Learning Masterclass: Why Learning Isn't a Spectator Sport

Okay, so let's get started as folks are coming on. Like keep introducing yourselves in the chat.

We're gonna get rolling. So good morning, afternoon, evening everyone. Thank you for being here and welcome to the learning master class.

By learning isn't a spectator sport. The next hour or so will go on in an enlightening journey through the present future.

And of learning and development in the workplace. By way of introduction, I'm Nick from Together and for those of you just meeting us.

Our platform powers for worldclass social learning programs we enable every employee to find connect with peers mentors and experts within their company to accelerate employee learning growth.

.  .
And development. Today, I have the privilege of hosting and introducing Charles Jennings, one of the fields most distinguished contributors in the pioneer of the 70:20:10 model.

.  .
Charles work has transformed how organizations approach learning, development, and performance. And for many of you, he might not need a more detailed introduction, but I'm gonna give you one anyways.

.  .
Charles is a professor and director at the Southampton Business School for over a decade where he focused on networks for communication, teaching and learning at the dawn of the commercially available internet.

.  .
Among other things, there you oversell the development and launch of online collective learning programs in the first purely online MBA program.

.  .
From there, he was lured away to high profile global organizations first to lead the development and launch of internetbased L and D and performance support at Dow Jones.

.  .
And then to lead learning at Thompson Reuters as Chief Learning Officer. And after doing that for a little while, he married the best of academia in the private sector, joining Dump Trun, excuse me, DUNCTRON Consultants as Managing Director, where he works with all types of organizations advising, supporting, and consulting L and D and HR leaders.

.  .
To develop high performing and cohesive organizations. But perhaps Charles is best known for his ground breaking work beyond these roles, particularly as the cofounder of the   70:20:10 Institute.

.  .
Emphasizing the importance of a comprehensive and integrated approach to L and D through experiential, social, and formal learning.

.  .
His work on the   70:20:10 model revolutionized learning and development pushing L and D's impact beyond the traditional education and training methods to better align with real world applications and ultimately improve organizational performance.

.  .
Throughout his career, Charles has been a practitioner as well as thought leader, researcher and trusted advisor.

.  .
He spends through multiple technological and cultural paradigm shifts. And has a wealth of knowledge and experience, merging theory with practical applications that drive results.

.  .
Charles, welcome.

.  .
Thank you very much, Nick, and it's a pleasure to be here with you and also with everybody else.

.  .
So I'm looking forward to the next hour.

.  .
And so a quick reminder of PSA for the audience up. Put questions in the QA as they come up and we'll take them as we go along.

.  .
Intending for this to be a flowing dialogue and will likely have a bit of time at the end as well, but don't hold back.

.  .
When you've got the questions. Put them in and we'll get to them as we go along here.

.  .
So. Think let's Charles start with a couple introduction questions so did you always know that this was going to be your career and at what point did you realize that you've made a good choice?

.  .
Goodness me. Nick, did I always know it was gonna be my career? Absolutely not.

.  .
Excuse me. I started out with undergraduate university degrees in applied science in post graduate degrees in chemical engineering and finally in adult education.

.  .
So I suppose you know you'd call me if anything you'd call me a late bloomer in the learning field.

.  .
But once I finished my adult education academic work, I said I knew this was this was the career for me but but I've been involved in education for quite a long time before.

.  .
In fact, when I came out of my undergraduate degree, I taught and tutored at the University of Sydney in Australia in the School of Biological Society.

.  .
Biological sciences. I was a tutor to undergraduates and And I think actually my career in and learning goes back even further than that.

.  .
Because I grew up on a sheep and cattle station in the Outback. In Australia. Where the nearest school was  miles away, the nearest hospital was a hundred miles away.

.  .
And, and When I was a teenager, I realized that all the men who worked on our sheep station Cattle station, the shearers, the fences, the stockman and and others.

.  .
They are all experts in their own fields. But almost all of them had finished. Schooling at the age of  or .

.  .
So they had not been through any training or any course. They develop their experience on the job. So.

.  .
You know, I think those experiences in my youth really had a very strong influence on my whole understanding about about learning and how we learned best and and how we can really exploit.

.  .
All that learning that occurs, you know, from other people. And you know learning from exemplary performers learning from people who are really good at what they do and and also learning from experience and practice and reflection and so on.

.  .
So I think that that's that's the sort of the key that got me. Got me started.

.  .
But I think that's incredible. And, now I want to go visit that, that, that, that's great.

.  .
Yeah, long way from anyway.

.  .
I think, so you think now, what, what gets you most excited about the future of learning and development and conversely, what are you most worried or concerned about?

.  .
Well, I think I'm probably excited and worried about the same things. Because I think at the moment Dylan D has a huge window of opportunity to really make an impact on their organizations.

.  .
Especially you know we're going through unprecedented change I mean change has always been with us but it's unprecedented now and also you know technology is imposing is part of our everyday life even more and more so I'm excited.

.  .
That, but that L and D can actually grasp. Those opportunities. Offered by, you know, particularly in today's world, AI, but there's also lots of other things.

.  .
And can actually work with our stakeholders in our organizations to really cocreate solutions and deliver really, really real impact.

.  .
But I'm at the same time and be concerned. Because Li see it has often seen itself separated from the rest of the organization.

.  .
So we talk about a lot of people talk about L and D in the business as if it's sort of something else that's out there.

.  .
And I see that as a major challenge. And, and again, you know, thinking about AI. One of the real concerns I have with AI is that L and D will just see AI as a way in which as Henry Ford didn't say, but is often quoted as saying, build faster horses, you know, when Ford started the production line of motor vehicles is As I say, the the principle is that you know he would

.  .
just build on what was already there. And I'm really quite concerned that D. C's particularly generative AI.

.  .
Simply a way to make more content faster. And actually If we do that, I think we' a big opportunity.

.  .
You know the last thing we need is Is the whole public content has been mine from existing content and reformulated and thrown out in some other way.

.  .
I'm not saying that it doesn't have value but it's it's I think that's a minor value.

.  .
So my concern is that we could strain ourselves. In that way, but there's opportunities in all sorts of other areas.

.  .
And one area I could just touch on now, but I think is, you know, for years I've worked in the whole area of performance support.

.  .
How can we as learning and development professionals actually support our internal clients and the people in our organizations. To carry out the tasks that they need to carry out in the best possible way they can.

.  .
And how can we create sort of double learning loops and things like that? And I think that We're really at a crossroads where AI particularly really can do that.

.  .
So I think that as I say, I, you know, the I have concerns, but also see opportunities coming out of the same things.

.  .
So yeah.

.  .
Yeah, I think it's. It's so early to tell, but, I, Thank would agree and I think that applies to a lot of other stuff that is probably off topic.

.  .
So we'll steer clear for now, but, there are a couple of things that I want to dig into there.

.  .
I think the first is You've seen a lot over the course of your career and multiple technological and cultural paradigm shifts.

.  .
Could you talk a little bit about that and how the nature of the work that we do and the workplaces that we do it in.

.  .
Has changed and is evolving.

.  .
Yeah, I mean the technology is extraordinary. You mentioned that I I ran the National Center for Network based learning back at the in the business school in Southampton here in the UK.

.  .
We ran the first online collaborative learning courses back in  and they were they were cross national so that was with organizations in the UK in France and in Germany.

.  .
When I think about the technologies we use then, it really was very primitive. In fact, I still have some old modems that are  modems which will mean nothing to anyone here but it was really it was a dribble you know that the whole internet was a dribble and then when the web first appeared We launched the first The world's first online MBA with very early browsers just after Tim

.  .
Berners Lee and Robert Keir developed HDO, created HTML and so on that was in the  nineties.

.  .
So the technologies changed phenomenally. But I think that equally there's been a lot of changes in the nature of work and to me Well, the major changes in work is that today Much more work.

.  .
Many many more roles and jobs. Require decisionmaking and critical thinking. Than they did maybe  years ago.

.  .
And many jobs which are were sort of in demand  years ago. Which were transactional have been automated.

.  .
So they've been subsumed into technology. Many jobs which were transactional  years ago. If they haven't been ordered automated they were actually now requiring people in those roles to Carry out task which require decision making and and critical thinking and so on.

.  .
Let me give you an example. I think a good example is banking. You know,  years ago.

.  .
In banks the back office of banks had lots and lots of people employed there who kept ledgers recorded transactions and so on and so forth.

.  .
Today all that works done by technology. That those jobs have disappeared. And  years ago the front of house.

.  .
People working in banks the tellers They did transactional work. They took deposits, they cashed checks and so on and so forth.

.  .
Today's front of house. People in bank banks bank employees if they still exist. I mean I bank with banks which have no employees visible but you know there are there are banks where we still have front of house bank people.

.  .
But they're role has changed. So they're expected now to be able to consult with customers and to advise, you know, the best options for customers for whatever they happen to want to do.

.  .
And so that work has changed from transactional into much requiring much money, higher skills and capabilities. And actually I had a conversation with the chief executive officer of a large Spanish and Spanish American bank actually also in the south of southern United States.

.  .
Bank a few years ago and I was there carrying out a review of their learning and development. Practices and procedures.

.  .
And this CEO said to me something which really stuck to me, he said, Charles. Banking is simple.

.  .
You know, people say banking is a complex industry. He said, he said, it's actually not.

.  .
It's just involves  things. People and technology. And if you get both of them right, we succeed.

.  .
Okay.

.  .
If you get one wrong, we fail. And I think that's maybe simplifying things a bit, but I think that sort of to me reflects the fact that with L and D You know, we are dealing with with people and teams and organizations and we're dealing with technology and if we get if we get one of them right.

.  .
You know, we're likely to, we're likely to fail. We need to get them, we need to get them all right.

.  .
So I think the this trend of this changing nature work is is happening across all sectors. It's not just banking. It's wherever you look.

.  .
You could say, you know, you can pick out examples of the same sort of thing.

.  .
Yeah.

.  .
So it's something that you've talked to. Lot about is evolution from content rich learning to experience rich learning and maybe to add another framework on there that Move from needing to know what to need to know who and how.

.  .
Where if you could expand on that a little bit.

.  .
Yeah, and I always, that's a great question. I always refer to Rob Cross, Professor Rob Cross.

.  .
Who's done, he's really the leading, he's been the leading person in social network analysis for many years.

.  .
And Rob wrote a great paper saying it's not who, it's not what you know but who you know that that I think the actual name of it but you know that gets your head in an organization and I think that's absolutely right you know we're moving from that.

.  .
People across his work also show that people have rich and diverse networks, people with rich and diverse networks are actually better performers.

.  .
So if you've got a team of people that can stretch out and and have networks that feed, you know, that feed into other areas.

.  .
They're more likely to produce high quality work than others those who aren't. And so I think that making this change from content rich.

.  .
Learning to experience rich learning is a real challenge for L and D because I think that you know, my entire career.

.  .
I'm aware that L and D has been obsessed with designing, developing and delivering formal learning content.

.  .
In fact, I often with my tongue in my cheek. I think the learning and development department in many organizations could actually be renamed the former learning and content development development because really that's that's the focus.

.  .
That's not to say But there's no value. But it's not enough. I've never seen an expert.

.  .
Emerge from a formal learning course or any learning program. I've seen competent people or people with levels of competence emerge from formal learning and content rich learning, but I've never seen an expert.

.  .
It's a bit like, you know, I think I see  learning a bit like getting a driving license.

.  .
I don't think any of us would say that once we past our test and got a driving license that we were expert drivers.

.  .
You know, we have a license to operate. We're in light. We're considered safe enough to go on the roads.

.  .
The learning to become from being competent driver confident enough to have a license and being and a good driver is all about lots of experience, lots of practice, time and these sorts of things.

.  .
So, you know, I find it strange with We're focused on this on this idea of contentrich learning when we know.

.  .
And all the research tells us that most learning actually comes from daily work practices. It doesn't come through a classroom or ,  learning or via learning pathway.

.  .
Let me just let me just explain for a minute. If I can just share my screen. I don't know whether any Anyone here knows of these  men?

.  .
Hey, Thorndyke and Robert Woodworth. For me, I think every L and D professional should be aware, at least of their work.

.  .
I mean, Thorndyke wasn't a very nice individual personally, but They fond I can Woodworth.

.  .
Published their theory of identical principle, the theory of identical elements. Back in , so  years ago They called it the transfer of practice.

.  .
And basically what their research showed. Was that the more elements in the environment where you learn to do something are similar to the environment.

.  .
There's similar number of elements or more elements in the environment where you're going to have to do that work.

.  .
Do that thing. The more likely you are to learn it in other words a transfer becomes easier. The more different they are, the transfer is is more difficult.

.  .
So So I think that, you know, we can go back and there's lots more research as well.

.  .
It's on back and Woodworth. But I think that But that sort of indicates to me.

.  .
The fact that you know if we If we think about learning as being about how can we Give people the right experiences.

.  .
How can we put them in the environment where they need to perform? And again, you know, the research shows the performance in in tests.

.  .
Doesn't necessarily transfer into performance in in the workplace. Again, there's been research that shows that you know high performance people who do tests can get well, do well in their formal tests.

.  .
Don't not necessarily the highest performance. So I just think we need to we need to think about think about that.

.  .
And it's as I say, it's not just, I thought I can and Woodworth if I can just again share my screen.

.  .
For a second.

.  .
This gentleman who was certainly the greatest macro economist in my lifetime has been the greatest macro economist in my lifetime.

.  .
Can Arrow who was at Stanford University for many years. He studied. Learning by doing and wrote lots and lots of papers and and books and so on around that and not only did arrow and a Nobel Prize for Economics, actually  of his students have earned a Nobel Prizes as well.

.  .
So he's really top of his game. An arrow said many years ago that there's one this one empirical generalization it's so clear that all schools of thought must accept it, that learning can only take place through an attempt to solve a problem, therefore only takes place during activity.

.  .
Now, you know, we could spend, spend a few hours talking about that, but actually I think there's in there there is an element of truth.

.  .
We learn, we learn through doing things and reflecting on how it went if it didn't go so well we do it again change the ways we do things and we get better so I've always said that learning, you know, is a combination of experience, practice, conversations and networks and reflection.

.  .
And so I think that their You know, there's quite a lot of research which backs this up.

.  .
So if we if we continue. To if we continue to

.  .
Simply focus on on contentbased learning I think we're really really missing a trick.

.  .
Exactly. That makes me think of when I had my driver's license, I did think I was an expert.

.  .
Coming out of the gates but I was not Clearly, and it makes me think of some, back.

.  .
Like sports coaches would try to get us into the exact field or court that we were going to play the game in for the practice.

.  .
Some of those reasons and so It's something that I'm thinking.

.  .
Yeah.

.  .
Yeah, and sorry if I can just interrupt Nick I've done quite a bit. I've done quite a bit of work with the leap with the lead sports people.

.  .
And the first time I was I was working I was working with a coach in the Boston Red Sox and a coach of Manchester United Football and the whole and assistant cricket coach for Australia and a lot of really high level guys.

.  .
The guys and girls and they thought I was crazy. I mean, I realized after a short time that this was just so embedded in their thinking.

.  .
You know, do we think that someone comes off the court? Whatever sport happens to be or the pitch.

.  .
And doesn't sit back and reflect on what's happened and work out a better way to do things.

.  .
Of course they do, that's what it's all about. You know, it's about and as a very famous other Australian who was the man who It created the Oxford Cambridge boat race.

.  .
Said years ago, this is a hundred years ago, he said You'll never learn to race by rowing.

.  .
But you'll learn to row from racing. In other words, you put yourself in the environment where you're working.

.  .
And way you have to do it and you'll learn a hell of a lot. So I think that there's, you know, there's, there's a lot lot to be said.

.  .
With that link if you look at how elite sports people learn we can we can take that into our organizations.

.  .
Thank you.

.  .
Yeah, I think we could talk at length about that too. I'm actually like sports in it, but Shipping gears a little bit to traditionally for an organization.

.  .
The atomic unit of learning has been the individual. Do you think that that needs to change and if so?

.  .
And I've, what are your thoughts on that?

.  .
Yeah, this is an area I've been focusing on for quite a while.

.  .
Nowadays in most organizations, the vast majority The atomic unit is not the individual. And I feel that one of the challenges we have that certainly from the perspective of senior business senior, senior organizational leaders.

.  .
And managers. The atomic unit is the T. It's not the individual. Of course.

.  .
A manager will care how Nick Nick's performing or how Charles performing, how video anyone else is performing.

.  .
But actually, if we're thinking about learning as enabling performance for the organization. What the organization is interested in is how the how the teams and we all work in most of us working multiple teams at any time.

.  .
So in terms of the unit of productivity. In organisations, that's the team. And the challenge that we've got in L and D is we need to rethink our own focus because many LMD departments are either part of human resources They're within or aligned with HR departments and HR.

.  .
Historically, the work of HR is around individuals, you know, they tend to, they might, they might recruit cohorts of people but you know they'll they'll hire individuals alongboard individuals.

.  .
Again, they might do it in cohorts, but they're on board individuals. They focuses on in your performance, manage individuals, you'll help individuals develop.

.  .
And you'll go through the whole whole working life cycle, focus on individuals. And so I think we need to rethink this relationship.

.  .
Between between individuals and teams and that requires I think that require HR, require L and D to do some, some really serious rethinking about this and there's a few other other things I can just touch on you can I just share share a slide.

.  .
Yeah. Know whether you can see that. Hopefully you can see that.

.  .
Yeah, yeah, I can see that.

.  .
So this is this is what I've been working on. I'm actually just writing some paper so I ask people not to share this because I'm just as I say I'm just writing some some work on this.

.  .
On the left hand side you have the sort of HR leaders on the right hand side you have the business leaders and their principal focus.

.  .
To So as I said, with an HR. You're involved with individual development, recruiting on board, career development, individual behaviors, diversity, quality, inclusion, and compliance, of course.

.  .
Where's on the business leader side? Their focus is on teams and organizational KPI. So they're interested in quality output, process improvement, customer service, agility, speed, innovation, all sorts of things.

.  .
That might be you know that help them drive the organization. And what that does, it means that Business leaders are more interested in expertise.

.  .
Then they are in competence. And I mentioned confidence and expertise earlier on and I think that's a really important thing to be aware of because you know we spend a lot of time HR HR and LMD spend a lot of time with competency frameworks and skills matrices and all these sorts of things.

.  .
But if you go and talk to organization leaders. What they're interested in, they're not interested with a Nicole Charles had this particular competency.

.  .
What they're interested in is task execution. Can Nick Nick can the team which Nick and Charles are members of can they deliver?

.  .
High quality work. And what I call critical tasks, high quality tasks. So there's a difference here.

.  .
And that then feeds again into skills I mentioned, you know, skills mapping and job roles. Business leaders, I'm not so interested in that.

.  .
They're interested in systemic capabilities what capabilities do my people have Do we have processes which enhance and support those capabilities and do we have tools, the tools that they need in order to deliver high quality.

.  .
Productivity, high quality work. And again, that comes in, I won't talk about this any length, but I think that comes into a whole difference.

.  .
In terms of terminology. I personally don't like the term learning culture because often I feel there's a missing word in there.

.  .
When people talk about learning culture, they're talking about a formal learning culture. Are we, are we providing our employees with lots of learning, learning pathways, lots of opportunities for learning.

.  .
Great, we should be doing that. But that's not what business leaders are interested in. They're interested in creating a culture of continuous improvement.

.  .
In other words, how are we making our organization Competitive if it's in a commercial world or how we how are we serving our our customers or our clients or whatever it is they're interested in culture of continuous improvement.

.  .
I'm doing quite a lot of work. Over the years with in fact I was just in. In Plano in Texas last year with Toyota.

.  .
And of course Toyota, a sort of the the the original founders of the whole agile lean process and I think that's you know they sort of organizations like Toyota really really understand that.

.  .
So that's an extremely long answer to your question, but I think that if you think about the atomic unit, but I think that if you think about the atomic unit as being the team If you think as an L and D person, how are you going to support the team?

.  .
You need to think about collaboration. How does that team work together? How do they communicate? How do they share their experiences?

.  .
How do they reflect as a team? How do they, you know, when one person experiences a challenge or a problem, how can they bring that back the team to find out if anyone else has solved that problem or run into that problem or whatever.

.  .
So that hold what I'd call the 20 and 70:20:10 about working and learning through others. You know, really, really quite critical.

.  .
And I think. There there's a natural eye into the alignment between L and D in the business and shifting from.

.  .
You know learning to performance which I wanted I think let's let's put a PIN in that because I wanted Quickly touch on 70:20:10 model, which I think a lot of folks are familiar.

.  .
Just to be familiar with when I heard first started I was in the red at bushy tail part of my career at Amazon singing like, okay, great.

.  .
I'm gonna learn, bring everything from like doing the job, like I'm gonna go. Do that and so I think.

.  .
If you could just give a an overview of what is it and what is it not and how should folks be thinking about applying that model?

.  .
Cool. Yeah. Yeah, and I think, you know, over the last  years that I've been working with it.

.  .
developed strategies around it and so on. I think a lot of people know, about 70:20:10, but I think there are a lot of A lot of misapprehensions about 70:20:10 so The way I see 70:20:10 is this.

.  .
I see. I was described  70:20:10 as a framework or a reference model. And what it's what it helps doing and in fact by making up who created what he calls the meme,  .

.  .
At the centre of a creative, well, Bob was working at Pepsico, but, the Center for Creative Leadership it's it's a reference model which just helps expand our thinking about learning in other practices, but you're going to build better organization outcomes.

.  .
So I would say if you're thinking about 70:20:10 Don't get hang up on the numbers.

.  .
They're just a sort of a placeholder to say, hey, Are you aware that, you know, vast majority of the work of the learning that occurs occurs through learning with others through collaborating, sharing, networking, coaching and so on.

.  .
Learning from working. That's where most of the learning happens. And the formal learning. Just because it's a smaller amount doesn't mean it's not important.

.  .
It's important, but it has its place. So I think that it for me that's the key thing and I've had so many discussions over the years and I can point people if they want to, and I can point people if they want to, to bowl, Ikingers, to a discussion that Bobby, and I had about  years, to a discussion that Bob Acking us, to a discussion that, and another chap and I had about  years ago talking about all the research behind

.  .
this and another chap and I had about  years ago talking about all the research behind this and you know you'll that'll help you get over What's 70:20:10?

.  .
As I say, I think there's lots of misconceptions about it. So first of all, it's not some sort of face that you put on.

.  .
Formal training. It's it's a different way. To look at how we build capability for organizations for teams and for individuals.

.  .
It's not a theory, it's not a learning theory, it's a framework. It's it's just a we've built a methodology on it.

.  .
A couple of colleagues and I at the 70:20:10 Institute. Wrote a book a few years ago.

.  .
It's not a fixed ratio and it's not a way to keep. Think of learning in separate approaches because it's actually integrative.

.  .
In a way of, you know, most good former learning. Should involve some collaborative learning and also bring in some experiential and learning from work.

.  .
Most collaborative learning will maybe draw on some former learning and bring in. So basically it's it's it's an integrative approach.

.  .
So the other thing is that 70:20:10 isn't it's not the same as blended learning Blended learning is simply taking different channels and bringing them again again, within the formal learning bit.

.  .
So blended learning sits within the formal and the 10 bit. And it's just where you're using different channels in order to to provide that learning.

.  .
Usually content driven learning, sometimes sometimes nice whole hybrid learning where you've got a lot of experiential learning and so on and a lot of the early stuff I did in the  eighties and nineties around collaborative based learning was was very much around that was bit like early blended learning we were using collaboration tools and getting people to share experiences and work through case studies and so on.

.  .
But that's that's in the tent. Also, 70:20:10 isn't what we call  plus which is just adding some some collaborative learning, some social learning, maybe some some networking, maybe some coaching and some Experiential, maybe some work back in the workplace to formal learning.

.  .
That's that's what we call 10 plus. And again, it's it's really based around the 10.

.  .
But it's starting at the 10 and building out. And that's what I'd call really good.

.  .
You know, good for learning and I'll put a little link down there to an article or a paper by a colleague of mine.

.  .
At the  70:20:10 Institute if you just go to the   thing institute to find quite a lot of things around this so they're that's what it's not.

.  .
So. The way OSC 70:20:10 It's a an approach to build.

.  .
A culture of continuous improvement. And it's a model. Which helps create value. And deliver, you know, organizational goals and so on.

.  .
It's a tool. Help refocus from learning. To performance and that's a big one you know.

.  .
Putting on our performance mindset hat rather than our learning mindset hat. And it's as the third point says, you know, it's a mindset to help learning where most of it happens.

.  .
Which is out in the the workplace in fact the European Center for Education in the labour market who are a group of economists.

.  .
I've done some research that indicated that about  of the time spent learning is during the daily, when we're out working, not when we're sitting in classrooms or doing, doing e learning.

.  .
And and lastly there the fourth point there it's actually I see 70:20:10 as a lever to increase the impact of managers.

.  .
HR of talent and learning a development professional. Professionals to actually Give us a lever and a suite of of approaches which can really help, you know, help build highlevel capability.

.  .
And, and I mentioned the book that Yasseris and Vivian Heinen and I published.

.  .
years ago now We use this little diagram here. Which again takes from the from the early work.

.  .
From from , saying that when learning occurs a part of work, it's it's usually likely to be more effective because context is critical.

.  .
Actually this work this graph here was originated to a version of originated with some work from IBM and looked the realized value you can deliver.

.  .
For your organization. And moving from the left to the right from.

.  .
Work to the right there we have a culture of continuous development where learning has integrated the work and the IBM researchers, such as IBM Consulting.

.  .
Showed that as you move further out and integrated learning with work, you could release higher value. Into the organisation.

.  .
So I think that's, let me just stop sharing there for a minute.

.  .
Yeah, so hopefully that gives a gives a bit of an idea about, you know, 70:20:10

.  .
Yeah.

.  .
Is and isn't and I'd be really interested to hear anyone else if people have other perceptions of what's  70:20:10 and one of these And often people say to me, hey Charles, can you have a look at this?

.  .
We've got a great program, a 70:20:10 program based around 70:20:10 principles.

.  .
And when I look at it, I, you invariably say it's a great program. What you're doing is  plus which you've built built a structured program and you've integrated all these other elements fantastic.

.  .
It's 10 plus. It's not 70:20:10 You start.

.  .
With the 70 and work out how you can exploit all that learning that occurs within work so you can.

.  .
Embed learning and work and extract learning from work. And then you you can work backwards.

.  .
That's fantastic. Thank you, Charles. And I think, Hey, go back to something you were saying before.

.  .
We've got a question from Lucy in the chat of. What role does senior leaders executive level have in positioning in a enabling L and D teams?

.  .
Yeah.

.  .
To do so and better integrate their priorities and with process improvement. How does that interplay? Yeah, how does that interplay work?

.  .
And is it kind of like a chicken in the egg thing.

.  .
Yeah, yeah, that's a great question, Lucy. The answer, the answer is that they have a major, major role.

.  .
And a major responsibility. Senior leaders, you will not do it alone. You have to get the buy in for senior leaders.

.  .
In fact, I just, like a couple of weeks ago I did some sessions for managers. Senior managers in one of the large central banks in europe and helping them think about He they can help development of their people.

.  .
Through the lens of 70:20:10. In other words, what sorts of things can you do as a manager?

.  .
To help your teams. Develop continuously and improve the quality of what they do. But I think the the key The key that I think unlocks the door if you don't think about us and the leaders, and managers, when you have an issue a challenge and and all of us Have a so have situation where someone comes to us and says We need a new course on XYZ or we want to update this course

.  .
on XYZ. That should be an invitation for a conversation with the stakeholder.

.  .
To say, well, what's going wrong now? What are your outputs? What are you expecting when all this works done?

.  .
What are you going, what do you expect to happen? What is, what's the result going to be?

.  .
And have that conversation and then you cocreate the solution. With your senior leaders and your managers.

.  .
You probably do the heavy lifting. But they are very very involved so you have to have a mentality to say look this is your problem we're helping solve and we'll work with you.

.  .
But you need to be involved. In fact, I was involved, I was involved in some research when I was at Reuters.

.  .
20 or more years ago. When we identified leaders and managers who are seen to be effective and focused at developing their people as part of their work.

.  .
And leaders and managers who were seen as being ineffective at developing their people and the researchers. They're all part of the executive leadership board, which is now part of Garten, the Gartner organization.

.  .
The data that came out of that show that managers who were focused and effective at developing their people. In the workplace.

.  .
The teams, those managers work for. We're producing the the increase in productivity was around about 25% to 27% - in other words effectively people working for managers who were focused and effective.

.  .
Did effectively an extra day's work a week and it wasn't just productivity, they were more engaged, they were more likely to stay, they were more able to continue to be productive in times of change.

.  .
They're a whole part of, then there's other studies that show that. Long winded answer to your question, but managers are absolutely critical.

.  .
You know, and if you've got to get close, you need to get close to your managers and and And don't just provide a service.

.  .
What you're doing is you're helping them. Address their opportunities and their problems. And you need to do that in a collaborative way.

.  .
And so I think. There's a couple more questions that I want to dig into in that area, but before we get there, and that area, the before, we get there, and to just doubleclick on something that, something that we were talking about before we get there.

.  .
And just doubleclick on something that, something that we were talking about before, we went live here.

.  .
Could you share that the rate of learning versus the rate of change? I just thought it was a great framework and a lot of the work now is learning and learning.

.  .
Yeah, so I think that those 2 things are becoming intertwined as technology moves faster and faster and paradigms.

.  .
We have both at the individual team and organization level. I think this is very true.

.  .
Yeah, and this is this is really nice. We were talking about this next. This came out of a conversation with Brad Benson who was at the time chief of star at Intel.

.  .
And we were in San Francisco. And we were involved in a 2 day event with some senior learning and talent leaders.

.  .
And Brad wrote put down on a on a table neck and he said, this is why I see it.

.  .
I see that if the rate of learning greater than the rate of organizational change but also the rate of the rate of external changes.

.  .
Organize the result will be organizational success. But if the rate of learning within an organization is less than or equal to those changes, we're likely to fail, you know, we'll have our, you know, we could talk for a long time about having our Kodak moments.

.  .
Yes.

.  .
Xerox. Yeah.

.  .
You know, when they just didn't see stuff coming, you know, or a knockier moments, you know, when it just the rate of external change in those cases the rate of external change was just greater than the rate of learning.

.  .
So and I think that's a really nice simpler for me. It's a very nice simple way of seeing our job.

.  .
In other words, we have to make sure not not just formal learning, but we have to make sure that the rate of the rate of learning, the way that we're continually learning and continuous improvement is going faster than then the rate of change external change and if it's not, you know, we really are in big problems.

.  .
And I think that it's a helpful framework, I think for managing that disconnect, as well as what you shared.

.  .
In primary education, there's a similar disconnect if you would ask any of the teachers that like, hey, we need to be doing more collaborative work project based learning where I'm the guide on the side and then if you ask the administrators Like, why do we need to change this direct instruction, sage on stage model and it's slowly changing there as well but I think that's something from a past life

.  .
that I wanted to draw on so I think, I'd like to dig into a couple of examples.

.  .
If you can, Charles share, maybe a company that has done a really nice job with the 70:20:10 approach.

.  .
Oh, Sure, yeah, let, let me just give you, let me give you one, I get one example and I can just, screen here I can just share my screen again.

.  .
There are some organizations which are which are doing some really good work or have done over the years some really good work.

.  .
In this area and I think this is a good example. Citibank, which most most people here will will know a citybank or citygroup.

.  .
Some years ago City decided that they needed to to step out of this. This idea that all they needed to do for learning and development was to serve up courses and programs and learning pathways and so on.

.  .
So they they worked the L and D department at Citibank. Worked with their internal. Department and their marketing people.

.  .
And they came up with this this whole hash be more this whole campaign they decided their model would be they would move from courses to campaign so we get learning and development to think more in the campaign mode.

.  .
In other words, when we have a, we have a problem we're solving or an opportunity we need to take advantage of.

.  .
Our organizations need to take advantage of. How does L and D fit into that? So they they base it on  70:20:10 although the first conversations I had at Citibank someone said to me Charles where a bank give us a set of numbers and everyone will want to know what the numbers are all about.

.  .
So they called it the 3 E's. How we learn through experience, how we learn through exposure to others, how we learn through education.

.  .
And I've seen, I'd seen Intel do that. No Cisco, sorry, do that before and many other organizations do that.

.  .
And so it required a mindset change because we were moving from The idea of the fact we produce a course to thinking about how do we create these, what I call 100 solutions, how can we create solutions which are embedded within the work that are exploiting other people and that that have some formal elements in and rather than starting with course design You start by identifying the impact.

.  .
You know, what impact? Is what we are doing is this project we're working on what is the impact going to be and that's a really difficult question that comes back to the early question about management if If someone request you to produce a course or do something or do whatever.

.  .
If they can't describe to you the impact they wanted to have. You need to really explore that deeply with them because if you don't know where you're going you're not going to get there.

.  .
So you start by identifying the design, but rather than designing and building for skills, you design and develop for behaviors and performance.

.  .
Because learning is really just behavior change. Which results in better performance. Eric Kandel who again won his Nobel Prize on learning and memory.

.  .
Describe learning as behavior change. So acquisition of knowledge is not necessarily learning. It's only when that knowledge Well, that that that capability is turned into doing things differently better and so on do we do we get results?

.  .
It also moved, as I say, developing. Away from thinking about individuals and teams into organization. So we have to start with the organization.

.  .
What are we doing which is going to really help our organization? Now it may be that you're down with a team.

.  .
Who work in a particular bit of the organization. Of course you focus on those but but you need to see the bigger picture as well.

.  .
And also you're moving from just a lining learning with work to embedding learning with embedding learning and work.

.  .
And that requires this mindset change. From a learning paradigm into performance paradigm and which means We're focusing not so much just on the input.

.  .
But we're focusing on what are the outputs going to be. And it's been in fact, I've just been reading through some research.

.  .
Literature just earlier on today my time. About the transfer of training. And there's been academic papers and research.

.  .
I've gone back to . Challenge where where people are trying to work out how you can measure the transfer of training and the answer is it's extremely difficult.

.  .
Extremely difficult. So if you know the results you're looking for, you've got a better chance of knowing.

.  .
Whether you're meeting those with those results are being achieved or not. And you're not trying to measure sort of the learning that you're actually measuring the performance.

.  .
So, so Sydney Bank is is a good example. I think that I mean I could give you lots more but I think for me One of the key bits around the 70:20:10 methodology which again working we work with city and and you know this is the the methodology which in this book that You're Sir, atson, baby in Heinan and I published.

.  .
This is where it's very different 70:20:10 and this, this performance based.

.  .
Methodology is we start on the right hand side here. We say, OK. What organizational results are we looking looking for?

.  .
What critical tasks? Need to be carried out and to what level do they need to be carried out to deliver?

.  .
That those results. And what, this is no. Slide actually but what are the influences what are the environmental influences in other words other things stopping people doing a good job?

.  .
Do they have the right tools? And they have good leadership, they have right incentives. You know, all those sorts of things which are really important.

.  .
And then you can start to do your design. Don't worry about all the the names around here.

.  .
These are the roles that were the key roles that we we defined in terms of delivering these so you know you have a someone who's measuring the performance and starts right at the beginning to identify what metrics you use.

.  .
There's the master builder who actually builds a solution, the architect and so on and so forth.

.  .
So they're, they're really sort of the critical. I think they're the critical elements in terms of of utilizing this in practice.

.  .
So you need to have a methodology that you're going to use a standard methodology. I've always said that One of the problems with L and D is we're sort of a bit of a mum and pop operation.

.  .
We do things. Most of must still be now, I guess, have standard ways of doing things. And I've always said you have twin pillars.

.  .
You have the pillars of standards. What quality standards are you? Are you working to and what are your methodologies?

.  .
And if you have clarity around that. You can then your L and D team can deliver consistent quality.

.  .
Rather than, you know, one off. So the moment pop one else to every every Challenge for every opportunity that comes along.

.  .
Otherwise, you know, we end up with a heads down. Content driven, heads down and we don't know the impact of our out of our work.

.  .
Yeah.

.  .
Yeah, you need structure if you want creativity performance. And, when you're talking about the environment, something that my, my mom say who said, It was an educator say if you don't like the behavior, change the environment.

.  .
Yeah.

.  .
Like, again, as I think that was advice to me as as a new dog parent, which has helped true.

.  .
Yeah, Gary, Geary, yeah, Dr. Gary, who wrote some great stuff. It was a human performance improvement.

.  .
Expert of American died, they've taken us more ago. Rama wrote in the training training.

.  .
The journal of what used to be the ASTD is now ATD. Back in the 1980s he said put a good employee against a bad system.

.  .
And the system will win most every time. You know, so and that's that's another key element.

.  .
So other words, just focusing on building. Hi, quality performance in individuals without thinking about the environment. You're on a loser, you know, you really are.

.  .
So we've got a couple of questions in the chat and we're gonna jump around a little bit.

.  .
I here I think. Go to, question from, how do you convince employees to connect the dots between the benefit of adding in the experiential and learning through others to the formal.

.  .
Learning and how it contributes to career goals. Yeah, maybe a buy in from employees. Ankle to that.

.  .
Sure. Yeah, and again, there's multiple ways in which we can do that. One is make sure that you're communicating.

.  .
You know, what you do. As a learning team. You know what your job is, where your role is, where you fit in.

.  .
And what you expect from them and what they should expect from you. So getting clarity of purpose, clarity of role and aligning that.

.  .
Is really critical. But also I'm I'm an optimist. Oh despite despite the state of the world at the moment, I'm I'm an optimist And I think that most people want to do a good job.

.  .
I think that very rarely we find people who really don't care. But most people want to do a good job and also the research shows But people who do a good job, people who are good performers, are much more engaged in their organization again.

.  .
It's we could spend a whole hour talking about this but The the the assumption is that if we in crew improve employee engagement Let's going to reflect in higher performance.

.  .
There's no evidence to show that occurs at all. In fact, the evidence by Michael Ricketta, a German academic.

.  .
Did a meta study that showed that higher performing individuals and teams. I'd like to be much more engaged.

.  .
In their work and engage with their organization. Than lower performing but more engaged employees and not necessarily likely to be higher performance.

.  .
We leave that to one side. So I think that As I say, I answer your question about how do we get people involved.

.  .
I think you also, you do it by involving them. But also by showing some success. Demonstrating some, some success.

.  .
If you can work with a team that maybe you're working with some challenging issues and you can provide input and you can demonstrate that you're helping.

.  .
Deliver better results, they'll come back to you. You know, they'll see you as a partner in terms of delivering their What whatever they happen to do whether it might be you know whether they're They're in retail and they're it's about customer satisfaction or it could be whether they're in, you know, Whatever, it really doesn't matter.

.  .
If you can demonstrate. And help them do their jobs better. And I've always said that you know the job.

.  .
My job is a learning and development person and when I was a chief learning officer. My job was to help people and they organizations do their work better.

.  .
That's all it's about. So there's nothing more than that. So if you can demonstrate that, that's, that's the key thing.

.  .
And actually you have to talk about it, you have to explain and have to. The Citibank project that we worked on the Be M project.

.  .
They did huge, you know, sort of internal awareness raising. So you get into elevators in elevators and that a whole lot about you know the B more program and their  day challenges they had and all these sorts of things.

.  .
So they really communicated well. And actually my experience is a lot of people in our our area of work are not great at that but we do have colleagues who do that so you know think about working closely with your internal marketing developments or with your your corporate communications people because they're really good at that.

.  .
That's what they do. So make sure that you're really sharing. You know, letting people know.

.  .
You know, what you do when you have successes and how you can help them.

.  .
Okay, I think that's fantastic. And, well, trip to a question from Haley, from an instructional design perspective.

.  .
A couple in there. Would you say the   is consistent with the backward design approach? And then how do you help coworkers adopt?

.  .
Sure, yeah.

.  .
Mindset so bit of the buy in from coworkers, ankle.

.  .
Yeah, yeah, I don't I don't know. I don't know the backward design approach in detail, but it it really is about   is about starting with with your output starting with what you're trying to achieve and I'm working backwards from there working from what is it the we're trying to achieve and this is why this breaks out, helps break out.

.  .
Of this sort of content centric knowledge centric this idea that if we fill fell heads with with information.

.  .
And then assess people that They can demonstrate that they've held that information in their head at least until the assessment.

.  .
That is not going to change their behavior and improve their performance in fact I often joke and say actually, you know, and I've seen it when e learning first appeared, you had a pre test.

.  .
You did some content, then you had a post test. There's nothing to do with learning. In fact, I would, I would argue that most Cocpantric level  assessments are nothing to do with learning that to do with shortterm memory retention.

.  .
In other words, I get I'm given a test. I'm shown go through some content.

.  .
I remember that for a length of time. I finish the course, I do my test. Of course I've got a better knowledge of their content.

.  .
The better way to design that would to say, OK, we'll give you a pretext, so we want to get a benchmark.

.  .
Then we'll put you through a set of experiences or some content and then we'll assess you in  weeks time.

.  .
Because I could guarantee you that most people who pass there and compliances Absolutely classic for this. This our compliance training works. It's nothing about learning.

.  .
It's about you know getting a tick in the box and so, you know, I would guarantee you if I can, if I could take some of your people have been through an e learning program and you've got their output assessments and we could get them back  weeks later and give them the same assessment and measure their results.

.  .
I would almost guarantee that those results won't be as good as the results they got immediately after after they went through the program because shortterm memory and longterm memory which leads to behavior change are different things.

.  .
So I don't know whether that answers your question about about backwards ID, but certainly if you, I mean, There are there are a number of really good instructional design methodologies which really work well I think with this with this is this marimba's C  C  LP is it, which is a really good, a good methodology based around this.

.  .
yeah.

.  .
It does again and then we've got a question from Marion. He's wondering how to integrate this.

.  .
The   70:20:10 model in succession planning strategies. And trying to make sure that successors have the requisite.

.  .
Knowledge and training and competencies too. Take over for somebody.

.  .
Yeah, again, that's, I think. Yes, certainly good ways to do it and I think with the whole the whole, you know, performance performance management process.

.  .
I think the  box grid is now slowly disappearing. Thank God in terms of talent and so on.

.  .
But when you think about, you know, your succession planning in terms of identifying your talent, which is going to, to, you know, succeed.

.  .
As people move on to different roles and so on. Yeah, absolutely. I think   is really good.

.  .
In fact, There's some simple tools. I've got a couple which I just made available through, through Creative Commons through just license through Creative Commons for people to organizations to use and a lot of organizations have used them.

.  .
Which is, and if you're looking for They're helping your succession planning. What you need to do is make sure that that you capture reflection.

.  .
You capture the the successes and the challenges that you've got. And if you do it and the military have been doing this for years, You know, if if you look at how the military work with their after action views but that's used, you know, this is a team.

.  .
And they say, okay, what do we sit out to do? What happened? Why did it happen?

.  .
What do we do next time? So if you use tools like that which you're exploiting. Collaborative learning and reflective practice and capturing that in some way.

.  .
That means that you get a body of of information and body of experience that you capture so that when people step into a new role they've actually got you know a body of work a body of experiences which have been documented which they can draw on.

.  .
So I think that really helped because otherwise you lose the continuity. One person moves out and if you haven't you know if they if the successor comes in from somewhere else you you know it's a new brew and you have the whole you have big problems you

.  .
I think that's fantastic and now I think, A question from me. Again, a bit of a tension here, but I Thank you about internal silos.

.  .
In bigger organizations, someone smaller, It seems like an omnipresent issue that like the larger and more complex organizations get the more silos form.

.  .
Is that just a matter of perspective? Word. Have you seen that change over? Over the course of your career, cause I think one.

.  .
I'm sorry, Nick, just repeat that I was just right. Someone, someone, someone thankfully put in the the the C for ID.

.  .
Awesome. Becky back in.

.  .
Yes, I'd have a, and a brain to stop.

.  .
Yeah, it's thinking. One of the things that I keep thinking is gonna happen with all this technology and the increase in communication and connectivity is that internal silos will slowly kind of melt away.

.  .
But it seems like that hasn't happened, at least from my perspective. So curious, have you seen that change over the course of your career?

.  .
You've seen it longer than me and either way. Do we? Kind of like, we still have a long way to go in terms of breaking down silos and

.  .
I think we still have. Fair way to go but particularly because We're living in this era of the specialists.

.  .
You know, but one of the things, positive things I think is that You know, specialists need to collaborate.

.  .
And cross polymers. If they're gonna deliver high quality work. So there's a, there's a term and again we were discussing this last week, I think.

.  .
The French philosopher August Conte. Used a great word and I can never if there's a German speaker please excuse me but The mood is, FACHYDIOTAN, and, and it means basically a specialist idiot, a onetrack specialist to can't or won't collaborate.

.  .
And just takes a blinked approach. To you know to multifaceted problems and I think with Increasing complexity that all of us are dealing with.

.  .
We need well constructed teams. Which consists of specialists with a wide range of expertise. An experience you can then collaborate and communicate well internally but also collaborate and communicate externally.

.  .
And I would say that that's a It's a key challenge for L and D and a really an opportunity as well.

.  .
For us to be connectors in organizations to help. He'll make sure that we work to bring people together from different, you know, that when we see good practice occurring somewhere that we can sort of alert others and we can, you know, running, running communities of practice of sitting, establishing communities of practice.

.  .
And collaborative learning environments and you know, Eddie and Vingers so the whole the whole community.

.  .
Practice area. I think that's a real opportunity for L and D to be able to do that because You know, we I think if we just focus on designing and delivering for learning, you know, will be, will be the equivalent of the FACTII, you know, where the specialist in one area, but not sort of spreading across.

.  .
So I see, I certainly see a role for L and D in in that in terms of bringing together and For example, when we when we roll out a solution.

.  .
Spend some time once this rolled out and we We talk to a stakeholder and the people, the teams that we're delivering the solution for.

.  .
Let's get their feedback. Let's capture that. Let's talk about what went well, what didn't go well, what we do differently next time, all those sorts of things are really important because that helps this create this this culture of continuous improvement.

.  .
And I think it's natural. I mean, again, going back to the sporting metaphor, that's exactly what top sporting teams do.

.  .
You know, they work out what went well, what didn't go well, what they do better next time, and then they try and execute it.

.  .
And that's it's no different whether you're working in a you know, in a pharmaceutical organization or in a retail organization or in in anything.

.  .
It's exactly the same, the same principles apply.

.  .
Yeah. And you're never gonna get it exactly right. I'm, I'm in the landscape shifts a little bit so you gotta keep updating and thinking.

.  .
It's such a great point. Okay.

.  .
Celebrate celebrate celebrate the win and celebrate the wins and the failures just learn from the failures.

.  .
That's the it's the answer really.

.  .
Yeah, and I was thinking a bit about the it's such a group point on. It's kind of being that connector.

.  .
I think that's a valuable role and shifting for like helping folks know who and then the who can teach you the.

.  .
But I wanted to dig into, an example on the time learning and performance and going from that learning to performance.

.  .
Do you have an example of a company or a specific program. To help illustrate for folks how you might do that and how you might take a from learning.

.  .
Activity in program tying that to the performance of the organization or or role.

.  .
Short, and I can give you very quickly. I'm aware of the time, but let me give you an example very quickly.

.  .
There's a company called Hilton. Which some of you may know, you'll we certainly will know the logo.

.  .
Hilton, he, he produces tools and equipment for the construction industry. They're a global company.

.  .
Yeah, they. They. Originated in and base the headquarters in Liechtenstein in Europe, but they're a global company.

.  .
Hilton, the   70:20:10 Institute, the work with healthy. And the L and D leaders and healthy you happen to be based in in Colorado and and also in a couple of places in the States.

.  .
And, Hillary had a major issue. In terms of their onboarding of their sales. Managers was taking too long.

.  .
And wasn't delivering what they wanted. So often when they were on the onboarding process they they had a measure.

.  .
He had a measure which they called time to productivity and payback. In other words, how long did it take?

.  .
Between when they recruited And your sales manager. Before they were onboarded and they got to work and they started to earn money for the company for healthy rather than payback.

.  .
The cost of recruiting them onboarding and paying, paying them till they were productive. And so we work with Hilton to change that thinking from from learning to performance.

.  .
So we we just focus on one metric. No, metric was how long could we could Hilton reduce?

.  .
Time to performance and certainly in Southeast Asia workforce. The time was sometimes almost  years,  months or  years.

.  .
Around the rest of the world, it was used, it was, it was about a year. So in other words, Sales managers.

.  .
Didn't hit that time to performance and time to productivity and pay back for a year. And anyone who's worked with sales know that you know the remuneration.

.  .
For sales people, their bonuses and so on often rely on them. You know, their their productivity and so they found that they had a  turnover.

.  .
Hmm.

.  .
So,  per year either moved into another role or moved out of the company. And so what we did is we used that   approach.

.  .
I mean redesigned with the healthy team, LMD team, we put the team through through a whole performance based learning  expert program and then they redesigned that, that onboard that whole process.

.  .
And they reduce that time to productivity and payback. To around the belt I think  of managers were hitting that point in  months.

.  .
So the saving there was was tens of millions of dollars, tens of millions, to save simply by rethinking that.

.  .
So that was by putting our performance head on, having one metric that mattered to the business and then working out how we could make that faster.

.  .
And so that's a I think that's a very compelling. Case and again I think there's a case study in the on the   70:20:10 Institute website around the HTTP but Yeah, that was that was making taking that mentality from saying oh we've got to put them through all this learning.

.  .
There was some formal learning injected. As part of the process, but a lot of it was around collaboration, a lot of it was around knowing what your job is, you know, what your team is, what's expected of you, all those sorts of things were built in so we just deconstructed, we didn't they?

.  .
Hey, healthy holiday team, deconstructed, then reconstructed that onboarding program.

.  .
And now that's what they use. That's the way they work. Because they showed they demonstrated so much value to the organization that they'll never work any other way.

.  .
That is fantastic and so much better for each individual. Sales managers brought on, that's a good feeling.

.  .
So, conscious of time, I think a last call for questions. And T's, I'll just wrap up with one for me.

.  .
If folks can only remember. One or  things from today. What should it be?

.  .
What should that? Big takeaway being then anything else that you want to share with the audience.

.  .
Oh, I think Nick. The big takeaway from me. Is to think performance sync outputs rather than process sync.

.  .
Whenever whatever you do think what a what what do we want to see? At the end of this, what is the outcome going to be?

.  .
Are we clear about what we're trying to do here? Because then we can start to work back from there and say, okay, we know the outputs.

.  .
Therefore, we can see what do people need to be able to do? And what what sort of environment do they need to be able to do it in other things that are stopping?

.  .
So that's for me, that's from the learning mindset, the performance mindset and that's a big ask because George Bernard Shaw, great hero of mine.

.  .
You know, one is Oscar Andy's Nobel Prize along with Bob Dylan who won his Oscar and Nobel Prize.

.  .
Shaw said, you know, if people, if you can't change people's minds, if people can't change their minds, they can't change anything.

.  .
So I think the big takeaway from me is think about performance and and and value. What value are we adding?

.  .
How can we add the greatest value and and how can we make sure that the performance objectives we have and make sure we don't want training objectives are all very well and good.

.  .
What you want is performance objectives. You don't want to know You don't want to train, you's analysis, you want to performance analysis.

.  .
So in many words, for me the key takeaway is thing performance, don't think training.

.  .
That's beautiful. It's beautiful. So everybody. Well, we'll be following up with the recording and the resources that we talked about today.

.  .
Thank you for being here, Charles. Thank you so much for joining in the fantastic conversation.

.  .
Oh, thank you, Nick and thanks everyone. Notice being here. It's it's been good and thanks to the people who asked the questions. That's great.

.  .
I hope we've answered those in some way.

‍