announce that this particular cycle may have come to an end. i4cp has just released the latest iteration of its annual issues survey, The Best Get Better: Critical Human Capital Issues of 2012, and some of the headlines are not only eye-catching, they are specifically of profound importance to the learning function. Analysis shows that high-performing organizations - those that are better at driving financial performance, market share and customer satisfaction - also happen to be extraordinarily more effective at managing the learning function than their low-performing counterparts. While intuitively this difference is not a surprise, the sheer magnitude of mastery of learning compared to low-performers is extraordinary. Consider the following:
- The percentage of high-performing companies reporting that they are effective at overall learning strategies is 7 times that of low-performing companies.
- The percentage of high-performing companies reporting that they are effective at leadership development is 5 times that of low-performing companies.
- The percentage of high-performing companies reporting that they are effective at coaching is 5 times that of low-performing companies.
The list goes on and on! In fact, in all,
high-performing companies report that they are at least twice
as effective on nearly a dozen dimensions of learning, talent
management and organizational development than are low-performing
companies.
These findings are too important to ignore and I'm looking forward to hearing the stories of learning professionals who use them to not only defend the learning function but, in fact, to silence the criticisms they receive from their executive colleagues. And, on a more personal note, with my passion for analytics and empirical demonstration of business value, maybe I'll start making more friends among my colleagues in the learning profession.
John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN and National Public Radio (NPR).
These findings are too important to ignore and I'm looking forward to hearing the stories of learning professionals who use them to not only defend the learning function but, in fact, to silence the criticisms they receive from their executive colleagues. And, on a more personal note, with my passion for analytics and empirical demonstration of business value, maybe I'll start making more friends among my colleagues in the learning profession.
John Gibbons is the Vice President and General Manager of Research and Development at i4cp. He has been a human resources practitioner, researcher and thought leader in human capital strategy for more than 20 years. His work has been featured in hundreds of publications and news outlets around the world including the New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, CEO Magazine, CNBC, CNN and National Public Radio (NPR).
Comments
Add a comment
Follow Us
Events & Announcements
The i4cp 2012 Conference
Reserve your hotel room by Feb. 20 to ensure i4cp rates!The event is also now HRCI approved. Join us March 20 - 23 in Scottsdale, AZ.
New Report Available
Strategic Workforce Planning: Practitioner InsightsReal-world insights from people in the trenches.
On-Demand Webinar
Executive Guide to Integrated Talent ManagementInsights from 19 thought leaders and executives.
Most-Read Articles
Related Articles
Knowledge Centers
And then there are vivid stories that illustrate the point all too well. We need only compare the reaction of Captain Sully Sullenberger and his crew v. the captain and crew of the Costa Concordia to see the long-term value talent development.
I have a mixed reaction to your article. I absoultely agree that many organizations staff thier learning functions with ill prepared people that are not well prepared to empirically evaluate the long-term changes in behavior of learners. My organization is filled with them. But I think there is an angle here that you are missing. Many organizations steff the bare minimum resources needed to deliver training. And these individuals are put through the grinder to develop and delvier training. There is very little time for looking back at effectiveness and quality. The next learning need is already on deck.
Some organizations understand what it takes to have a mature learning funtion that adheres to a systematic approach to learning, including the all important evaluation component. But many more do not. Like anything in this world, you get what you pay for. I don't mean that throwing money at it will resolve it. You have to hire properly prepared learning professionals who know what they are doing and then give them the tools and resources needed to analyze, design, develop, implement AND evaluate effective learning experiences that have demonstrated bottom line impact. Look at the U.S. military. Nobody does more training than they do. And they do it right. They invest the money, follow a systematic approach, and they have the time to evaluate the heck out of it. And we're all very proud of the results.
So, sure learning professionals cringe when executives start talking about measureing. But they do so not just because they don't know how but they have no time. And they can hide under the radar becasue they're always in the classroom or preparing to be in the classroom. And their bosses know they're in the classroom and the bosses know they need to be in the classroom so avoiding accountiability is pretty easy.
With all that said, if the organization does provide all the right people and resources and the empircal is still not happening then those responsible SHOULD be held accountable.
My post may sound a bit like whining but as a Vice President who is in the trenches every day this is the world that I see.