Knowing vs Doing: A Common Trap
Alright, we’re at the pool and see someone attending their first day of private swim lessons.
The instructor is engaging and more knowledgeable about swimming than anyone we’ve ever met.
Perfect explanations of every swimming stroke. Beautiful animations of each technique in motion. Hilarious stories that really make the lesson memorable. He absolutely came prepared.
And at the end of the lesson…
“Well, dive in and give it a shot. You know how to find me, so don’t hesitate to reach out with any questions!”
And then he’s gone.
It’s honestly not terrible strategy…if this is what swimming looked like:
We see this in corporate training…
All
The
Time
A disconnect stemming from training focused way too much on knowing and not nearly enough on doing.
One can know how swimming works and not be able to swim. We can memorize everything to know about the saxophone, become a veritable encyclopedia of saxophone facts, and still be unable to play a note.
Without practice, we create the most knowledgeable employees in the world who are forced to rely on tribal knowledge when it comes time to actually do their job. And while you’ll never hear me reject the validity of tribal knowledge, I’ll say this:
It doesn’t scale.
As organizations grow, overreliance on tribal knowledge multiplies performance inconsistency as learners (and mentors) turnover in higher volumes. It takes longer and longer for new employees to create value for our business. And, perhaps most insidiously, it places significant strain on our veteran employees.
Sink-or-swim training can get a scrappy startup off the ground, but it evolves into a costly competitive disadvantage for the mature business. Guaranteed.
So how do we shift training to focus more on doing and less on knowing?
Set up scaffolding
A concept that routinely comes to mind when I design practice activities is scaffolding – a theory introduced by cognitive psychologist, Jerome Bruner.
To get to the point with an aggressively shorthand version, we want to inject one or more practice activities that move learners along two spectra:
Realism – How similar the activity is to the literal action required on the job
Complexity – How many variables the learner will be expected to respond to
The two spectra are, more often than not, directly related.
As we approach realism in our activities, they tend to become more complex.
So, the questions we ask ourselves are:
What is the most realistic activity we can reasonably include in training?
Are our learners able to complete this activity without significant support?
If not, what activities of lower complexity can we include that build to this realism?
Let’s look at an Excel training example:
“Learners are provided a data set and case study based on a previous client project. The activity defines the client request similar to how the original project team received it. Learners must manipulate the data set using any known formulas to produce the information that fulfills the client request.”
This is one of the more realistic and complex activities we could include in an Excel training. It requires the knowledge to execute Excel formulas AND asks the learner to interpret a request to figure out what formula(s) to even use.
We can further adjust the complexity by changing the number of steps required in the client request. We can add more background information to hint the client would prefer the data being cut one way vs another (if multiple correct answers exist).
That said, there’s a chance our learners aren’t ready for this, so now let’s back way off on the realism/complexity.
“Learners are provided a data set and a list of 40 questions. Learners must correctly apply a list of formulas to answer each question.”
This includes some realism since learners will presumably apply the same formulas to perform their role, but it could still be a far cry from the realistic demands of their role. Depending on the learner’s ability, formulas used, and whether we choose to name drop the formulas in the questions, we can easily modify the complexity to fit our learners’ needs.
Another example - handling sales objections:
“During a role play, the learner must respond to a single customer objection using the company’s sales methodology and remaining on message.”
If the objection is common and the role play is performed similar to what the learner will see in their role (i.e. virtual, over the phone, in person), then this is realistic with low complexity. We could add realism and complexity by increasing the number of objections or the scope of the conversation to include different parts of the sales cycle.
“The learner will submit a recorded sales call and receive feedback on their use of the company’s sales methodology to respond to customer objections. ”
This might be the highest level of realism we can build a learner up to. It involves doing the literal action in an uncontrolled environment, and we’ve unlocked the ability to provide context-specific feedback. There is no material difference between the learner completing the activity for training and completing it to perform their role.
To be clear, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the 40-question Excel worksheet or the single-objection sales role play. In fact, they could very well be necessary for a well-rounded and effective learning experience.
We just can’t end at these activities.
Our goal is not employees applying Excel formulas in a vacuum. Our goal is applying formulas to solve real problems for our business or our clients.
Salespeople resolving one objection perfectly is a great start, but salespeople resolving any objection while progressing the customer relationship is the value we’re after.
Wrapping Up
At the risk of abusing this metaphor:
Learners show up for swimming lessons training not just to learn about swimming their job, but primarily to learn how to swim do their job. The most effective, efficient, and reliable method includes practicing the movements on land and/or water required job function in increasingly realistic environments.
Training designs with realistic practice take a little more production time, but they get significantly better and more reliable results.
Results that create more engaged learners.
Results that minimize calls for retraining.
Results that send a loud and clear message to business leaders about the value of your L&D team.