In a move that will confuse/annoy some in the learning industry, Microsoft have chosen the name “Storyline” for new functionality in Teams:
Just as Teams bundling has reduce the appeal of separate task managers, chat (i.e. Slack), and other tools, Storyline appears to be a very nice solution to replace any legacy Enterprise Social Networks (ESNs) that are out there. Indeed, I suggested Teams would go this way back in 2017.
The solution seems to be a nice way to do internal coms from within Teams, but outside of chats/teams, it will be interesting to see if this gets much traction. Presumably, anyone who really wanted to do this in Teams already has a team setup for their staff body, office, or other structure where such broadcasts were needed/desired. All in all, an interesting one if annoying for us Articulate users.
Will Still, at the time managing in France and now Southampton, runs through some of his pre-game approach. A lot of what he outlines will make sense to L&D/learning leaders but perhaps some lessons here for the leaders of non-sporting organizations about how performance improvement/support can be taken seriously:
keep things short (including knowing your audience)
focus on clarity of message (simplify as much as possible)
spaced through the week (L&D folks would see this as reinforcement and tackling the forgetting curve)
visual aids for different situations (using real situations where possible)
meaningful simulation (i.e. the players themselves in realistic situations)
video evidence (for watching back and reflection)
additions/animations on the video evidence to reinforce key points
key points reinforced before point of application
be able to adjust your plans based on needs
Have a manager/coach on hand for performance support.
As we enter 2025, a lot of people will be looking for new roles as part of their new year resolutions.
It has been noticeable in my emails that quite a few new job roles are also being advertised – perhaps due to calendar year budget cycles for some organizations.
However, what I have also noticed is that salaries seem to remain stagnant. A selection of roles in different JiscMail emails were all in the 30-50k a year (GBP) range. Out of interest, I put my 17k (first London salary) into the UK’s official inflation calculator and apparently that salary – which was painfully low at the time – is now the equivalent of 30k. That professional positions are being advertised at this rate (compared to my first London role which was a one-year role between graduation and going onto a postgrad) is pretty scary stuff.
A BBC article (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-64970708) on the lack of UK wage growth since 2008 covers more on this. Indeed I wrote about the problems from the lack of salary inflation in 2019!
For those in the UK running April financial years – here’s hoping for more of a 2007 mindset in salary negotiations than what has been the norm since.
Learning and Development (L&D) teams are often intensely self-critical.
As a result, L&D orientated conferences can feel like group therapy sessions with never ending quests such as “proving impact” and considering if all the industry talk is just “emperor’s new clothes” (just two example sessions taken from this year’s Autumn Forum sessions which, unfortunately, clashed with other things for me).
Meanwhile, headlines on recent LinkedIn posts in my timeline have included “Are the scope of AI discussions in L&D too limited?” and RedThread have discussed “The Existential Crisis of L&D”. All of this while old arguments continue, sometimes seemingly over mere semantics – such as skills vs competencies, training vs learning, etc.
One issue many L&D teams have struggled with is how to deal with technical or senior experts and how to keep/develop these people in routes other than moves into leadership/management. Back in my L&D for consultants days, this was a particular issue as it was recognized there needed to be a route for people to develop in the firm whilst remaining a technical expert in, for example, Cyber security. This differed from the traditional broad>specialism>broad career path (or “I shaped career”) of the firm – and L&D often focused on the broad (via new hire/graduate/introduction materials and management development at the ‘top’). The Mind Tools podcast picking up on this theme recently, with some discussion of the classic issue that whilst someone may be good at a job they might not be good at managing others. This is another thing L&D then get criticised for – trying to develop “leadership and management” training that is only likely to have an impact if the individuals involved actually want to change their behaviour(s).
So what can/do we (L&D teams) have as options to support those who are best kept away from management (either due to their own desire, financial reasons to keep them as specialists, past failures as a manager, etc)? Well, one option many might have already taken is interest in professional organizations and associations. These organizations are often a great way to keep your current awareness up and may give opportunities for your technical staff to influence future generations, for example how CILIP had a role of working with universities on librarianship programmes when I came through for chartership and early career.
However, there is another option that I do not think I have ever really heard talked about in L&D discourse – standardization.
The opportunity to contribute to national, regional or international standards will be of real interest to many of your experts as well as a benefit to your organization (not least keeping your experts aware of trends and changes).
I have recently been thinking again about the nature of workplaces – this has been triggered, in part, by some staff survey results and related activity in the day job.
Discussing the topic with colleagues has brought me back to various previous activities over the last ~15 years whilst at the same time trying to be conscious that there are new(er) ways of tackling some of the issues too.
One of the more interesting reads I have found at the same time is a recent article (from Journal of Workplace Learning 36:9):
This considers the workplace under study, in the research, as “phygital”. I probably have heard of phygital before without really acknowledging it, however, it seems to be primarily a marketing term so is perhaps not universally known? It also probably does not help that it’s not very easy to write/say until someone explains it is a portmanteau of physical and digital (as kindly demonstrated by this cricket team):
What I quite like in thinking about p/Phygital is that it represents that many knowledge/office workplaces are now hybrid daily. Gone are the days where my work from home days would be to plough through certain tasks – now its more the norm and you are expected to be available on Teams, email, etc. as needed. Therefore, as many orgs are now allowing people to spend more time at home how do we increase the digital workplace to create a more “joined up” experience with the physical office/workplace?
I would imagine the findings of the article will sound fairly familiar to many people:
Digital technology extended learning opportunities by providing flexible possibilities for interaction, collaboration and access to a wealth of information. On the contrary, digitally mediated presence could restrict learning if the attendance and learning remained superficial. The complexity and constant change in digital workplace environments presented challenges that could potentially restrict learning. Information overload, constant interruptions and changes were burdens that required employees’ skills to manage these challenges.
The “superficial” point is particularly interesting to me. I recently passed four years with my current organization and this time has flied by in many ways – covid, working from home a lot, a relatively pain-free commute when I do go to the office, relatively little travel for work (compared to some past roles) and other elements have perhaps all contributed to this. However, this has triggered me to consider if, even with all 4 years, this has led to a more superficial experience than previous roles. My conclusion on this is that whilst the work has not necessarily been as superficial the relationships perhaps are – however, I am also very conscious there is a risk of “rose tinted glasses” in reflecting on past experiences. For example, I can certainly say I was superficially involved in work in the past when, for example, I was forced into a regular commute by an office change that made me want to leave that job at the time.
Another key element, for me, from the article relates to the social:
social environments, where people interact, collaborate and relate to each other, are formed not only in physical but also in digital work environments
and I would say that this is an area that we hear a lot about. Enterprise Social Networks (ESNs) did not live up to the hype a while back, even the Wikipedia page focuses on lack of adoption. However, there remains the question of how to maintain social relationships virtually – the article identifies some important elements such as “informal meetings”. If we consider the success of, say, Twitch which has been compared to having people in your living room – does the Phygital workplace need a variety of social channels for different work, and non-work, related topics? Or, as the article puts it, “constantly open lines”. This trade-off between social engagement and not interrupting deep work seems to be the remained challenge for the Phygital environment.
Whose Education Is It Anyway? 