Tony Karrer has me thinking. In his post yesterday, I wrote a comment there (read this short post, first), but duplicate it here:
I agree, but look at what is being measured. With learning objectives, you can achieve them through learning. Performance objectives can be measured, but learning is not the only part of the equation. There are a TON of non-learning variables and thus these type of objectives cannot be fully and directly related to learning – greatly influenced by, yes; solely responsible for, no.
Business needs will drive the performance objectives.
The way I look at it is that training is only one part of learning is only one part of the equation that makes up overall performance.
For the most part traditional corporate learning can be boxed in to ‘learning.’ As we expand down the tail, this learning expands to include much more than learning. For example, it can include projects, meetings, one-off questions & answers – all of which learning is a major part, but not the focus of the activity.
So if we know that we can influence learning in a traditional non-learning activity, does our scope include that as well?
I would challenge those who are stuck in the pure ‘training’ or ‘learning’ modes to step outside and see if they can make a have a bigger influence on learning – overall – by using the long tail of learning.
Where do we stop? Do we stop at all? What do you think?
