Despite the wealth of large research and evaluative studies from Dobbin, Kochlan and Karlev, that support the proposition that it's a waste of time, even counterproductive, no evidence seems to exist to support the case for diversity training, other than anecdote.
Personnel Today picked up on my Jackie Orme story and laid out the case with a link to my blog along with an official response from the CIPD.
"There is an element of Jackie's package which is performance-related, and which is linked to a scorecard of clear objectives. The main point is that against that scorecard, the Institute has had a successful year….. That level of detail is between the remuneration committee and Jackie Orme.”
Let me translate: ‘It’s none of your business. We decide and that’s that!’
Listen, we all understand that the Remuneration Committee technically decides on these things, but it is not enough to simply state you’ve had a successful year with not a single word of support, especially as the stated facts suggest the opposite.
You can see from the annual report that the CIPD have had anannus horrbilis:
Jackie Orme’s bonus up by 49% to £87,000, BUT:
Commercial income down by 23%Research down by 57% and ridiculed (report pulled and CEO apology)Magazine imploded (down 83%)Revenues from the branches down by 45.6%,Investment returns bombed (down 74.7%)And don’t forget that there was also a dramatic 50% increase in the number of staff on £60k plus from 14 in 2009 to 21 in 2010.
Hold on Steve! Previous post was joyous report on learning award ceremony, before that gushing review of the film 'The Social Network'. I've been blogging for years with hundreds of positive posts. But you have a point. It's just that the CIPD management, not the members, seems to remind me of bankers when it comes to rewards for failure. People seem to have strong views on the subject but few are brave enough to express them in public. And don't get me started on the Royal Wedding!
I think you're largely right for certain types of jobs (knowledge workers especially) in that the creation of the right learning ecosystem allows self starters to just get on with it. However, I do think that structured, scenario-led, case-led simulations, or 'First Person Thinkers' do work, as I've seen them work in soft skills, business skills, healthcare and the military.
The main problem for me is the infection of formal learning by faddish, new-age theories that are contradictory and have no supporting evidence, whether scientific or evaluative. Trainers are largely stuck in 'classrooms' with formal timetabled 'courses' and feel, as was said, this need to be 'entertaining', so 'performance' overrides the teaching of competences. Or they default into a Carl Rogers driven 'coaching' role, where anything goes. Just sit back and listen and you're a professional 'coach'. Senior managers are right, therefore, to be sceptical of L&D, as it contains too many wanabee witches and wizards.
1. L&D has been drifting for some time towards faddish techniques that offer no benefits to organisations. Recent activity on TrainingZone reflects this, with barely disguised 'articles as ads' on NLP, coaching etc. As long as L&D accepts this raft of new age nonsense as 'learning' it will remain a low-level activity with little respect from senior management.
2. L&D managers lack the business skills to recognise, diagnose, design and deliver relevant 21st century solutions. They're largely (not all) locked into repeating their status quo, embedded classroom, workshop, chalk and talk culture and make far too little use of scalable technology.
3. Training is locked into irrelevant 'happy sheet' evaluation as it can't see past the 50 year old Kirkpatrick system, a non-evidence based, over-engineered, upside-down system designed to avoid the truth, rather than face up to real evaluation.
I'd add one more - that L&D has no real leadership and that folding training into the CIPD was catastrophic. It has resulted in a fossilised profession with no real vision or innovation.
No doubt all 500 have read and sometimes enjoyed astrology columns, that doesn't mean it should be accepted as a serious theory of mind and adopted as good practice in training. Isn't it puzzling that the academic psychologists wordwide reject it, yet it is kept alive in 'training' departments? And if we are to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' NLP - surely you need to assess the evidence, have some sort of controlled study and do the work?
Steve - the whole point of an 'evidence-based' approach is to avoid the you think/I think issue. It is not enough to say that anyone who criticises NLP is in need of NLP. This type of argument is totalitarian e.g. to crticise Marx is simply playing your part in the class system. It's at its most common in pesudo psychotherapy, where any criticism is immediately interpreted as a psychological weakness on the part of the critic. This won't wash. The scientific method demands evidence, so I have presented, not MY evidence but the evidence of experts and researchers on the issue. Do the managers in [company name removed by mod] rely on real data in actuarial work or read tealeaves?
My discussion replies
Great question Garry.
Despite the wealth of large research and evaluative studies from Dobbin, Kochlan and Karlev, that support the proposition that it's a waste of time, even counterproductive, no evidence seems to exist to support the case for diversity training, other than anecdote.
THE PLURAL OF ANECDOTE IS NOT DATA
Rick Stein can fillet a good fish, why don't we get him to sort out surgery in the NHS?
I'm a Celebrity, let me fix your education! Full response here......
http://donaldclarkplanb.blogspot.com/2011/03/im-celebrity-let-me-fix-your-education.html
AGM is at 13:15 on Tuesday 7 December 2010 at the Royal College of Physicians, open to all members. Go along and ask a few scary questions!
NO 94%, YES 6%!
Personnel Today picked up on my Jackie Orme story and laid out the case with a link to my blog along with an official response from the CIPD.
"There is an element of Jackie's package which is performance-related, and which is linked to a scorecard of clear objectives. The main point is that against that scorecard, the Institute has had a successful year….. That level of detail is between the remuneration committee and Jackie Orme.”
Let me translate: ‘It’s none of your business. We decide and that’s that!’
Listen, we all understand that the Remuneration Committee technically decides on these things, but it is not enough to simply state you’ve had a successful year with not a single word of support, especially as the stated facts suggest the opposite.
You can see from the annual report that the CIPD have had anannus horrbilis:
Jackie Orme’s bonus up by 49% to £87,000, BUT:
Commercial income down by 23%Research down by 57% and ridiculed (report pulled and CEO apology)Magazine imploded (down 83%)Revenues from the branches down by 45.6%,Investment returns bombed (down 74.7%)And don’t forget that there was also a dramatic 50% increase in the number of staff on £60k plus from 14 in 2009 to 21 in 2010.
Hold on Steve! Previous post was joyous report on learning award ceremony, before that gushing review of the film 'The Social Network'. I've been blogging for years with hundreds of positive posts. But you have a point. It's just that the CIPD management, not the members, seems to remind me of bankers when it comes to rewards for failure. People seem to have strong views on the subject but few are brave enough to express them in public. And don't get me started on the Royal Wedding!
I think you're largely right for certain types of jobs (knowledge workers especially) in that the creation of the right learning ecosystem allows self starters to just get on with it. However, I do think that structured, scenario-led, case-led simulations, or 'First Person Thinkers' do work, as I've seen them work in soft skills, business skills, healthcare and the military.
The main problem for me is the infection of formal learning by faddish, new-age theories that are contradictory and have no supporting evidence, whether scientific or evaluative. Trainers are largely stuck in 'classrooms' with formal timetabled 'courses' and feel, as was said, this need to be 'entertaining', so 'performance' overrides the teaching of competences. Or they default into a Carl Rogers driven 'coaching' role, where anything goes. Just sit back and listen and you're a professional 'coach'. Senior managers are right, therefore, to be sceptical of L&D, as it contains too many wanabee witches and wizards.
1. L&D has been drifting for some time towards faddish techniques that offer no benefits to organisations. Recent activity on TrainingZone reflects this, with barely disguised 'articles as ads' on NLP, coaching etc. As long as L&D accepts this raft of new age nonsense as 'learning' it will remain a low-level activity with little respect from senior management.
2. L&D managers lack the business skills to recognise, diagnose, design and deliver relevant 21st century solutions. They're largely (not all) locked into repeating their status quo, embedded classroom, workshop, chalk and talk culture and make far too little use of scalable technology.
3. Training is locked into irrelevant 'happy sheet' evaluation as it can't see past the 50 year old Kirkpatrick system, a non-evidence based, over-engineered, upside-down system designed to avoid the truth, rather than face up to real evaluation.
I'd add one more - that L&D has no real leadership and that folding training into the CIPD was catastrophic. It has resulted in a fossilised profession with no real vision or innovation.
Mmmmm - that's exactly the problem Steve. Do you put that line on your CV? No wonder the Financials Services industry is such a shambles.
No doubt all 500 have read and sometimes enjoyed astrology columns, that doesn't mean it should be accepted as a serious theory of mind and adopted as good practice in training. Isn't it puzzling that the academic psychologists wordwide reject it, yet it is kept alive in 'training' departments? And if we are to distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' NLP - surely you need to assess the evidence, have some sort of controlled study and do the work?
Steve - the whole point of an 'evidence-based' approach is to avoid the you think/I think issue. It is not enough to say that anyone who criticises NLP is in need of NLP. This type of argument is totalitarian e.g. to crticise Marx is simply playing your part in the class system. It's at its most common in pesudo psychotherapy, where any criticism is immediately interpreted as a psychological weakness on the part of the critic. This won't wash. The scientific method demands evidence, so I have presented, not MY evidence but the evidence of experts and researchers on the issue. Do the managers in [company name removed by mod] rely on real data in actuarial work or read tealeaves?