Understanding the different ways people learn helps design better learning programs for Procurement

Different people have different needs and preferences when it comes to learning. This is true for learning languages, a new sport, and learning a new professional skill. But there is also a psychological element at play that cannot be underestimated. Understanding the different learning styles helps create more human-centered learning experiences that improve the learning experience and impact.

This article outlines the different learning styles and how understanding them helps us design better learning programs.

How do we learn?

A 1996 study into the ways of learning reported by a group of executives led to the much quoted 70:20:10 approach to learning design. In essence, the study reported that 70% of learning comes from on-the -job application of skills and knowledge, 20% from social interaction with colleagues and others around the subject and 10% comes from formal learning.

Although the exact balance has been challenged by some, it is evident that the underlying implication is broadly correct. It can be linked to the broadly known but poorly understood 10,000 hours requirement to master a subject. This originally came from a study of violinists at a music academy, and described the 10,000 hours of deliberate practice the best had by age 20. The linkage is that to get good at applying a subject area, deliberate application is a clear requirement, which points to the ’70’ of 70:20:10.

Implications of 70:20:10 for overall learning design

This suggests that, within the overall learning design, we need to make sure that there is space for not only the formal learning, but also the opportunity to discuss and explore the subject outside of the formal learning, and the time and opportunity to practice key elements of the learning.

The formal learning component can be done in a number of ways, including e-learning, virtual learning ( think Teams or another video conferencing solution) or in person training. In reality, a mix of these approaches is most likely to be used, but again this needs to be designed in a thoughtful way. In-person training provides a deeper opportunity to discuss and share ideas, helping with the ’20’ as well, although peer group learning sessions and other shared discussion approaches could be adopted as well. This leaves the 70% to be delivered in a structured way.

Be clear about expectations

Within the overall course design, we need to be clear about the expectations for the 70% activity. We need to build into the learning journey a clear requirement for the participant to go and deliver a particular activity.

This leads us to another area, which is the role of the line manager. It is helpful if the line managers both understand the content of the training, but also understand how they should be setting post-course delivery expectations with team members who are attending the course. Ideally, this should be done in a pre-course discussion, which then closely links the course, the attendee, the organisational objectives and the post course activity.

Setting up the post course activity

The immediate consequence for course design is that there needs to be a clear thread from the objectives and expectations, through the course content, to the post course activity. This needs to be clearly expressed within the course, perhaps supported by guiding documents, which demonstrate the specific actions which are expected.

As this also need to link back to the measurement approach, it is also suggesting that there is an evaluation of the post course activity, which also needs to be designed and fed back. The depth and complexity of the activity needs to reflect the course content and the objectives. This could range from a simple application of some key tools which are then evaluated later, through to the development of a complete category strategy as an outcome, which is coached and evaluated.

The role of the coach

All this implies a role for a coach on the way through the post course activity, to deliver feedback and in-flight correction to maximise effectiveness. This implies a coach both briefed on the outcomes expected, but also aware of the techniques and approaches within the course contents that the coaching aligns.

In our experience, this whole area is fraught with difficulty, as the most natural coach tends to be the line manager, who is also the recipient of the output but is (in our experience) often the least bought into the training content and the outputs required. It also suggests that line managers should be good coaches, which is also not always true. It is worth building into the whole program a check on coach availability and skills, plus briefing packs for line managers to establish expectations and approaches.

Making sure it happens

As all of this is now a complex integrated whole to get to the expected uplift in capability, and use of that capability, there will need to be some governance and oversight applied, so the full set of outcomes and measures are in place, happening at an appropriate speed and being unblocked and encouraged as necessary. That is a specific set of activity all by itself, but where this is fully integrated into the overall program, achieving the required outcomes is more likely.

Reach out to discuss how to design training programs that balance learning approaches to drive a maximum ROI for both employees and organisations.