Learning Isn’t a Department
I make a living from *trying to* prove to the Big Dawgs that learning is essential to growth — that learning is a necessary engine for innovation, and so it must be engineered. It gets incredibly complicated at times, especially if done at scale. Talk about managing the learning of 40,000+ employees. Phew.
I’m not going to lie, I’ve seen a lot of organisations thrive without a properly functioning L&D Department. Some companies just… get it. I used to not want to look into it so deeply, scared that I might find out that my whole existence is actually… unnecessary. That I’m just… a fraud. Yikes.
So I made up a million excuses, thinking maybe their business model is just idiot-proof, that they would thrive nonetheless. That’s it.
But I was wrong (duh).
That was actually one the first epiphanies that I had regarding learning, or corporate learning to be exact.
“L&D” is a department. Learning is not. Learning itself is far more embedded than we perceive it to be. If you have had the chance read my last post, you probably remember I briefly mentioned the formula “learning = working, working = learning”. And this will always remain true… but some terms and conditions apply.
The Netflix Flex
Over the last several months I’ve gotten a little wiser. Working closely with several state owned enterprises in the financial sector made me realise that “companies who just seem to get it” possess one critical factor to learning efficiency: Talent density.
Reed Hastings, the CEO of Netflix, introduced the idea ages ago. He’d previously talk about the talent density rule sporadically, but in his recent book with Erin Meyer, he strongly argued that it was, and still is, the key driver of Netflix’s growth success.
Reed attributes a lot of its success to the culture of “Freedom and Responsibility” (who here has read their famous culture deck?). While it is proven that culture plays a crucial role in innovation, a handful has argued that Netflix pivoted at the right time, and it was natural for Netflix to win against Blockbuster. In other words, they got lucky.
But I digress.
Anyway, the first rule of the culture, as Reed put it so blatantly and unforgivingly, “build up talent density by creating a workforce of high performers”. And by high performers he meant exclusively high performers. Talent density is a must. If you don’t have it, forget about the rest of the rules, as the latter cannot be applied without the foundation.
Talent density, simply put, is the proportion of high performers within an organisation. It is argued that a high number of excellent employees will lead to successful outcomes. Well, of course, right? But talent density isn’t just about having a number of talented people. It’s about having a lean workforce consisting of only top talents. No one else.
One could, and should, argue that a lot of scaffolding has already been done in companies like FAANG. These employees probably went to really good schools, grew up in a decent environment, and had access to the internet. This sort of talent pool can only be accessed by a handful of companies, like those in the Silicon Valley for example. So it’s a +10 for organisations to have access to such talent pool, and a +100 for having the money to pay top of the market.
One thing about hiring top talents is that it’s attractive for other top talents. High performers want to work with high performers. Performance is contagious, whether good or bad. That’s why keeping a bad player around is far more costly than paying top of the market to those who are ridiculously talented.
Learning will then happen effortlessly. Wouldn’t having top students in a classroom ease the job of the teacher? No bad kids, just really eager-to-learn students. They would naturally have the urge to perform, because they like it. How lucky.
Say you don’t have much luck
Now let’s assume that most companies don’t have the luxury; the talent pool, the freedom, and the money.
OK, this is cue for me to enter the picture.
A lot organisations, upon realising the scarcity of top talents, go the exact opposite. They become obsessed and tightly control the flow of learning. They bombard the employees with endless trainings and supply them with every knowledge possible.
I have seen first hand the failure of such method. Yes, learning must be engineered, but only to a certain extent. The engineering of learning is different in a lot of organisation, and the factor that determines it the most is talent density. The perception of it, to be exact.
Reed believes that the higher the density, the lesser restrictions you will need. When it comes to learning, it is no different. Learning in an environment with low talent density becomes more of a form of control, which is natural. Due to the mistrust in employees’ judgement and behaviour, knowledge and skills are passively fed.
Logically, it makes sense. You don’t have the talent pool, so you must create one yourself. In the process of talent creation, you realise that there’s a lot to work on, so you intensify the learning. It is actually OK to drill employees with the basics, some basics. But don’t go overboard — a lot gets lost in translation when you intensify the content, not context.
For learning to really work anywhere, context is key. The idea is that despite having a less ideal talent density, it doesn’t mean that “learning dictatorship” should take place. Competency gap isn’t caused by the lack of access to knowledge, it’s caused by the lack of context.
So what works? In Google, peer to peer learning is the main driver of knowledge sharing. The learning department purposely set up such system, where learning is conducted socially. In Netflix, working in a high performing environment is learning. We learn everyday by observing and working with people who are experts at their jobs. The L&D function’s job is to ensure that the learning milestones are achieved, and support when needed.
In most companies, where talent density is low, the system that should be set up, or engineered, is social learning, like coaching and mentoring or communities of practice.
We learn best in an environment we are most familiar with, and that is the work environment. L&D leaders shouldn’t be discouraged by the lack of talent density, because the point of social learning is not about the proportion of talents.
“But wouldn’t it be easier to conduct social learning when everyone is so smart?”
The point is that we must leverage learning that happens outside the classroom, because 70% of what we apply at work comes from… work (check out the 70:20:10 methodology). L&D leaders need to incentivise top talents to share and conduct knowledge transfer. Programs such as “leaders as teachers” or communities of practice are a good way to start cultivating talent density. Performance is contagious, make sure the top talents receive the spotlight. Provide them with context, and let them lead.
The key takeaway from this is to once again rethink what it means to learn at the workplace. We must challenge our old ideologies and belief that when talent is “low”, then we musn’t encourage “free” learning. That is wrong. One, we are undermining their hidden potential. Two, we are isolating the learning from working. And three, you are widening the gap between the highest and lowest performers. Embrace social learning, it’s what connects the minds of the organisation.
How a company defines what learning is will determine their outlook on it, and it will affect the way they do learning. The system will be built on the basis of their learning belief. We must choose the right belief.
So first, remove the barriers to learning, start by removing the word learning itself. This will empower every talent in your organisation to stop waiting for learning to happen, because they are already doing it anyway.
Second, for learning to be exponential, encourage sharing. Make the tacit, explicit. Capture the flow of knowledge, not control it.
Lastly, tighten the feedback loop. Feedback (good feedback that is) is an excellent way to learn. We’ll talk more about feedback as a form of learning.
So was I really wrong?
So yeah, I was wrong. Companies who get it don’t just “get” it. They know their people. They know the characteristics of their employees, so they build their system around it. Most companies, who don’t get it, can get it by first removing the ideology that people who don’t know best must be punished.
Companies with high talent density, congrats. Companies that have medium to low density, go easy. Enforce context. Build a system where learning feels seamless. It is already embedded in everything we do anyway. You’ll scare away the talents you have by bombarding them with unnecessary information. It’s imperative that people learn, but it’s more important that learning is done in a way that’s beneficial to their work.
Now you might think: how will learning bring impact to business if minimal engineering is done?
Take it easie for now. We’ll talk soon.
Heidi
