Rachel Burnham writes: I feel incredibly privileged because I love my work -
both the paid work I do as an L&D Consultant, working for myself and the
work I do as a volunteer, whether for L&D Connect or CIPD Manchester, as a
member of the branch committee and their Public Policy Adviser. I get to do some really interesting things
for CIPD Manchester that I wouldn’t get to do otherwise, such as contributing
to organising the recent ‘Shape the Future’ event for CIPD. As Public Policy Adviser I have got involved
in facilitating focus groups and meetings around a very diverse range of topics
from dispute resolution, the National
Living Wage, the Northern Powerhouse, to new Psychoactive Substances and EU
Migration policy – and look out for exciting news in the early autumn on a new
venture ‘The Big Conversation on Families, Parents and the Workplace’.
It is fascinating to
be working and making things happen both in the L&D field and also in the
wider HR Public Policy field. I get to
work on some different topics and also on some areas that are common to both
fields. It has broadened my perspective
on the HR field – it helps me to understand more practically the connections
between L&D and other aspects of HR – this has been particularly true of
the recent work on EU migration policy that has impacts across many aspects of
HR from recruitment, to talent management, skills development, job design &
use of automation. I get to work in
different sorts of ways and with different networks of people. And I notice some interesting differences
between the L&D agenda and the Public Policy agenda and also the language
that is used, even when we are discussing topics we have in common.
For example, in the
L&D world there is a lot of focus on modern workplace learning with
emphasis on how we can make effective use of digital technologies and also
social learning, so that learning can be much more responsive to the needs of
organisations and individuals, with individuals being able to access learning
as and when they need it. And often that
learning may be through access to resources, so actually may be more about
performance support.
Of course, in very
many organisations face to face learning still plays a huge and important part,
whether that is on its own or as part of wider blended learning
programmes. Amongst these programmes
will be ones leading to qualifications – some of these qualifications may be
quite sector specific eg medical qualifications, qualifications for the
financial services sector or job specific eg health and safety qualifications. However,
in many organisations, much learning will be uncertified particularly informal
learning – without that in any way that limiting its value or effectiveness. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how much of our
learning can be certified given the rate of learning needed to be effective in
some roles or the degree of organisation and job-specificity often required.
Yet in the public
policy area, when skills are being discussed then the focus is largely on
qualifications and the language is mostly that of training. This feels more limited, dated and also
rather confusing – I find myself wondering when a report refers to the amount
spent on training or the amount of training being ‘received’ by employees –
just what is being included within those figures – qualifications almost
certainly, all face to face training probably, e-learning possibly, informal
& social learning - it really isn’t clear, but I suspect it isn’t, learner
led development – probably not.
I was delighted to
see that the recent CIPD report on skills, which I have previously blogged about, was consciously moving away from just looking at qualifications. Informal learning is mentioned (briefly), but the focus is still on this formal
end of learning and the language is still largely that of training. So there is a gap between what is happening,
at least in some organisations, around L&D and the way this is being
examined at a national policy level.
But I think that L&D
also needs to get more engaged with the whole skills agenda and public policy
area too. It is interesting what is
happening with the introduction this year of the Apprenticeship Levy, as this
is impacting on so many organisations, some of whom have already got experience
of apprenticeships, but there are also many organisations that haven’t
previously had experience in this area.
Some people in L&D have been getting their heads around the Levy and
have thrown themselves into working with it for the benefit of their
organisations. In many organisations,
responsibility for apprenticeships is a niche L&D role or part of talent
management role or part of a wider HR responsibility. It feels like there hasn’t been as much
discussion of the Apprenticeship Levy and its implications within the wider
L&D community as might have been expected for such a broad initiative with
such potentially huge impact. The
recent round of CIPD Leaders in Learning events which focused on the
Apprenticeship Levy had a lower turnout than previous sessions. In previous years I have noticed a very
different mix of participants at events with a skills agenda focus, to those
events with a broader L&D focus.
So there are
different groups of people engaged in discussion and action in relation to ‘Adult
Training’ or the Skills Agenda field to those focusing on L&D within
organisations and some different conversations taking place, with different
focuses and different language. Diversity
of views can be a source of strength and bring new ideas to the fore, but if
there is a lack of dialogue, if there is an absence of challenge around the
differences in focus between the fields, if different language grows up and
goes unexplored, then there are also big risks.
For example, are we
focusing on the right things in our national statistics in this area; to what
extent does it matter if the overall amount spent on workforce development is
decreasing if we are spending it more effectively (if we are?); if only some
aspects of workforce development are being measured, will these be focused on
in policy discussions to the neglect of possibly more fruitful areas; and so
on. I worry that we aren’t talking enough
together and as a result the national policy agenda is missing out on more
recent thinking and practice from L&D.
But what do you
think?
Rachel Burnham
23/7/17
Burnham L & D Consultancy helps L&D professionals update
and refresh their skills. I am particularly interested in blended
learning, the use of digital skills for learning, evaluation and anything that
improves the impact of learning on performance.
Image from Pixabay
Image from Pixabay
