It’s all kicking off in cyber-space as Jay Cross responded angrily yesterday to what he claimed was a mis-representative posting from Steven Downes on Personal Learning Environments and the role of corporate learning consultants.
Jay is clearly angry, stating:
I resent the implication that I tell employers what they want to hear instead of what I believe in my heart. Stephen’s flippant suggestion that I lack integrity insults me.
So what’s the argument about and what’s at stake?
First, it should be said that Steven does not insult Jay directly by name. Neither does the conversation have much to do with Personal Learning Environments. They were merely the catalyst for a debate on corporate learning, and precipitated this damning view from Downes:
What is it about people in corporate learning that they feel the need to perpetuate the attitude of servitude it seems all learners must adopt.
I have a high opinion of Downes’ thinking, which is why I made him the first Learning Technologies blog of the week. (The only reason I haven’t added Jay Cross’s blog is that I assume that everyone already reads it). What reaction has the post garnered so far?
Learning solutions designer Karyn Romeis comments even-handedly on the debate on Steven’s blog (also see her blog entry on PLEs - worth reading). Harold Jache, meanwhile, was more forthright on Jay’s blog, getting in a swipe at academia for good measure:
We corporate learning consultants are oft-times the agents of change, and welcomed by internal staff, because someone from outside can get management’s attention. The fact that they pay us means that they will listen to us. I see more radical innovation coming from external consultants than from educational institutions, who only have one thing to sell – The Course.
What do you think?
Do those involved in corporate learning sometimes simply deliver what they think their pay masters want? Are they occasionally guilty of actions that will perpetuate a paying engagement rather than closing things off when they could? Or are Downes’ comments simple wide of the mark?
Bear in mind that this debate could easily get noisy and possibly nasty. I would counsel everyone to be as even-handed as Karyn (see above) in their comments.
Subscribe
Stumble It!
June 8, 2007 at 17:02 |
Thanks for the mention and the vote of confidence. It seems the link to my post isn’t working – that can be found at http://karynromeis.blogspot.com/2007/06/this-blog-my-ple.html.
In response to the question you pose in your closing section, I think it is worth remembering that corporate learning providers don’t always provide learning solutions for the corporation by which they are employed. As in my own case. My organisation designs learning solutions for client organisations. At the end of the day, the client calls the shots. I might design a beautifully rich blended solution that will fully support users as they come to grips with a new process/technology/whatever, but the customer might say: lose that, lose that, keep that, change that. This happens often. The fact that s/he knows nothing about learning or change management makes no difference – it’s his call. We can point out how the removal of this or that component of the blend will have the same effect as removing a leg from a table. It’s still his call. Our only recourse then is either to walk away from the work or to draw up a table of risks, dependencies and assumptions, so that if (when?) the implementation goes pear-shaped, they don’t pin it on the learning providers.
I guess you might have more clout with internal clients, but not necessarily – it depends on your corporate struture and ethos.
So there are some constraints placed upon us by the corporate environment. I am not convinced, however, that the academic world is entirely free of similar constraints.
June 8, 2007 at 19:57 |
> Are they occasionally guilty of actions that will perpetuate a paying engagement rather than closing things off when they could? Or are Downes’ comments simple wide of the mark?
I can’t count the number of times someone has said to me something like, “The reality is, management won’t accept…” whatever. It always starts withe the phrase ‘the reality is.’ It’s code for, “I couldn’t possibly sell the other point of view, so I’m going with this one.” Whether or not it’s right.
June 8, 2007 at 21:01 |
Corporations and educational institutions are organisations, and with each one there are constraints on what individuals can do. As a free-agent, I have a lot more flexibility, but I still have to offer a service that someone will pay for. One thing I use for longer engagements is a code of ethics that the client and I sign. One of the clauses states, “Define and achieve useful results that can be aligned with both the client organisation’s mission, objectives, and positive contributions to society.”
Free-agents and tenured faculty have the freedom to speak their mind, but many others do not. I guess it’s up to us to lead the way in creating more open, democratic and human learning environments. I think that some folks are helping to achieve that, including Stephen, so we are making progress, but of course not fast enough. If I didn’t have to put food on the table, I too could be more radical in my consulting, but not many organisations are willing to pay to be disrupted.
December 15, 2007 at 11:08 |
very interesting, but I don’t agree with you
Idetrorce
December 17, 2007 at 8:25 |
Idetrorce – could you expand? This is an open forum for debate, and you can be sure that your ideas will be respected.
July 20, 2009 at 22:48 |
Rather than education and training accusing each other of servitude, both should consider their own weaknesses. Training is about work and has to be in line with the organisation’s goals – that’s what the trainees get paid to do. Harold is right, it’s not servitude just doing what organisations do. Education also has its constraints – hopelessly inefficient lecture system, empty buildings, bad teaching etc. That’s largely a function of an agricultural calendar and research trumping teaching.
Both suffer badly from dated theory and practice and we would do well to focus on improving ‘learning’ in general.