I distinctly remember a classroom program a colleague and I presented to our corporate office several years ago. We were sharing ways for the corporate support staff to work more closely with the field service operations — to make their contact an “event.”
I've worked as a training director in two companies. In my previous role, I managed a group of 13 trainers and instructional designers. But in my current role, I am what many would call a "department of one".
You're probably familiar with Angry Birds, the massively popular iPhone game. What is it about this game that's so addictive? And how can learning and development pros tap into that stickiness to get people this excited about training programs?
About a month ago, I gave up my office and set up in the cubicles with the rest of my employees.
For as long as Return on Investment, or ROI, has been a prevalent concept in business, it's also been a fixture of workplace learning and performance. But no longer a welcome one. What started as a concept that had value -- namely, the need for the work of trainers to be more linked to business performance -- has in many ways devolved into something more dangerous -- a cliché. Here's a look at the reasons why, and how training and learning in the workplace truly ought to be measured.
Our own Bill Cushard hosted another lively Twitter chat on how organizations can use learning and training to restore trust and credibility -- a followup conversation from his latest post, "How Can the Mortgage Industry Regain Credibility? For Starters, a Rethink of Training and Learning." Here's a quick recap if you missed it. Join us this this week for the next #TrainChat, Friday at 10 a.m. PST.
There's been a great deal of discussion over the last few years related to informal learning. Today, just about any training magazine, website, or conference probably devotes significant time to talking about informal learning.
When I started at my position as chief performance officer at an e-marketing agency nine months ago, the company's products and services were good. Its business strategy was sound. But the quality of its people — their talent, passion, and (importantly) their way of thinking — was lacking.