In a typically thoughtful post from aconventional the chasm between the learning offered by organisations and that valued by learners is laid bare. It draws on research in the L&D sphere which further emphasises the value placed on networks, collaboration with peers and self-directed inquiry and learning by employees (available here). The implication being that companies have yet to establish their own L&D programmes with the significance that is clearly their intent.
As I reflect on this I can comforted by the fact that it is not a common refrain from the learners in organisations we work with. Sure, there are nearly always dissenting voices. In the world of simulations it is easy to critique on the basis of their dissimilarity to the cut and thrust of employees’ day-to-day lives but, more often than not, the disengagement seems fuelled by other aspects. For example, I’ve witnessed first hand similar types of negative behaviour regardless of location, industry, prior knowledge or position where simulation participants – in full view of observing members of their C-suite – check email whilst their teammates get on with the business of trying to compete. In their minds, appearing to be so focussed on ‘real’ work was more essential than engaging fully in a training initiative supported (and, of course, paid for) by the very people they were trying to impress.
Whilst anecdotal it serves to illustrate a mindset where value is so subjective as to be at the mercy of common sense. Usually, the overwhelming majority of simulation participants become actively engaged in the task, particularly where the exercise is viewed as either novel or representative of issues which hold meaning for them. Since in many cases those individuals have expertise in functional areas rather than, perhaps, strategic initiatives the opportunity to explore a wider perspective and actively engage in shaping an outcome for a business – real or virtual – is typically compelling.
No-one seriously believes that making decisions for an organisation over a period of, say, four virtual years is equivalent to reality but what it unfailingly is, is a window into how people think and make decisions in conditions of uncertainty. As an immersive environment which typically provokes collaboration and competition in teams around topics they are keen to explore it is not difficult to see why they are successful. It has both meaning and value, and in a format people tend to enjoy.
Yet there is a negative lining to this ‘cloud’ based simulation activity. Without proper instruction or guidance learners can report that they enjoyed the experience without necessarily recognising how to apply the knowledge gained. In corporate education it is common for delegates in a program to emphasise the value of practical elements over theory. When provided with appropriate toolkits upon which they can layer their own experience and circumstance a concrete connection is made between the learning journey and their own world of work. They have something tangible to use. For many, any learning or training which does not allow them to depart with this type of output has failed. The means are only justified by an ending which is neatly packaged for future use.
I have difficulty with this for a number of reasons. Whilst I’ve been impressed numerous times by speakers who convey the success of a particular approach or solution to a business problem in their organisation I also know the failure rates where companies adopt wholesale the practices of another. The same is true of most theory. It is indicative of a position in time and under a certain set of circumstances rather than predictive. Understanding the Shell approach to scenario planning is not the same as having success with it; recognising that value of the principles which underpin market segmentation is fine but does not in of itself suggest a profitable niche can be found and exploited. That I can take some nugget of value from a TED talk and use it to shape a new approach to a business issue is primarily about my own response to learning, not the individual speaking.
With simulation experiences we can move swiftly from the concrete to the abstract. It is part of their true value as learning environments. I can explain the effect of economies of scale, for example, which has allowed one virtual organisation to lower their cost base and surge clear of competitors. We can identify the connection between well-trained, motivated and skilled employees and organisational performance. And in the same instance question what value a team has placed on organic growth through their pursuit of acquisitions; or the role of CSR for the virtual company who fails to invest in sustainability initiatives. It allows us to consider what makes an enterprise successful – the mechanics – alongside the values which are in many respects defined by its culture. John Dewey commented that we do not learn from experience, we learn from reflecting on experience. Without learning environments which provoke a response how can you expect meaningful reflection?
The Business Simulation Blog 