Ruth Moody from Farscape Development considers whether open innovation should be encouraged in training.
Whenever I think of the word talent, I think immediately of Simon Cowell and The X Factor. The endless search for a new 'talent' – people are churned through and at the end it's either glory or they fail. Yet some of the people who fail have got genuine talent – some more obvious, others more subtle – but talent nonetheless. How many of these people would excel with different training; with a different mentor; with more time or a more creative approach? How do you strike the balance between getting it right for the individual and being efficient with time and money?
As employees' needs change, companies are being challenged to recognise that their approach to training must evolve at the same pace. With more people wanting greater flexibility at work and in how they access information, the forum for delivering training needs to be considered. But how effective is this for a company? It's time consuming; it sounds expensive and also sounds a little risky – what's wrong with the traditional approach to training?
"With more people wanting greater flexibility at work and in how they access information, the forum for delivering training needs to be considered. "There are many advantages to sticking with a traditional approach – bringing everyone together in a classroom guarantees that standard messages are delivered; that everyone receives the same information in the same way; and that costs are minimised. But does it take into consideration different learning styles? Does it allow people to approach learning in a way that works for them?
The open innovation approach by contrast seeks to open up learning – to allow individuals to contribute to what learning looks like; to make decisions about what training they take part in; to be creative about their learning. All well and good, but what if you need to ensure that everyone completes the same training, in the same way in order to comply with certain regulations or requirements?
The answer is surely a balance. If we think back to our time at school, any good teacher was able to teach the core elements of the National Curriculum by using different techniques and a variety of learning experiences that kept all children (even the naughty ones!) engaged and focused. Surely our role as learning and development professionals is no different? We need to deliver training that strikes the balance between delivering the standard information that helps to maintain consistency and delivering it in a way that will engage all of the different people who come through our doors?
Open innovation allows for creativity – it allows new ideas to thrive and grow – and it allows for exciting ways of learning to be implemented in businesses. However, in order for it to be mutually beneficial for both the individual and the business, it needs to be well-directed and focused. Reinventing the wheel just for the sake of it is never a good idea.
At Farscape we design learning experiences – opportunities for people to experiment with different tools and techniques – sometimes in the classroom and often outdoors in a more abstract environment. What we always notice is that when leaders hold on to information or try to create the solution themselves, they are often not as successful as they are when they share information and allow the team to generate ideas and solutions. Surely open innovation in learning and development is the same – opening up the idea to the individuals involved so that they can create ideas and solutions. And like any kind of successful collaboration, once the ideas are sparked maintaining momentum is the easy part.
"I certainly believe that any learning and development programme should be long term and should involve a variety of learning experiences – because learning through experience is memorable and therefore more likely to be used back at work, and also because everyone learns differently."
If what we want is for employees to show great innovation, to grasp ownership of projects, to take responsibility for their actions, then we have to trust them. And perhaps trusting them is also allowing them to be involved in how they learn. I certainly believe that any learning and development programme should be long term and should involve a variety of learning experiences – because learning through experience is memorable and therefore more likely to be used back at work, and also because everyone learns differently. Yet there will always be a place for traditional training – and the reality of life is that not everything can exciting – in a world where people are growing up with instant gratification from iPhones and connectivity, sometimes it's good to learn that just because something isn't exciting that doesn't mean that it isn't relevant.
So the conclusion? Learning has to be appropriate for the company and the individual. Taking the time to understand what people need and what the business needs has to be the starting point. Managing expectations will also allow companies to keep the right balance between traditional learning and open innovation. If people understand the areas where they can innovate, they are more likely to accept the areas that they can't. Challenging the process allows us to check that what we are doing is still delivering the results that we need. And any learning that doesn't deliver specific and measureable results should be questioned – however it is being delivered.
Ruth Moody is managing director at Farscape Development. Farscape specialises in delivering results driven learning and development programmes. Their training is experiential and has a foundation in emotional intelligence and behavioural change. You can email Ruth on [email protected]
