learning & development - Blogs - DPG Community2024-03-28T21:12:27Zhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/feed/tag/learning+%26+developmentHow The People Paradox Negates Employee Engagement Effortshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-the-people-paradox-negates-employee-engagement-efforts2016-09-22T11:27:42.000Z2016-09-22T11:27:42.000ZBay Jordanhttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/BayJordan<div><img src="https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/2217028?profile=RESIZE_400x&width=395"></div><div><p>Have you ever heard of The People Paradox? I hadn’t either, although I was well aware of Lord Acton’s famous quote that, “<em>Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.</em>” Well, apparently that’s not just a bon mot: power does corrupt. Certainly according to research cited in the HBR.</p><p>In an October 2016 HBR article entitled <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">Don’t Let Power Corrupt You</a> Dacher Kilter describes how twenty years of research has shown him how, in all types of work environments, <em>“people rise on the basis of their good qualities, but their behaviour grows increasingly worse as they move up the ladder.</em>” That's 'The People Paradox.' I am sure you can think of instances in your own experience that support this. I still haven’t forgotten the CEO who completely ignored me when I was introduced to him by my Vice-President manager and added insult to injury by proceeding to question him about me as if I wasn’t there!</p><p>The fact that such behaviour seems objectionable makes the paradox credible. And, arguably, underpins the thinking behind employee engagement efforts. Yet, objectionable though it seems, one has to question why such “bad” behaviour is so pervasive and widespread. Is it possible that this behaviour is “built-into” our DNA as social animals? After all, it is not unique to humans: the consequences for any creature that strays from the clear pecking order of its group can be swift and severe. The fact is, any sort of community almost invariably necessitates some kind of hierarchy. And the hierarchy needs to be sustained.</p><p>The consequences of this are profound, because it would mean that the “paradox” is not in fact a paradox. Rather it is an entirely natural phenomenon, which means that this “corruption” is in fact anything but. This, in turn, makes it a lot harder to eliminate than one might envisage, and may well explain why, despite all the efforts to improve employee engagement, the results seem to be negligible.</p><p>Good as the remedies identified in <a rel="nofollow" href="https://hbr.org/2016/10/dont-let-power-corrupt-you%E2%80%A6" target="_blank">the article</a> may seem, because they appear to be looking at the problem the wrong way, they are highly unlikely to provide any meaningful, lasting solution. Finding this necessitates:</p><ol start="1"><li>Establishing whether this “corruption” is really a problem; and – if it is:</li><li>Finding a way to rewire our thinking to change our patterns of behaviour.</li></ol><p>On the face of it, the idea that power has a corrupting effect, suggests there is a problem. This is endorsed by the article’s remedies, which indicate that more considerate behaviour elicits improved performance and more positive results. And, if that is not enough, the prevalence of efforts to build employee engagement point to a widespread acknowledgement that all is not well.</p><p>If, however, the behaviour is innate, the remedy becomes more of a challenge, as the general failure of efforts to increase employee engagement substantiates. You need to ask yourself. “How do I address this and avoid the prevailing mistakes? Will the benefits justify the effort?” It’s your decision but one thing is for sure: if this behaviour is replicated at every level in your organisation, the potential benefits will be enormous, making the effort highly desirable. </p><p>The good news is that achieving those benefits does not have to be proportionally enormous. If the “corrupted” behaviour <em>is</em> hard-wired due to the need to survive in hierarchies, the best way to re-programme our thinking has to be to eliminate hierarchy in our organisations. Effectively this means shifting from an organisational structure to an organic structure. This makes the organisation more responsive, more adaptable and more change efficient. There are organisations that have done this and achieved – and sustained – significant success as a result. What's stopping you becoming one? </p></div>How should we blend eLearning?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/how-should-we-blend-elearning2013-08-08T10:03:33.000Z2013-08-08T10:03:33.000ZAdy Howeshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/AdyHowes<div><p>Hello fellow DPG people. Hope you are well.</p><p>I wondered if you could help me with a debate I'm having (mainly with myself but also with others). </p><p>Now, I keep it no secret that I'm a huge fan of eLearning. It's taken a while but I can now actually admit this in public! My blog entry which I called <a rel="nofollow" href="http://community.dpgplc.co.uk/profiles/blogs/engaging-elearning-the-journey-so-far" target="_self">"Engaging eLearning the Journey so far"</a> tells the story of why I'm into eLearning. For me, it is all about making eLearning far much more engaging, fun and interactive than it ever has been.</p><p>But at the same time as having this obsession with eLearning, I'm well grounded in the view that eLearning will never replace face to face training in it's entirity and I don't want it to. Some topics just don't suit eLearning and that will always be the case for those topics. However, it is a sensible viable option to work alongside other forms of learning. </p><p>There is no doubt in my mind that a blended approach is often required. We therefore shouldn't all be fearful that one day our jobs will be replaced by computers! There is space for both to co-exist!</p><p>So the bit I'd really like you're help with is figuring out the following:</p><ul><li>What topics do you think lend themselves to be delivered by eLearning?</li><li>What topics do you think absolutely do not suit eLearning?</li><li>In a blended approach, how do you think eLearning (or providing resources electronically) will support face to face training before, during and after the event?</li></ul><p>I'd be interested to hear your views - please?? </p><p>Thanks loads.</p><p> </p><p>Ady</p></div>Do you need a fix?https://community.dpgplc.co.uk/blog/do-you-need-a-fx2012-03-08T20:30:00.000Z2012-03-08T20:30:00.000ZMike Collinshttps://community.dpgplc.co.uk/members/MikeCollins<div><p align="left"><a target="_self" href="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357143?profile=original"><img class="align-full" src="http://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/1357143?profile=RESIZE_1024x1024" width="750"></a></p>
<p align="left">The fix I am of course referring to is the good old prefix, more specifically the prefix used to identify types of learning delivery methods. The most notorious being the ‘e’ in e-learning and more recently the ‘m’ in m-learning.</p>
<p align="left">There has been debate for some time as to whether the prefix should be dropped as the blog from <a href="https://twitter.com/#%21/DonaldHTaylor">@donaldhtayor</a> demonstrates. The blog <a href="http://donaldhtaylor.wordpress.com/writing/its-time-to-drop-e-learning/">It’s time to drop e-learning</a> was first published in <a href="http://www.trainingzone.co.uk/">TrainingZone</a> in 2007 and debate still rages within the learning community. A recent poll and following discussion “<em>does the prefixing (pfxg) of ‘learning’ with ‘e’ and ‘m’ add real value or does it only serve to ring-fence them as ‘different’ to other types of learning”</em>within the UK E-learning Group on LinkedIn shows once again that the community is divided on the subject.</p>
<p align="left">The rationale for dropping the prefix is probably best summed up by the profile of <a href="http://tayloringit.com/">Craig Taylor</a>on Twitter;</p>
<p align="left"> <em>“Dreaming of the day when we can drop the e from elearning and the m from mobile learning & just crack on….”</em></p>
<p align="left">I love the sentiment here from the perspective of a learner (or any appropriate name for a recipient of a learning solution / programme) as the e/m/c whatever prefix has little or no relevance to them and adds no value in terms of improving overall performance. From this perspective I agree that as learning professionals we should not use jargon or buzzwords and instead speak in a language that is relevant and easily understood by our audience.</p>
<ul>
<li>You wouldn’t say “we’re going to provide you with some face to face training so you can do some social learning, you’ll do some collaborative learning and an e-learning module then you will also get some m-learning to help you embed what they’ve learned”.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Instead you might say, “the programme will start with some group work and exercises, which will be supported by some online activities, resources and a discussion forum, we’re also going to provide some job aids that you can access on the go”.</li>
</ul>
<p align="left">We’re saying the same thing but using language that people will understand much more easily. It<em>‘s</em>our role to remove jargon and create solutions, campaigns and programmes that don’t focus on the manner in which they’re delivered but focus on the value they bring to individuals, teams and organisations. It is our role to help determine the right solution and where appropriate the right technology to meet the need and where possible develop a range of approaches that can offer much richer and more meaningful learning experience. Technology is an enabler here but should not be the focus, bottom line for learners is the WIIFM once again – irrelevant of delivery channels, how does it link to my role and how will it improve my performance.</p>
<p align="left">So does the same apply if you’re a learning professional?</p>
<p align="left">We are surrounded by different types of learning or rather different delivery methods with associated pedagogy that can create conditions / environments in which people can learn:</p>
<ul>
<li>E-learning</li>
<li>M-learning</li>
<li>Online learning</li>
<li>Gamification</li>
<li>Experiential learning</li>
<li>Social learning</li>
<li>Collaborative learning</li>
<li>F2F learning</li>
<li>On-the-job learning</li>
<li>Action learning</li>
</ul>
<p align="left">Technology has had a huge impact in our profession and the way in which people can communicate, collaborate and share information but irrelevant of technology does the list above only serve to ring-fence the different types of learning?</p>
<p align="left">Does the ‘e’ or ‘m’ add value or add confusion as after all it’s all learning isn’t it?</p>
<p align="left">I think that this variation and depth in terms of the options available to us as learning professionals is something to celebrate. It’s what makes me get out of bed in the morning and makes the learning profession an exciting place to be. Workplace learning is ever changing, ever evolving, we need to evolve with it and develop new skills and capabilities ourselves. We can’t be a “jack of all trades and masters of none”, we need to encourage and recognise specialisms and expertise in creating different solutions using different tools or supporting workplace learning in ways we’ve not been able to in the past.</p>
<p align="left">Let’s not get bogged down with whether it’s got a prefix or not and spend another 5 years wasting energy on the debate. As long as WE understand it, it improves performance, makes sense and adds value to our customers – who cares what it’s called and let’s crack on.</p></div>