Abandon the annual learning needs analysis
In many cases the global pandemic has shown where there are inefficiencies in many working practices, and the annual learning needs analysis is prime among these in L&D.
It’s a practice which many in L&D carry out to justify their annual learning plans. The rationale of being able to say, the business decided these are the key areas of focus and we’ve developed a calendar of activity based on that is a strong one. However, at the first hurdle, L&D has failed to be of business value by posing this as a business activity at all.
The annual learning needs analysis typically asks either people’s learning needs, or gives a catalogue of courses that could be delivered, and the most popular topics win. I’m sure the topics are relevant to some degree, but the problem with this approach is it cannot adapt to radical change such as a global pandemic. If pre-pandemic the top three learning needs were “interpersonal skills”, “management skills”, and “presentation skills”, are they still relevant in a pandemic world? How would we know? Would we ask people to complete another survey, this time with the promise of delivering the sessions virtually?
And even if we attempt some kind of ‘demand plan’ activity to sit alongside the LNA, we’re holding the business to account for decisions which are guessing games at best.
I get it, though. In the absence of a learning leader in the organisation, or a learning strategy, the annual LNA is better than nothing.
But we can do so much better.
The core of the problem with the LNA is that it assumes too many things. It assumes people in the business can identify a learning need. It assumes that ‘training’ is the answer to the ‘need’. And before I carry on, we’re already interchanging ‘learning’ with ‘training’, when the two things are clearly different.
It also assumes that the learning need is the right thing to focus on. What has become more and more apparent in recent years is that the focus needs to be on performance improvement - and the LNA just isn’t focused on that.
Consequently, many in L&D are stuck in a frame of training as the answer to the LNA. Everything about that statement is problematic. And in particular, the training has to be delivered in person for it to be effective, with virtual options as a poor second cousin. With the pandemic disrupting everything in our normal operations, many have had to make the tactical move to virtual, but are still under-skilled or over-confident in their capability.
The antidote to the annual LNA isn’t to do away with the process (although that’s probably the right choice), it’s to become better skilled at understanding the performance of teams, and getting into the metrics of the organisation. Being a business partner / internal consultant in this way requires a very different attitude and approach to understanding the needs of the organisation.
For example, if you’re a manufacturing organisation and have a workforce of line workers, their day to day reality is about being productive on the line. That in and of itself requires technical skills as well as interpersonal skills. The interpersonal skills are more acutely understood in the context of what they’re already trying to achieve. And because they’re tasked with line productivity, they need performance solutions that help them be productive. That’s a very different line of thinking to asking what their learning needs are. Learning needs are not focused on performance enhancement, they are focused on achieving learning objectives.
Most corporate settings are not expecting staff to complete a college course where learning objectives have a mandate to be upheld. Most corporate setting are expecting staff to perform well - and cannot commit their staff to long-form learning or education. So even if we strip that long-form back to 1 hour masterclass formats, or lunch and learns, or 4 day programmes, we’re still trying to achieve delivery of learning objectives.
The development of skills in business partnering/internal consultancy means we start to understand the language of performance. That kind of conversation also involves more acutely the team affected and the leader of the team - because the conversation itself is about the team and what they do as well as how they do it. L&D is typically focused on the How without focusing on both the What and the How together. It’s in the understanding of performance that we can generate various solutions which are inclusive of upskilling both technical and interpersonal skills.
The kinds of solutions you’re likely to come up with from a business partnering/internal consultancy perspective are about growth and development of the team in a more impactful way because the solutions are focused on performance enhancement and not on achieving learning objectives.
In the midst of the pandemic, this approach also means we can more directly understand the performance challenges of working from home / wellbeing / managing a remote team / delivering services through remote and digital means / being productive. In gaining that kind of insight we can validate across other departments and leaders to see if it’s a common issue and work to solve those issues. What we can’t do is ask people to complete a LNA to identify a training solution to the problem - because they’re not focused on what learning needs they need to fulfil, they’re focused on how to make sure they don’t lose their job.
I also don’t think the LNA is an activity that independent consultants should be using either for direct requests, but I’ll address that in a different piece (although it’s not too different to what I’m raising here).
If you are wedded to the annual LNA, I would encourage you to stop and allow yourself to rethink how you could understand performance of teams and the metrics of the organisation. From this perspective, we already start to think differently about what we could do for the organisation that is a departure from delivering courses as a product of L&D.
