Even I hate being assigned training
Even I hate being assigned training
But it doesn't need to be this way...
Last week was a busy one.
Between managing client projects, working on proposals, preparing for awards presentations, recording podcasts, and writing this newsletter, my inbox and my calendar were overflowing.
Then I received an email whose subject line tipped me over the edge — ‘Please complete your assigned training’.
Reader, I deleted the message.
Now, I know what you’re thinking — ‘This guy expects others to engage with the content he designs, but he doesn’t hold himself to the same standard. The hypocrisy!’
Let me explain.
The training I’d been asked to complete wasn’t developed by Mind Tools, and the message didn’t come from one of our internal teams.
Rather, it was part of a suite of modules offered by our IT provider, focusing on cyber security. The notification had been triggered automatically by their platform.
Ross G has previously critiqued one of the modules in the series, so I won’t get into the weeds here. Suffice it to say I’m now much more likely to report potential phishing emails (a good thing!), but skeptical that I need to complete passive, video-based cyber-security training every other month, given the risk level of my role. For context, the module I ignored was the 19th I’d been assigned.
Taking a step back, I think there are a few keys reasons this email provoked the response that it did:
😠 I’d received no warning it was coming, making it particularly unwelcome on an especially busy week;
😡 The message failed to explain what the training covered, what I would learn from it, or why it was worth my time;
🤬 I knew my manager would prefer I prioritize the other tasks on my extensive to-do list. Right, Ross G?
Of course, this is how many L&D interventions are launched in organizations — with little notice, with no explanation of ‘What’s in it for me?’, and with zero support from management.
And it’s not as if these are insurmountable obstacles. It doesn’t need to be this way.
We can make the feeling of being assigned training less nauseating by:
🙂 Letting people know what’s coming and when, engaging with business partners to understand working cadences, and timing the launch of programs accordingly.
😄 Tailoring comms to resonate with our audience, clearly stating the benefits of the program from the learner’s perspective, and what they can expect to get out of it.
😍 Engaging with line managers early on to get their buy-in for the project, and encouraging them to champion the program within their teams. (If managers seem reluctant to get behind your idea, that might be a sign you’re not focusing on the right problem.)
Want to share your thoughts on this week’s Dispatch? Interested in working with our Custom team? Then get in touch by emailing custom@mindtools.com or reply to this newsletter from your inbox.
🎧 On the podcast
Last week in this newsletter, Ross G discussed four research papers that will make you laugh, then make you think.
This reminded us of the time we invited Jane Bozarth, Director of Research for the Learning Guild, to share three papers with us on The Mind Tools L&D Podcast.
So instead of issuing a new episode last week, we rebroadcast this classic, looking at:
Generational difference
Learning styles
The “Marshmallow Test”.
The three papers we discussed were:
'Generational Differences in Work-Related Attitudes: A Meta-analysis', published in 2012 in the Journal of Business and Psychology.
'Another Nail in the Coffin for Learning Styles? Disparities among Undergraduate Anatomy Students’ Study Strategies, Class Performance, and Reported VARK Learning Styles', published in 2018 in Anatomical Sciences Education.
'Revisiting the Marshmallow Test: A Conceptual Replication Investigating Links Between Early Delay of Gratification and Later Outcomes', published in Psychological Science in 2018.
Check out the episode below. 👇
You can subscribe to the podcast on iTunes, Spotify or the podcast page of our website. Want to share your thoughts? Get in touch @RossDickieMT, @RossGarnerMT or #MindToolsPodcast
📖 Deep dive
This week’s ‘Deep dive’ comes courtesy of Matt Furness.
In a recent post on LinkedIn, Matt highlighted the efforts of behavioral scientists from seven British universities, which in 2013 culminated in the creation of ‘The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy’.
The purpose of the taxonomy was to consistently describe and replicate interventions, while cataloging effective tools for changing behavior.
In the paper announcing the taxonomy, the researchers make an important distinction between methods and what they call ‘active ingredients’. For L&D’s purposes, a method might be an e-learning module, a simulation, or a workshop, and an active ingredient might be feedback, goal-setting, or a reward mechanism.
All in all, the taxonomy provides 93 different ways of changing behavior.
As Matt points out in his LinkedIn post, that’s a lot! It might even feel overwhelming. But it also shows the vast range of tools and strategies we can use to encourage behavior change, shifting our focus away from what might feel like a limited set of traditional L&D methods.
Michie S, Richardson M, Johnston M, Abraham C, Francis J, Hardeman W, Eccles MP, Cane J, Wood CE. (2013) ‘The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (v1) of 93 Hierarchically Clustered Techniques: Building an International Consensus for the Reporting of Behavior Change Interventions.’ Annals of Behavioral Medicine.
👹 Missing links
I’ve recently been enjoying Irregular Letter, a newsletter from our friend Anamaria Dorgo. In this edition, Anamaria explores ‘Sound Art’, podcasts, and creative ways for embedding audio in learning experience design, including audio journaling and using podcasts to prolong the impact of a one-off workshop. Here at Mind Tools, we’ve recently been using audio to accommodate certain accessibility needs, offering a richer alternative to the screen-reader experience.
🏢 Amazon mandates five days a week in the office
Last week, Amazon announced that, from next year, employees will be required to work from the office five days a week. Following the pandemic, Amazon had adopted a hybrid model, requiring staff to come into the office at least three days a week. Now, the company appears to be doubling down on ‘return to office’, claiming the move will strengthen its culture. Could this mark the beginning of the end of hybrid?
🥱 We’re all just faking it, right?
I’ve long been fascinated by the idea of ‘LARPing your job’ — performing productivity by engaging with Teams/Slack messages, making sure the little green light shows you are online and, ostensibly, working. In a recent survey of 3,000 employees from the US, the UK, and Ireland, Workhuman found that 67% of respondents denied faking activity. That’s a majority, if not an overwhelming majority. But what does ‘fauxductvity’ really tell us? Does it point to a genuine productivity problem? Or does it reveal issues with corporate culture and trust? (Thanks to Martin Couzins for this link.)
👋 And finally…
This is why I stand for all my meetings.
👍 Thanks!
Thanks for reading The L&D Dispatch from Mind Tools! If you’d like to speak to us, work with us, or make a suggestion, you can email custom@mindtools.com.
Or just hit reply to this email!
Hey here’s a thing! If you’ve reached all the way to the end of this newsletter, then you must really love it!
Why not share that love by hitting the button below, or just forward it to a friend?