A day of two reports: Climate and Apprenticeships

My social feeds were made up by two main stories this Monday just gone:

  1. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) special report on the impact of global warming of 1.5C (BBC News Article)
  2. UK Government report on Apprenticeship quality.

The impact of climate is around us all to see, from the increasingly dry summers in Britain, northern european forest fires, Californian droughts, etc.  A Guardian article in response to the climate issues, “Overwhelmed by climate change? Here’s what you can do“, hints at the fact we can feel lost in the face of such disastrous change.  It is easy to feel this way, however, I’ve recently finished reading Abundance (‘The Future is Better Than You Think’) and perhaps we need to get the good stories out there more effectively?  One of the items on the Guardian list is ‘vote’ and we all need to take a collective responsibility to force politicians to include massive change (or at least roll back support for coal as in Australia) in their agendas.

Apprenticeships as a route to tackle sustainability

Apprenticeships are an opportunity here – sustainability is a considerable part of modern learning programmes (such as Design, Engineer, Construct) and needs to be embedded throughout apprenticeships.  Indeed apprenticeships’ “British values” need to be revised to be inclusive of global warming policy and commitment to change.  Unfortunately this is difficult and probably of limited impact considering Apprenticeship standards are restricted to England (not the whole UK) and launched at a time when the UK, via Brexit and financial limitations, is falling backwards on the world stage.

So, in our organisations what can we do?  There have been some good examples, for example when I was at KPMG there was a start to a, since complete, cull on plastic.  Otherwise will climate become a consulting issue, similar to Y2K or GDPR?  Personally I feel this needs to become embedded in everything we do, it needs to be a cultural piece in the same way we expect continuous learning, demonstration of values (generally in the “don’t be a dick” category),etc..  Thus we need to take on the personal responsibility for ‘greening’ our business and lives in the same way that since the ’50s we have seen a change in mentality around diversity and inclusion.

L&D departments can play an essential part here in getting people to think differently and embed innovation around energy efficiency and other potential improvements.

Ensuring apprenticeship quality

The quality criticisms are curious given the shift to ’employer led’ apprenticeships should have employers ensure quality, rather than it remaining a central government concern.  This is really account management on the employer side, tracking appropriate feedback scores and outcomes metrics to get an holistic view of the apprentice.  That so many problems have occured suggests a more systemic issue, most likely down to issues such as the enforcing of the ‘20%’ as a metric based on quantity not quality.

The bigger issue seems to be financial sustainability of apprenticeships – with FE underfunded and apparently short term seeking of quick wins in the private space (the report’s “explosion in the number of training providers”), contributing to collapse/sale of key players, eg:

Like Y2K, GDPR and other temporary buzz terms the levy-led “explosion” does not seem to be helping.  Employer providers may be the solution here but requires investment from the same companies that have criticised the levy since launch.

There increasingly feels like there needs to be an ‘all-in’ approach.  Drop ‘T-Levels’ and other routes to simplify the model – have apprenticeship versus full-time degree.  Just look at teaching for the confusing variety of routes into the professions.  There are good ideas in the report (such as “abolishing the apprentice minimum wage”) but again it comes back to employers, or it should in the Standards environment.  Can any employer realistically pay the apprentice minimum wage and look themselves in the mirror?  For a full-time role I’d suggest not, for someone who is perhaps working 50% of an FTE then maybe, I think my first role was £1.17 an hour before any kind of minimum wage and that was okay as a Saturday job in being a first step on the ladder towards some kind of experience.  Eventually I was offered the management training programme by that employer (a now defunct supermarket) but opted for university instead.

The proposed kite system for good employers (in the government statement) is more challenging, it sounds like a good idea but will no doubt add to the noise that exists around the multiple ’employer of choice’ type awards out there.  Instead, in the same way providers can be rated by employers – let providers and apprentices rate employers in an open way via the ‘Find an apprenticeship’ site or other route.

Time for a LinkedIn cull / Random hello

I’m a real advocate for LinkedIn, it has been a game change in helping me:

  1. As a visual reminder (people’s faces) to remind me what people look like or to help me find people when meeting them the first time.  I’m terrible at remembering names and faces so it useful as a form of performance support tool!
  2. As a ‘little black book’ – I used to have one with contacts numbers in.  I haven’t since, maybe, 2004ish?
  3. As my primary professional contacts list – it is possibly just me, but my Microsoft and Google contacts seem to have got quite messed up over the years (presumably via switching between device backups) so LinkedIn is my go to point for sending messages to professional contacts.

At 400 contacts a little over 3 years ago I decided I needed to think about how I used it.  The above three use cases/categories were my outcome from that.  However, I’ve had A LOT of sales people contact me over the last couple of years (my work email is probably 20% spammy sales) so my LinkedIn list has ballooned to 1102 as of October 8th.

Therefore, I’m starting a cull – I’ll pull out people I can’t remember at all, people I suspect are spammy that have slipped through the net, anyone I don’t think would probably ever want to contact me (and me them), etc.

As I will be going through my connections from A-Z I’ll also send a “Hi” to those that jump out as people I’ve not spoken to in ages that I really should have.

Apologies if you get a random notification saying I’ve been looking at your profile – it’s probably me looking back at how we originally connected.

If you are culled and don’t think you should have been (or want to stay connected) then do let me know on here/Twitter/email.

This should then facilitate the site being more of the ‘black book’ that I can go to for ideas, motivation, help and the like as well as cleaning up my feed a bit which has got quite “Facebooky” with some people’s likes and posts.

See you on the other side (possibly).

Thoughts on L&D Recruitment 2 of 2: Applying

As a follow up to my previous post, now some thoughts on my job hunt.

It’s over two years since my last job search, this time self-inflicted rather than redundancy driven.  I had gone very ‘eggs in one basket’ for a role in an organisation I am really keen on (but have heard today they do not want me for a second interview).  That said I have a couple of other applications ‘out there’ that would also be fantastic.

So let’s think about roles in a bit more detail…

Like when in that career gap last time (see Why I Work in ‘Learning’) it is a time of reflection and consideration.  The challenge is that my primary driver remains the same – I enjoy help[ing] people better themselves in the context of their organisation/environment.  This should, you would you think, leave plenty of room for opportunities aligned to my past experience and education – traditional L&D, digital learning, research, libraries and information management, operational support, etc.  However, I worry this is perhaps too vague a driver?  I suspect being ‘generalist’ (working across the ‘lifecycle’ of ADDIE-esque work for example rather than just instructional design or digital development) and keen to continue to adapt my sector expertise (having worked in FE, HE, professional services and healthcare) goes against what employers (myself included in that first post) look for, i.e.:

Someone to hit the ground running.

Rather than consider experience from other sectors and that it probably demonstrates adaptability in combination with the correct knowledge and skills too many recruiters, it seems, have an inflexible idea of what they want.  This is primarily articulated in my personal bugbear, the bloody “10 years of experience” line, when you could do nothing for 10 years or so and (in that model) be a better candidate just because you are in the correct industry.  I would argue, and it is the case with my experience, you could have experience across sectors/industries where you have achieved consistently – moving your organisations’ learning approaches forward every time – which is far more valuable than sitting on your hands in industry x for 10 years or more.

Yes, this is in some ways contradictory to my first post – I’m more than aware I’m not drinking my own champagne here in the balance of looking for a capable, experienced and reliable candidate.

…and me

Inevitably you also start to worry if personality is the issue.  I remember being given a talk ‘to one side’, when others were on a coffee break, in my post redundancy outplacement support that I didn’t seem enthused by the mock-interviews and doing our ‘elevator pitch’ type prep.

This is because I wasn’t, I feel the process tired and out of date.  I generally don’t like the introvert/extrovert dichotomy as I think it all depends on context but it is incredibly difficult to portray a personality in an interview and, as a person applying and a recruiter, I need to keep that in mind.

…and organisations

Part of my rather fuzzy ethos is that opportunities should be open to all.  However, there are many reasons why people have traditionally got by with ‘who you know not what you know’.  This is where I feel we can all improve upon this now – there is a very real opportunity to express an interest and allow that organisation to say “okay, let’s take a look” – online portfolios, twitter, LinkedIn, etc, etc. will give you a picture of their expertise and personality.  This is far greater than what can be perceived in an interview, although I would agree that the face-to-face or virtual meeting skills should still come across that way.

I wanted to give a shoutout here to https://www.smartrecruiters.com/ which seems by far the smoothest application process I have come across – express an interest backed up by your social links and ask for a call/email back if they are interested in you.  A great idea.  This also keeps things personal, unlike some of the recruitment systems out there, certainly when I was applying for this a couple of years back many of these just seemed to be tests of patience/willing.

Sure, if you get 100s of applications you probably need some automatic filtering but keep things personal to some level. Please!  For example, one role I applied for in late July still has my application status as “application received” two months later.  I’ve tried following up via a contact at that company (no reply, so okay, bad sign) but there is not even a generic ‘careers’ email, never mind a bot of live chat for me to say “hey, I’m still interested – what’s going on?”.

Dear Hiring Organisations,

look, I know you are looking to fill quickly and easily but remember many of your applicants (like me) will have been in that position too.  Think about how your recruitment makes you seem in terms of personality, transparency, etc.  I’d also say this may well be hidden away from most hiring managers so, hey, Recruitment teams – sort it out!

Flexibility

One thing I have looked at in detail this time is remote work.  This would be my preference just due to locations and personal circumstances (I am splitting my time between countries and due another house move in a few months).  However, whilst the business press, L&D (via webinars and collaboration), etc. all talk a lot about this there are virtually zero roles.  Some learning designers are home based but many will include that all important “regular visit to Brighton, London, Nottingham, etc” in the text.  We seem to lack a truly global approach to recruitment even in big organisations – again, you wonder why when organisations say they have multiple unfilled vacancies and are stymied by skills shortages they remained locked to physical locations.  Talent is everywhere, businesses remain locked to location with Brexit, GDPR and other trends just seemingly reinforcing old mindsets.

At the conference I presented at last year, there was a discussion where the room considered future talent needs.  I made the point that employers can’t continue to complain about skills gaps when they remain so inflexible.

It is in this research on virtual/remote work that I’ve come across Rodolphe Dutel who has some excellent resources and advice.  He is also, possibly, the first person I’ve come across who genuinely replies to emails from people subscribed to his newsletters so kudos to him too.

For now

I continue to support my old team and will keep my eyes open for that next new role!

Thoughts on L&D Recruitment 1 of 2: Hiring

I have recently been involved in a bit of a departmental rejig – with me contributing to a couple of new job descriptions that would split my responsibilities as I transition out of role:

 

The recruitment process is always an interesting one.  Yet again I found myself falling into some familiar traps, such as the focus on experience – as one of my friends recently posted on Facebook:

40658246_10216739354573802_8419779597029081088_n.jpg

This is particularly troublesome considering my professed belief in the growing importance of values based recruiting and, if I was to follow the logic in my Strengthscope certification, recruiting for strengths.

The thing that really shone through in the process was how varied (and in many ways wonderful) “we”, as an L&D community/profession, are – we had excellent candidates who brought with them a huge variety of experience and personality.  Some candidates had clearly been focused on leadership/management development, some on digital learning, some on establishing learning in organisations whilst some were focused on the delivery or design.  Qualifications to have developed (or certify existing) skills and knowledge varied enormously.  No one had the joy of two learning related masters (like me) but there was a full gambit from masters to, basically, no qualifications.  Arguably ‘we’ don’t do ourselves any favours with this wide church, and it contributes to the idea that anyone can ‘do’ learning so it will be interesting to see what comes of the new apprenticeship standards as a de facto standard:

 

 

Thus recruitment can quickly become about apparent personality combined with experience with qualifications (for now at least) reduced in importance (compared to most industries).  This is an issue for me which I’ll post about in my second post on this topic…

Some more thoughts on the future of functions/’support’ services

WARNING: Even by my standards, this is a bit of a mish-mash of ideas rather than any type of coherent article…

I’ve previously considered the idea that corporate ‘functions’ should change their terminology to the language still used in many institutions, such as universities, namely to become ‘support services’.  However, more recently, I’ve wondered if this actually will exasperate existing problems – particularly the struggles professional groups have in ‘pushing back’ to those ‘in charge’.

The CILIP event on demonstrating value I mentioned in a previous post put across a very passive approach – recommending you ask the organisation “what else should I do?”.  On reflection, this is in part why I moved away from pure ‘library and information’ roles, there was too much focus on the niche and, often, the physical space.  Instead, why not look at the business vision and plan to build proposals with clear business cases to go over and above what the organisation expects or thinks is possible?

Many people working in corporate roles will be seeing something else – the attempt of ‘traditional professions’ to try to claim the ‘business partnering’ mantle.  HR, L&D, IT, marketing and more are all claiming organisational alignment and ‘performance consulting’ is a term being adopted to mean multiple different things.  This feels like an attempt to claim ‘the middle ground’ and position one professional group in power, like when IT departments claimed ‘information’ for themselves via ICT or where PMOs have aggregated expertise from across the business in a vacuum from BAU activity.  However, the question remains, how can we best support the ‘business as usual’ in our organisation/industry as well as dealing with change?

I thought about this again recently when discussing something on Twitter, following this tweet from a renowned UK education tweeter:

The physical enforcement of location on education is something that does irritate me so I asked the question of why that needs to be:

The reply included a perfectly fair question*:

* the way I’ve previously recommended use of social media is to “say what you’d say to people’s faces” – this tweet is a good example of exactly what you’d ask in that situation (say if discussing the issue in the pub, at a conference, over dinner, etc.) BUT…

…it also highlights the problem: too many people jump to “well have you ever done it before?” or even straight to the dreaded “because we’ve always done it this way”.  Depending on how you read that tweet it’s either a reasonable question or trying to ‘shout someone down’ (in this case me).  This won’t be unfamiliar to, say, support services in universities (“how can you tell me how to teach my subject?” ) when, in reality, learning technologists, librarians and other support staff can add considerable value (I particularly liked this recent post from a lecturer at Northampton Uni seconding to their learning tech team).

So, in a world of open opinions online (such as my tweets in the above thread) how do we best share and support ideation internally?  Of course hybrid orgs and similar models come and go (holacracy’s for example got a lot of attention a while back).  There also seems to be renewed interest in ‘fee earners’ vs support type models that have long existed in LLPs, for example where people are looking at a ‘core’ team supplemented by flexible resources that come and go – in part via the ‘gig’ economy.  Another I’ve had bashing around in my head is BAU vs project structure/model.  However, BAU and projects could encourage a ‘them and us’ and a move away from ‘continuous improvement’ in the BAU fields.

So if we want to be ‘consultants’, in part to differentiate our professional work as cognitive and to avoid replacement via automation/machine, to improve performance perhaps the flip side is ‘delivery’.  The challenge for L&D, however, is that ‘learning delivery’ can risk an over focus on that traditional area (as identified by Jane Hart and others).

For now I think all we can say is continue to look for continuous improvement via lifelong learning and organizational development.  Whatever our professional backgrounds we need to try to ensure a rush for the middle ground doesn’t end up being a rush for the bottom in lowering quality and the support our teams expect of us.