building capability

sustainable organisation performance

stewardship, leadership and governance

future-fit organisations

Research report September 2012

xxx

insights from Asia

From steady state to ready state A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

future-fit organisations

Get involved... Sustainable Organisation Performance is a three-year research programme providing insight, thought leadership and practical guidance, focusing on the following themes: • stewardship, leadership and governance • future-fit organisations • building HR capability • insights from Asia. Get involved in this exciting programme and receive regular updates about our new research Sustainable Organisation Performance. Join today and access our latest thinking at: cipd.co.uk/sop

...and be part of something big When you’re a member of the CIPD, you’re part of a globally recognised organisation with over 135,000 members across 120 countries – including more than 50,000 who are Chartered. CIPD members include the next generation of HR professionals and many of the world’s most influential senior HR leaders from world-class organisations. Wherever you are in your HR career, the CIPD and its members will support and inspire you to achieve your full potential. Call +44 (0)20 8612 6208 to discuss your options. Or visit cipd.co.uk/membership

sustainable organisation performance

Contents Executive summary

stewardship, leadership and governance

future-fit organisations 2

1 Steady state – where are we now?

3

2 Managing learning and talent in the age of Google

8

3 Ready-state L&TD – putting the brain at the centre of learning

10

Conclusion and recommendations

16

References

building HR capability

xxx

18

insights from Asia

1    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Executive summary

stewardship, leadership and governance

future-fit organisations

The CIPD’s 2012 Learning and Talent Development (L&TD) survey (CIPD 2012b), in partnership with Cornerstone OnDemand, indicated that there may be an over-reliance on tried-and-tested models of analysis and diagnosis at the expense of developing awareness and use of newer cognitive models and behavioural sciences. We suggest that a reliance on ‘steady state’ rather than moving with curiosity and discrimination into a ‘ready state’ will undermine the impact of L&TD professionals, who need to grapple with challenges such as: • a resource-light operating environment

building HR capability

xxx

insights from Asia

• a highly networked and increasingly collaborative age of learning • individuals with highly bespoke expectations • bypassing of L&TD through multiple self-source networks and online information. In order to bring the maximum benefit from L&TD interventions to both individuals and organisations, it is important to be able to blend the best of the older approaches, with full knowledge of their strengths and weaknesses, with an ongoing curiosity about the new – with an equally vigilant eye on the hype-to-helpful ratio! In this report we offer a personal overview of some of the current well-known and well-used analysis and diagnostics, and summarise their key attributes – pros and drawbacks. We then explore what our survey suggests are some less well-trodden pathways that practitioners might like to explore in order to take their choices for future practice up to the next level. And we finish with some recommendations and challenges – and an invitation to join the debate.

Dr John McGurk CIPD Professor Eugene Sadler-Smith University of Surrey September 2012

2    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

1 Steady state – where are we now? stewardship, leadership and governance

future-fit organisations

Learning and talent development (L&TD) faces an exciting but challenging future. Organisations need L&TD to develop business-critical capabilities and prepare people for change. With budget constraints seemingly set to continue, the L&TD profession needs to continuously raise its game and demonstrate delivery of not only more with less, but also added value. The bedrock of effective L&TD lies in the use of valid and reliable techniques for individual and team learning analysis and diagnostics. Traditionally the field has been rich in frameworks which help, for example, to building xxx insights from Asia identify learning and development needs, map the learning preferences of individuals and teams, and so on. HR capability Many of these models are valued, have a long pedigree and many L&TD professionals use them routinely in their day-to-day practice. In the first part of this report we offer an outline of selected aspects of the L&TD steady state landscape but also critically assess the extent to which they may have become automatically integrated into current practice.

The solid pillars of L&TD practice Section 7 of the 2012 CIPD Learning and Talent Development annual survey report, in partnership with Cornerstone OnDemand (CIPD 2012b), sought to investigate the extent to which a number of individual and team learning analysis and diagnostics techniques were used. A variety of models and methods were presented to the L&TD community in order to gauge frequency of use amongst practitioners. Figure 1 shows the pattern of responses. The three most used of these techniques and models (systematic approach, Belbin team roles and the learning styles questionnaire) are concerned with different but equally important and complementary aspects of L&TD practice. Taking each of these in turn, we examine them a little more closely. Figure 1: How often do you use the following methods of analysis/diagnosis in your practice (% of respondents) Systematic approach (such as ‘Plan’ – ’Do’ – ‘Check’)

24

32

24

5

27

4

Occasionally

31

6

Rarely

33

5

Frequently

Belbin team roles

12

37

Honey and Mumford learning styles questionnaire (LSQ)

14

32

Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)

14 8

OPQ (psychometric)

9

13

14

Team Management System (psychometric)

7

15

15

25

18 20 20

3 6 9 0

20

29

Kolb Learning Style Inventory (LSI)

Saville Wave (psychometric)

15

40

Never heard of it

7

48

17

51

12

54 25

Don’t use

29 50

75

100 Percentage

Source: Learning and Talent Development Annual Survey Report 2012, CIPD

3    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

The systematic approach: quality insight or tired routine? stewardship, future-fit About one-quarter frequently useleadership the systematic, or PDCA, approach (Plan–Do–Check–Act). A further third organisations use it occasionally. Using any of governance the instruments in Figure 1 frequently suggests a high integration into and

practice. Using them occasionally constitutes fairly regular use. The ‘systematic approach’ (plan–do–check) shares many of the features of quality control and quality management methods originally developed in the USA by Shewhart (1891–1967) and later applied by Deming (1900–93) and others. The application of a similar mindset in L&TD can be traced back at least as far as the US Government’s Training Within Industry (TWI) Service in the Second World War, which aimed to speed up arms production and reduce costs as part of the war effort (Ruona 2001). The systematic approach had as its core principle that training should be based on sound analyses of tasks and work processes (Swanson 2001). In the UK it was embodied in many of the activities of the training building xxx insights from Asia boards set up for various industries as a result of the 1964 Industrial Training Act (Pedler et al 1991).

HR capability

In the intervening half-century the systematic approach has been adopted widely and numerous ‘variations on the theme’ exist – some with as few as three steps, some with as many as 19 (Sadler-Smith 2006). A conveniently memorised version used by performance improvement specialists is known as ‘ADDIE’: Analyse; Design; Develop; Implement; Evaluate (see Chevalier 2011). The systematic approach is a planning checklist to ensure that L&TD interventions are based on an identifiable learning (training) need, carried out in a way that meets the identified need and have a verifiable outcome. One of its maxims is that ‘if you’re not sure where you’re going, you’re liable to end up someplace else’ (Mager 1984). It’s a generic approach, not a recipe, and it provides scope for the incorporation of a range of businessspecific and bespoke techniques for the diagnosis of learning needs and analysis (for example, task analysis, performance appraisal, 360-degree assessment) or for evaluation techniques (for example, Kirkpatrick’s method, Phillips’ ROI) to be grafted onto it. The systematic approach is far from the panacea which some presented it as in its early days (Gagne and Briggs 1979). It has significant weaknesses which have been long recognised (for example, many jobs, especially those involving softer skills and professional judgement, cannot be reduced to identifiable ‘microskills’, Pedler et al 1991). Despite its shortcomings, as an approach to L&TD planning it has an inherent face validity and is still recognisable as providing the foundation for much of current training and development practice (Sadler-Smith 2006, p16). For example, in a recent interview, Panasonic’s Director of Global Talent Management talked about the value of a ‘systematic process to arrive at a consensus about people with potential’ and the devising of a ‘systematic development and succession management programme’ to ensure that ‘these people are in the right place at the right time in their careers’ (People Management, December 2011, p32). The fact that the process is an iterative cycle involving the monitoring of effects and outcomes should, in theory, work against unsystematic, possibly supplier-driven, one-off interventions which have done much to damage L&TD’s credibility. For example, it’s estimated that over 80% of one-off sales training content is lost after 90 days (see Baxter 2011, p54). In a nutshell, the systematic approach is a steady-state ‘hardy perennial’; it’s inherently logical, but limited in its applicability to softer and intellectual tasks; however, it’s a potentially invaluable tool for L&TD practice when used skilfully with intelligence, experience and flexibility. Unlike some other approaches, it doesn’t claim allegiance to any particular theoretical foundation and is not a particularly active area of academic research.

4    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Belbin team roles: capturing or stereotyping real team behaviour? stewardship, future-fit In the 1970s R. Meredith Belbin introduced the concept of team roles to management development practice. In leadership organisations testing the capabilities of managers, he and his colleagues had initially assumed that ‘high intellect’ management and governance

teams would be the most effective. Contrary to expectations, it was actually found that teams which had a balance of capabilities (for example, generation of creative ideas, project management skills, planning capabilities) performed best: Belbin and colleagues identified nine distinct roles which embodied the necessary skills and attributes for effective team performance. The questionnaire tool, originally developed by Belbin and colleagues in the 1970s for the diagnosis of team roles, is called the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory (BTRSPI); in the CIPD’s 2012 L&TD survey just over a tenth of respondents indicated that they used it frequently and just under two-fifths used it occasionally. Many practitioners will also have encountered the various team roles in Belbin’s best-selling books building xxx insights from Asia Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail and the later Team Roles at Work.

HR capability

Belbin’s team role model undoubtedly provides insights that could not be achieved as efficiently by other means. However, in the wrong hands the inventory and its interpretation can be used to typecast individuals on the basis of a set of self-reported attitudes and behaviours captured at a particular point in time. Refinements have been made to the instrument but, like all such models, its usefulness is contested (for example, see Furnham et al 1993a, 1993b). That said, more recent work has upheld its value as a developmental tool (Van Dierendonck and Groen 2011). Although the Belbin team roles model hasn’t stood still since its inception, competing approaches have also been developed, and a number of alternatives have emerged, for example, Margerison and McCann’s Team Management Wheel (Margerison and McCann 1995) and Parker’s Team Player Survey (Parker 2008). Both of these appear to be used less frequently than Belbin (Figure 1) and possible reasons for this will be discussed later (see section 2). As far as some of the specifics of the critiques of Belbin’s team roles are concerned, researchers have compared the results of more than 40 published studies and there is evidence to suggest that the BTRSPI might not discriminate precisely between the nine anticipated team roles (Aritzeta et al 2007). Potential overlaps with models of personality, such as the ‘Big Five’ (that is, openness to experience; conscientiousness; extraversion; agreeableness; neuroticism) also need to be looked at inquiringly by researchers and borne in mind by practitioners (Fisher et al 2001). Indeed, it has been suggested that it may be possible to create new broader groupings by creating opposing types which are somewhat at variance with those in the original model, for example: Plant vs Team Worker/Implementer; Shaper vs Team Worker/Monitor Evaluator (Aritzeta et al 2007). More recently, a study in The Netherlands concluded that ‘the discriminant and convergent validity for the instrument as a whole is good’ (Van Dierendonck and Groen 2011, p345). These are technical issues which are covered in the literature, but practitioners seeking to use such instruments should at least be aware of the context. The BTRSPI is not unique in being a dominant tool frequently used without an appreciation of its limitations. Similar caveats and cautions could be applied to the even widely used personality inventories such as the Myers Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), deployed frequently by about 15% of respondents and occasionally by a further third. It’s often said in marketing and in politics that millions of users or voters can’t be wrong. However, particularly where diagnosis and (mis)assessment may be concerned, the profession needs to be sensitive to reliability and validity issues, be able to interpret ‘the psychological science’ and be ‘clever’ enough to put what it all means into a learning-related context.

5    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Prominent business psychologists and consultants can contribute undoubted insights into individual and team performance through the development of complex models and theories and future-fit the design and validation of stewardship, sophisticated psychometric instruments. However, the sharp end of practice needs to be primed and ready leadership organisations to ask the right questions and to a grounded understanding of the business and its people when andcontribute governance buying into and applying L&TD ‘products’.

Honey and Mumford (LSQ): pragmatic reflection or circular reasoning? The concept of learning styles has been around for the best part of half a century, as Zhang and Sternberg (2009) explain. They still appear to be used widely in adult education and corporate training (Bishka 2010). Such approaches offer the potential for raising learners’ awareness of their personal styles and preferences and becoming more effective learners (that is, by ‘learning to learn’ or ‘metacognition’) and tailoring learning building xxx insights from Asia methods to the individual learner (that is, by ‘matching’).

HR capability

The concept of learning style is based on the assumption that most people prefer an identifiable method of interacting with, taking in and processing information. For example, it’s claimed in the VAK (visual, auditory, kinaesthetic) model that some people learn better visually (for them, learning by interacting with graphics and pictures can work better), others are auditory-focused (for them, hearing the information is preferred), while others have a kinaesthetic style (which requires physical interaction with information). There are tens if not hundreds of different variants on the theme of learning style. Thirteen of the most popular models were subjected to intense scrutiny by a team of researchers led by Frank Coffield (then of the Institute of Education, University of London). Their report was published in 2004 and attracted a good deal of attention from academics and practitioners: for example, in a piece in the Times Educational Supplement, Baroness Susan Greenfield was quoted as saying that ‘from a neuro-scientific point of view [the learning styles approach] is nonsense’ (Wilson 2010, p66). It is also important to realise that while our brains change through age (see below), there is a great deal of evidence on the efficacy of learning diagnostics from school environments where they are seen as most critical. For example, a misuse of the VAK variant of learning styles in primary schools education has been comprehensively challenged by experimental psychologists and neuroscientists (see Goswami 2006, p2). In the CIPD 2012 Learning and Talent Development annual survey report, about 15% reported that they use the LSQ frequently and a further third use it occasionally (Figure 1). This finding is borne out by another survey of 169 L&TD practitioners in the UK, USA and South Africa, in which it was found that the LSQ was second only to the MBTI as a preferred learning styles assessment instrument (Waters 2012). Honey and Mumford are two prominent, well-known and highly respected organisational psychologists and management development consultants. In the mid-1970s and early 1980s they devised a model similar to that developed by David Kolb in the USA in the early 1970s (Kolb’s style assessment tool is the Learning Styles Inventory, see Figure 1). Honey and Mumford effectively parsed Kolb’s more complex cycle and model down into managerial activities relating to decision-making and problem-solving. They focused on four stages (experiencing, reviewing, planning and resolving) and preferences for each of these were then directly aligned to stages in the cycle and ascribed style labels: Activist; Reflector; Theorist; Pragmatist. One of the ‘pay-offs’ for managers from using the LSQ is that they can ‘learn how to learn’ by working on an underused approach, thus improving their all-round learning performance. For example, an activist is encouraged to be more thoughtful and more reflective, the theorist not to ‘overthink’ and to take more action, and so on. The styles are assumed to be acquired preferences that are adaptable, either at will or through changed circumstances, rather than being fixed personality characteristics.

6    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

On the other hand, the LSQ is designed and sometimes used as more than the mere checklist its proponents often claim. L&TD practitionersstewardship, routinely use it beyond its stated purpose as an assessment tool to diagnose future-fit individuals’ learning styles and presumably then take some kind of action (for example, matching the learning leadership organisations to the style, helping individuals a wider repertoire of styles). and develop governance Learning styles in general have been criticised (for example, Reynolds 1997), and only one of the 13 models reviewed by Coffield and his colleagues met all the acceptable standards of reliability and validity. The LSQ met one out of the four criteria: it was satisfactory on test/retest reliability, but it fared less well on internal consistency, construct validity and predictive validity. The ‘best’ (scoring four out of four) was Allinson and Hayes’ Cognitive Style Index, or CSI (Allinson and Hayes 1996). However, the CSI itself has been the subject of searching and trenchant critique (for example, Hodgkinson and Sadler-Smith 2003, Hodgkinson et al 2009). Sadler-Smith and Hodgkinson’s critique focuses on the statistical validity of the instrument. Using data from building xxx insights from Asia over 900 participants they demonstrated that some of its dimensions were more robust with the integration HR capability of additional factors. What this means is that, though highly rated used in its original form, the CSI is not robust enough.

Reasons for the solidity of the steady-state preference The styles conundrum prompted Waters (2012) to ask the question ‘why learning styles practice seems to be impervious to scientific research evidence’. This is equally applicable to the overuse of the PDCA, Belbin and Myers Briggs. He suggested three reasons: 1 Brand strength: tends to make a product stick in the mind and stand out from the crowd; instruments with brand strength possess a familiarity which gives users feelings of confidence, and users become riskaverse and refrain from switching from a known brand to a less well-known brand. 2 Cognitive lock-in: developing skills in the use of a particular product are associated with user preference for that product even when the preferred brand is inferior to alternatives. 3 Consumer lock-in: associated with decreased propensity to search for alternative products after consumers’ initial investments of time and/or money have been made a ‘sunk cost’ (see Waters 2012, pp125–6). We might also add to this list a lack of specialist knowledge in an increasingly sophisticated and technically complex L&TD marketplace. Practitioners need to know where to turn in order to be able to access the right knowledge to make informed choices, not to be seduced by high face validity and clever branding, or put off by ‘sunk costs’ and inertia. These factors may help to explain why the L&TD practitioners in Waters’ survey were largely unaware of the ‘best’ of the learning style instruments (the CSI) and why none of them reported using it, much preferring instruments that were psychometrically inferior in terms of Coffield et al’s (2004) analysis. Clearly these factors may also help to explain the learning styles assessment findings in the Learning and Talent Development annual survey report 2012.

Summary In this section we used the findings from section 7 of the 2012 Learning and Talent Development annual survey report as the basis for an examination of selected aspects of the steady state – the three most-used models. All of these models endure in practice for a variety of reasons: they are all formidable brands; they all encourage people to think in a particular way which is hard to ‘unlearn’; and people and organisations are used to them and like them – whether or not they are aware of their validity and reliability. But with emerging insights from neuroscience and cognitive research, their value is increasingly questioned. So should we change? Could we be doing better?

7    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

2 Managing learning and talent in the age of Google stewardship, leadership and governance

future-fit organisations

From the information age to the conceptual age? According to the American L&TD thought leader Jay Cross, we are moving from the information age defined by the knowledge worker into a ‘conceptual age’ in which workers rely not just on deep technical capability, but also on skills of pattern recognition, tacit knowledge and wisdom born of experience. Translating that is a real challenge, but for Cross it amounts to:

building

xxx

insights from Asia

‘Work converging with learning into the new conceptual workplace. Conceptual work involves gaining HR capability experience, developing new thoughts and new ideas and developing new lines of business. In this new era of work the potential value that an employee can create is many times greater than it was because they no longer have physical limits’ (Cross 2012, p3).

Arguably this conceptual age needs much more self-awareness, an understanding of how we impact others, of how we make decisions, how we influence and network and how we create and innovate. Few of these behaviours are readily distilled into simple learning styles typologies or even captured by some of the morewell-validated psychometrics. Some of them are cognitively driven behaviours, but many are non-cognitive and emotional/affective, and to understand them we need to tap into new insights from neuroscience and a range of behavioural sciences. The recent book Are You Smart Enough to Work at Google? (Poundstone 2012) indicates how the nature of the talent market is shifting. There are people identified by the likes of Don Tapscott (Tapscott and Williams 2007) as the ‘cognitive elite’, highly intelligent, driven and capable individuals who are self-directed and highly challenging. They tend to question and probe and don’t accept much at face value. It isn’t just the ‘cognitive elite’ in the conceptual age; anyone who is reasonably well informed can search or socially network anything. When it comes to their career and their development, too, they are likely to question and probe more often. Yet being in the ‘Age of Google’, where information is increasingly abundant, networked and available, means people need to relate that information to their context, and thus make sense of it. So, if the expertise L&TD lay claim to is often also freely available, bringing its credibility into question, at the least we need to be aware of some of the new and current ideas which are being fed and popularised across these social and other networks.

Are practitioners engaging with these newer insights? In the 2012 Learning and Talent Development annual survey report we asked a second bank of questions in order to investigate how L&TD practitioners are engaging with new and emerging areas of insight around learning and talent development. Some of these newer areas are highly technical and specialised and can only really be accessed second-hand, but many are proven and solid findings from cognitive science, psychology and other disciplines. At a basic level they all engage with learning, but many also go beyond learning and include much sought-after behaviours such as collaboration, knowledge-sharing, innovation, empathy, trust and leadership. They link in many ways with the behaviours in the CIPD’s HR Profession Map, but they are at their core all about learning and talent. In the next and final section we explore some of the leading-edge areas of theory and evidence around learning – the issues which put us into the ready state. Many of these areas are complex and involved, but for the engaged and curious practitioner, an acquaintance at least with these emerging methods will pay dividends.

8    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Figure 2: How aware are you the following methods? (% respondents)

stewardship, leadership The connection between exercise and 17 increased learning performance and governance The idea of learning states during game-based learning

12

20

Cognitive thinking traps and illusions, for example heuristics and biases, statistical ‘blind spots’, etc

9

Nudges and incentives to design learning, such as choice architecture, feedbacks, defaults, etc

8

Cognitive issues around decision-making, such as type 1 and type 2 thinking

7

The concept of ‘flow’building and blissful productivity

6

Generational changes in brain function, such as those occurring in younger and older learning

5

The concept of deep practice and expertise (10,000-hour rule)

5

14

Brain plasticity (the idea that brain circuitry changes through experience)

4

15

HR capability

Use of functional magnetic resonance imaging (advanced brain scans) to identify learning centres Neurochemistry of learning (for example, myelin sheath)

37

25

30

14

21 32

14

11 0

39

2

38

3 2

38

32

16 25

1 3

33

50

25

55

insights from Asia

13 3

46 50

Don’t see the relevance of these developments

1003

71 20

Aware but don’t fully understand

2 75 52

21

Aware but don’t use in my practice

6

63 27

Aware. I consider myself conversant and integrate into my practice

Haven’t heard of these

23

xxx 60

17

24

2

55

1 8 17

The use of drugs and therapies to enhance learning and attention (for example, so-called ‘smart-drugs’)

20

27

20

11 10

future-fit organisations

22 75

100 Percentage

Base: 738

Source: Learning and Talent Development Annual Survey Report 2012, CIPD

Figure 2 shows that there is fairly low engagement with many of these newer and emerging issues, either through lack of awareness or lack of perceived relevance. In the next section, we look at several of these newer areas because they help map out the territory for our later discussion.

9    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

3R  eady-state L&TD – putting the brain at the centre stewardship, future-fit of learning leadership organisations and governance

One key to developing a ‘ready state’ perspective is to become more aware of the learning aspects of neuroscience, cognitive science and other disciplines such as economics which also deal with judgement and decision. It’s useful to look at some key aspects of these disciplines to build an understanding. Neuroscience is probably the most relevant area to a ready-state approach and it makes sense to begin there. They are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3: Deep practice myelination and learning

building HR capability

Neuroscience and neuro-myths

Myelination and learning

xxx

insights from Asia

Brain plasticity

Neuro-myths and neuroscience In the Using the Head and Heart at Work report (CIPD 2010), we tackled some well-known ‘neuro-myths’ such as the left brain/right brain division and the triune (three-part) brain. Neuroscientific research has refuted many of these ideas, but some of them die hard in learning and development environments. As the Nobel Prize-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman (2011) indicates, we sometimes prefer to use a method of thinking about the world because it’s comforting and soothing. Moreover, as was discussed in section 2, it’s easy to be seduced by brand loyalty and face validity, and be hampered (consciously or unconsciously) by cognitive and consumer ‘lock-in’. The idea of a right and left brain with a clear demarcation of functions is still around thanks mainly to the debate initiated in a Harvard Business Review article in 1976 by the redoubtable management thinker Henry Mintzberg. More recently, Daniel Pink’s book A Whole New Mind used the left brain/right brain split to posit a future in which ‘right-brained creative types’ [sic] would ‘rule the world’ as the forces of Asia, abundance and automation put paid to the hegemony of analytical and logical skills (Pink 2005). There are multitudes of neuromyths in every field, but most neuroscientists will avoid any kind of prescription because they refuse to infer from the available evidence that such a fluid and dynamic system as the brain and mind can be pinned down to such localised effects. Nevertheless, there are some very well-understood aspects of the brain and learning, which are addressed below..

Deep practice and the ‘10,000-hour rule’ ‘Practice makes perfect’ used to be a hunch; now it’s a clinically evidenced fact. Developed by the psychologist K. Anders Ericsson, the ‘deep practice’ insight was later popularised by the writer Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers (2008). Ericsson and colleagues demonstrated from an extensive body of research evidence that when individuals learn over the longer term with increasingly challenging goals and good feedback and coaching, they improve progressively and permanently. The rule of thumb that is often applied is that of 10,000 hours of learning and practice, after which problems can be solved seemingly effortlessly with intuitive

10    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

expertise. The idea of ‘no pain, no gain’ and genius being ‘1% inspiration and 99% perspiration’ is well known and anecdotally fits thestewardship, scientific evidence which supports the notionfuture-fit of perseverance and endurance as the sure-fire attributes of effective learning. Much of this is rooted inorganisations the exciting neurochemistry of leadership learning. Researchers at Oxford University recently demonstrated through functional magnetic resonance and governance imaging (fMRI) that a complex co-ordination (visio-motor) skill such as juggling can be mapped. The researchers found that white matter which is associated with learning performance increased as a result of practising such a skill (Scholz et al 2009). It shows that when we learn, we lay down neurochemical pathways which are strengthened by practice. The increased use of fMRI has allowed new insights into the brain and learning, though the science is complex and nuanced. To be able to gauge when learners get to a position of deep expertise is a potentially valuable insight, yet surprisingly only 5% of L&TD practitioners regularly integrate this crucial finding into practice and 63% haven’t even heard of it.

building HR capability

xxx

insights from Asia

We develop the capacity to learn through a complex interaction between our brain and our conscious and unconscious mind. Learning is at the intersection of what is known as cognitive neuroscience, which links the operation of the brain to the processes of the mind. The brain’s neurochemical circuitry speeds up and judgement and reasoning improve. Experiments in mice have shown for a long time the white matter which makes up the myelin sheath. In effect, our brains lay down the electro-chemical pathways for learning. Often referred to as white matter, myelin is effectively a coating which embeds learning. The downside is that it is better at preserving old learning than new, but it still lays down new learning, especially when we persistently make use of that.

Brain plasticity Fortunately, this doesn’t imply a brain made of plastic! But the brain has a quality called ’plasticity’, which is best thought of as flexibility and agility. The brain changes as it learns and shape-shifts internally to accommodate new learning and stimuli. An example is the research that showed that London cabbies, who use ‘The Knowledge’ of the labyrinthine streets of London, have an overdeveloped hippocampus (which is mainly concerned with spatial awareness and navigation) compared with bus drivers, who follow fixed routes. Another example is language learning, which is accessed via the left interior parietal cortex (LIPC). The LIPC is bigger in bilinguals and polyglots. Learning reams of abstract information such as numbers can also impact brain plasticity. The old adage that learning capacity degenerates with age is also challenged by brain plasticity research. The research shows that the brain has a remarkable capacity to continually recombine and reconnect, as new neural pathways are built. We’ve ‘known’ for a long time that learning and memory are intertwined; the hard evidence from neuroscience confirms this. Next we look at the established and emerging evidence in cognitive science, which is rich in insights for learning.

Figure 4: Cognitive science and learning

Thinking traps, illusions and biases

Flow and ‘blissful productivity’

Memory and attention

11    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Cognitive thinking traps, illusions and biases stewardship, future-fit The nature of human reasoning andleadership logic is a major factor in how we learn.organisations Using insights from a wide range of social sciences holds out the and promise of gaining real self-awareness of our own thinking and reasoning processes. governance For example, it’s in the nature of our thinking and our human condition to get things wrong, to get locked into types of thinking which undermine reason, to be indecisive, impatient and often ill-informed. Key work on this area has been developed by one of the world’s most famous psychologists, Daniel Kahneman (2011). Kahneman has collected together a lifetime of insights, many of them gained with his esteemed colleague, the late Amos Tversky, in the book Thinking, Fast and Slow. In this book Kahneman discusses how our decision-making is ruled by an automatic brain, which makes quick decisions based on immediate stimulus, linked to our survival instinct. This so-called ‘system1 thinking’ is often moderated by the ‘rational brain’ building xxx insights from Asia (system 2) located in the frontal cortex. This slows down and checks automated, flawed and biased thinking HR capability processes and supplements these with a rational reasoning process. The interaction of these two systems has a major impact not only on how we learn and how we process information, but also on how we interact with, and learn from, other people. Cognitive research on everything from how we save for our pensions to how individuals get seduced by the way sale prices are presented and befuddled by choice is a massive and growing area with much insight for L&TD (see Ariely 2008 for a good summary of the latest thinking).

Flow and ‘blissful productivity’ Most of us have experienced a situation where we’re so engaged in an activity and deeply connected with it that we forget the clock and most things in our external environment. We are seamlessly connected with the task at hand and as a result we are markedly more productive and the cycle continues. This concept of ‘flow’ was developed by the Hungarian psychologist Mihalyi Csikszentmihalyi (2008). By studying artists in the 1960s Csikszentmihalyi’s research began not by looking at the nature of happiness per se, but by asking the question, ‘When are people most happy?’ That is, what exactly are we doing when we feel enjoyment or fulfilment? Csikszentmihalyi’s later research method involved buzzing people on a pager at random points through a week. They were asked to write down exactly what they were doing and the feelings the activity produced. He could reasonably predict when these moments of optimal experience were most likely to happen. They occurred when activities described as being of highest value were undertaken. Some experiences we feel give us pleasure – such as watching TV or going to the cinema, or even taking drugs and sleeping – but importantly invoke little conscious will and therefore do not really assist our growth. The lesson of optimal experience is that we are most happy when we are in control. Optimal experience is that which is directed by us and gives us a sense of mastery. This is why goals are so enjoyable to pursue: they bring ‘order in awareness’, irrespective of the feeling one may get in seeing a goal actually achieved. An ordered mind itself is a source of happiness. Happiness is itself a massive agenda, with everyone from psychologists and economists to anthropologists and biologists trying to understand it, measure it and reproduce it. Politicians, at least for a time, have been obsessed with happiness and well-being. It is also emerging as a fringe corporate agenda, although most organisations will be shy of using the term happiness.

12    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Memory and attention stewardship,

future-fit

Paying attention or tuning out, making judgements and evaluating decisions are critical aspects of human leadership organisations learning. Memory is how we process, encode and store information, and this is also integral to learning. At a and governance basic level memory is assessed in respect of short-term memory or basic recall and a long-term aspect which is able to retain and recall for much longer. Baddeley’s insights in the 1960s identified this phenomenon as episodic memory. Baddeley (1966) discovered that after 20 minutes, test subjects had the most difficulty recalling a collection of words that had similar meanings (for example, big, large, great, huge) long term. Another part of long-term memory is episodic memory, which attempts to capture information such as ‘what’, ‘when’ and ‘where’. With episodic memory individuals are able to recall specific events such as birthday parties and weddings. Newer research indicates that what is known as spatial memory has a big impact on the learning of numeracy skills and has implications for problem-solving and logic.

building

xxx

insights from Asia

Attention is another critical aspect of learning from the cognitive arena. When attention is stimulated, HR capability learning can be enhanced, and many of the techniques of instruction and design already take account of these issues. The psychologist Colin Cherry tested the ability of guests at a cocktail party to hold simultaneous conversations. In effect, people could be observed tuning into and out of conversations. Later research enriched this insight, but the advent of fMRI and other scanning techniques built the evidence base considerably. Researchers using these techniques developed the concepts of bottom–up and top–down focusing (Posner and Petersen 1990). Newer research focuses on the concept of ‘cognitive load’, whereby we learn best under certain conditions and where pacing and phasing of a learning intervention can increase retention (Lavie 2010). This is an area which has major implications for learning, especially in a socially networked age, where attention and distraction are perpetual features of the learning environment. Figure 5: Learning, lifestyle and society

Age and learning

Smart drugs and performance

Exercise, fun and learning

Age and learning Learning and age is a big and growing agenda. Sometimes it gets caricatured into young people as ‘digital natives’ and older age groups as ‘digital laggards’. The reality is a diversity of capability and engagement. This is driven by the massively increased research output on how our brain structure changes with age. The concept of ageing is often perceived as being exclusively about ‘older age’, but our brains change from birth, with much of that development already complete by the age of six (see Sinclair 2007). From the point of view of generations, there is an increasing range of research on the teenage and young adult brain. The US National Institutes of Health, one of the most respected evidence-based medical research organisations in the world, studied 100 young people in depth as they grew up in the 1990s. Its findings showed that our brains undergo a massive rewiring between the ages of 12 and 25, though in that period the brain doesn’t grow very much, having already reached 90% of its capacity by age six. A fascinating article in National Geographic provides a summary of the science of teenage and young adult brain development and behaviour

13    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

(Dobbs 2011). This ageing–learning link continues throughout the later phases of life. A process known as neurogenesis – literally ‘growing neurons’ – ensures that we grow both grey future-fit matter (thinking, cognition and stewardship, memory) and white matter (processing and connecting neurons which support learning) throughout our lives. leadership organisations It has been demonstrated through laboratory research on mice that our pre-existing neural networks can help and governance compensate for the slower rate of growth in neurons as we age (Martinez-Canabal et al 2012). There are many other relevant insights to be derived from age and learning research. As Paine Schofield and Honore (2010, p28) explain, those born between 1982 and the present (so-called Generation Y) are much more complex in their learning approach than anecdotal studies suggest. At the other end of the age spectrum, Preston and Shipton (2011) showed in research in a distribution warehouse that older workers were stressed by the introduction of a new technology platform. This led to increased absence and poor employee relations. The mitigating factor was learning which allowed reflection and absorption. The growing research on age and learning is an important resource for L&TD professionals.

building HR capability

xxx

insights from Asia

Smart drugs and getting an (unfair) learning advantage In a world where the drive to achieve both in education and the business worlds is so intense, some people are enhancing their performance through the use of smart drugs. These drugs act on the brain to increase its capacity for learning. We all know how poorly we can sometimes perform (or perceive our performance) without our double espresso or our can of energy drink – all, of course, acting in some way to heighten our senses and increase our alertness. Much more potent and targeted drugs have been designed to make us perform at a higher cognitive level. This is a ‘frontier issue’ and it’s a minority activity, but it is likely to be an important issue in the future. For example, the Hollywood sci-fi film Limitless tells the story of a writer who uses a pill to access ‘100 per cent of his mind’. He goes from being a slovenly bohemian writer to a laser-focused literary superman through the use of the drug Modafinil. Modafinil was originally developed to treat sleep disorders such as narcolepsy and gives benefits in terms of alertness and attention. It’s increasingly used by students to prepare for exams and even by the military to keep soldiers awake for combat. More prosaically, it’s also used by global business travellers to combat jet lag. Other stimulants such as Ritalin have been used by students in the USA and elsewhere to increase learning power and therefore exam performance. Research by Barbara Sahakian of Cambridge University showed that 17% of students admitted to taking the drug. And it’s not just children and students: the journal Nature surveyed 1,400 adults and found that one in five admitted to taking Ritalin, Modafinil or beta blockers designed for heart conditions to enhance their performance at work (Sahakian 2010). Obviously, this is an issue which is being looked at in terms of its acceptability as a practice and the ethical and moral issues involved. A preliminary scientific study found that sleep-deprived surgeons who took the drug Modafinil performed better cognitively (they made better decisions and were less impulsive). Furthermore, their psychomotor performance was neutral. (They were no less steady using advanced surgery tools than those who were given a placebo.) The researchers emphasise the small scale of the study, but when extended into a larger group study it could have major implications for the workplace, especially as it could extend the performance of workers such as nurses, air traffic controllers and train drivers, whose productivity is often limited by fatigue constraints (Sugden et al 2012). There’s a strong possibility that from an L&TD perspective the use of smart drugs may already be an issue in the workplace; therefore, knowing at least something about it can be useful for understanding the behaviour of people who might be participating in these practices. About a third of our practitioners consider themselves abreast of this issue.

14    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Exercise, learning and lifestyle stewardship, future-fit This report was finalised during the London 2012 Olympics, where a global audience cheered the leadership organisations achievements of elite athletes. andUnfortunately, governance society faces a growing challenge from its increasing girth.

Obesity is seen as one of the biggest threats to sustainable development, with some experts ranking it well above terrorism and war for its negative impact. The insight, however, that learning is enhanced by exercise surely gives us a powerful incentive towards activity. The link between exercise and learning (54% are aware of it and have integrated it into practice) is understood well in our survey. Increased activity also promises positive effects on a range of conditions, from stress to addiction. Neuroscientists John Ratey and Eric Hageman collated a large body of evidence on the exercise–learning link (see Ratey and Hageman 2008). They showed the value of ‘sweating before swotting’ in the case of US school pupils; for example, scores in maths tests increased well above the expected level. This clear link has obvious building xxx insights from Asia implications for workplace learning. A range of other lifestyle issues are also on the horizon. The use of social HR capability networking blurring the boundaries between work, leisure and learning is one trend. The increased use of ‘serious’ gaming with obvious learning implications promises to shake up learning in both corporate and educational contexts. Our From E-learning to Gameful Employment report (CIPD 2012a) gives further insight on this aspect. These are all potentially exciting emerging trends – but our challenge is to reap the benefits of being in this ready state, rather than just be entranced by the knowledge itself.

15    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

Conclusion and recommendations stewardship, leadership and governance

future-fit organisations

This report is designed to stimulate and challenge L&TD practitioners about how to derive and develop insights and evidence about learning within people and organisations. The current picture is one of extensive use of tried and trusted models but a tendency to be less aware of the emerging insights from neuroscience, cognitive research and behavioural science, which have a part to play in the development of L&TD interventions. We use what we know and trust, but sometimes this can lead us to become conservative and hamper innovation. Is there a new inflection point, where there is a need to actively unlearn some current practice building xxx insights from Asia to allow the integration of the new? There is also an ongoing organisational challenge relating to decisionHR capability making, thinking and behaviours which needs to be addressed. Issues such as the banking scandals and continued debate around trust and ethics all demonstrate the need for organisations and their people to be more mindful about how people learn, think and act and the cultures that we jointly create in which these things happen. By integrating new areas of learning and becoming more analytical and evidence-driven in our decisions around learning, we can start to craft a compelling new agenda for L&TD. Many organisations are already doing this, but much more needs to be done. Recommendation 1: Be mindful about models and methods All models and methods of learning analysis, including those which are universally used, have to be re-appraised and re-thought. They may give us insight for a certain context but will not fit all situations. Thinking mindfully about our objectives and desired outcomes will ensure we use these models and diagnostics, not just because they are available and we know how to use them, but because they are right for the situation and fit for purpose. Recommendation 2: Put the brain and mind at the centre of learning Understanding more about how the brain works, even at a ‘shallow clever’ level, means understanding more about how people think and react, adding richness and depth to learning insights. Knowing about issues such as myelination and deep practice as well as the concepts of brain plasticity gives a clearer connection into how the brain propels our learning. Engaging more with the emerging research on thinking, deciding and creativity helps tap more into the learning audience. Integrating into our design issues such as cognitive illusions, thinking traps and biases, and non-cognitive stuff such as empathy, is crucial. All of these have a deep influence on how people operate and how they learn. Recommendation 3: Get ‘clever but shallow’ about insight Refreshing our insight bank is vital to our ability to build the bandwidth needed to develop relevant and powerful L&TD interventions and become insight traders. There is a galaxy of research, comment and capability out there which practitioners can tap into. It’s often available at the click of a mouse or across a Skype connection, though discerning its value and relevance is an increasingly important skill. Part of the role as reflexive and effective practitioners is to build in time to refresh knowledge and understanding and develop insights about what new knowledge can bring practice. Whether it’s attending conferences and events, online networking, tapping into webinars or reading deeply on frontier research and cascading it down, it all helps in building the required awareness. Yet practitioners cannot engage with this new information in great depth. There is a need to pursue the T-shaped competence, where what is known as mastery or deep capability in a key area (in our case learning and development and management learning) is supported by extra insight and evidence from other fields. To support

16    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

this, practitioners need to be ‘clever but shallow’ in other areas such as cognitive neuroscience, behavioural economics, ethics, innovation, business strategy, and so on, which inform practice. In essence, we can amass a stewardship, future-fit great deal of knowledge in a shortleadership space of time but accept that our knowledge will be superficial. organisations

and governance

Join the debate We have looked at a wide range of issues primarily focusing on the need to move from a steady-state perspective where L&TD uses tried and trusted methods of diagnosis to one where we tap into the newer insight to be offered by the developing science of learning. Getting there requires some ‘unlearning’ as well as learning. Being open to and aware of the new approaches is the best way to do this. It’s also good to ask some questions around our interventions and see if the steady state is better at shaping a productive learning environment. The CIPD has opened this debate because we think it’s necessary and timely given the amplified building xxx insights from Asia level of challenge that corporate learning and development faces. It is also a time of great opportunity as HR capability learning, talent and its interface with culture, organisation and management development become critical pivots in organisational transformation. You can join in that practice improvement conversation by sharing with us your thoughts and views on how we can move forward to exploit the many exciting opportunities which are opening up. Share with us your own inspirational practice and how you keep yourself in a ready state. [email protected]

17    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

References

stewardship, leadership and governance

future-fit organisations

ALLINSON, C.W. and HAYES, J. (1996) The Cognitive Style Index: a measure of intuition-analysis for organisational research. Journal of Management Studies. Vol 33, No 1, January. pp119–35. ARIELY, D. (2008) Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. New York: HarperCollins. ARIKKATH, J. and REICHARDT, L.F. (2008) Cadherins and catenins at synapses. Trends in Neurosciences. Vol 31, No 9. pp487–94.

building

xxx

insights from Asia

ARITZETA, A., SWAILES, S. and SENIOR, B. (2007) Belbin’s team role model: development, validity and HR capability applications for team building. Journal of Management Studies. Vol 44, No 1, January. pp96–118.

BADDELEY, A.D. (1966) The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. Vol 18, No 4. pp302–9. BAXTER, I. (2011) Readiness should mean success but….Training Journal. April. pp54–6. BELBIN, R.M. (1993) A reply to the Belbin Team-Role Self-Perception Inventory by Furnham, Steele and Pendleton. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol 66, No 3, September. pp259–60. BISHKA, A. (2010) Learning styles fray: brilliant or batty? Performance Improvement. Vol 49, No 10, November/December. pp9–13. CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2010) Using the head and heart at work: a business case for soft skills [online]. Research report. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/ hr-resources/research/soft-skills-business-case.aspx [Accessed 7 September 2012]. CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2012a) From e-learning to ‘gameful’ employment [online]. Research insight. London: CIPD. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/ research/elearning-gameful-employment.aspx [Accessed 7 September 2012]. CHARTERED INSTITUTE OF PERSONNEL AND DEVELOPMENT. (2012b) Learning and talent development [online]. Annual survey report. London: CIPD. Available at http://www.cipd.co.uk/hr-resources/survey-reports/ learning-talent-development-2012.aspx [Accessed 7 September 2012]. CHEVALIER, R.D. (2011) When did ADDIE become addie? Performance Improvement. Vol 50, No 6, July. pp10–14. COFFIELD, F., MOSELEY, D. and HALL, E. (2004) Learning styles and pedagogy in post-16 learning: a systematic and critical review. London: Learning and Skills Research Centre. CROSS, J. (2012) Learning in the 21st century workplace [online]. Global Focus (EFMD). Special supplement. Vol 6, No 1. pp3–4. Available at: http://issuu.com/efmd/docs/gf-special-vol-06-issue-01/1 [Accessed 7 September 2012]. CSIKZENTMIHALYI, M. (2008) Flow: the psychology of optimal experience. New York: HarperCollins. DOBBS, D. (2011) Beautiful brains. National Geographic. October. pp.8–14. DRUCKMAN, D. and BJORK, R. (eds) (1991) In the mind’s eye: enhancing human performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. DUNN, R. and DUNN, K. (1993) Teaching secondary students through their individual learning styles. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

18    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

FISHER, S.G., HUNTER, T.A. and MACROSSON, W.D.K. (2001) A validation study of Belbin’s team roles. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Vol 10, No 2, June. pp121–44.

stewardship, future-fit leadership organisations FURNHAM, A., STEELE, H. and PENDLETON, D. (1993a) A psychometric assessment of the Belbin Team-Role Selfgovernance Perception Inventory. Journaland of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol 66, No 3, September. pp245–57. FURNHAM, A., STEELE, H. and PENDLETON, D. (1993b) A response to Dr. Belbin’s reply. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol 66, No 3, September. p261. GAGNE, R.M. and BRIGGS, L.J. (1979) Principles of instructional design. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. GLADWELL, M. (2008) Outliers: the story of success. New York: Hachette. GOSWAMI, U. (2006) Neuroscience and education from research to practice. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. Vol 7, No 5, May.building pp406–413. xxx insights from Asia

HR capability

HODGKINSON, G.P. and SADLER-SMITH, E. (2003). Complex or unitary? A critique and empirical re-assessment of the Allinson-Hayes Cognitive Style Index. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. Vol 76, No 2, June. pp243–68. HODGKINSON, G.P., SADLER-SMITH, E. and SINCLAIR, M. (2009) More than meets the eye? Intuition and analysis revisited. Personality and Individual Differences. Vol 47, No 4, September. pp342–6. HONEY, P. (2012) Is it relevant? [online]. Training Journal. 18 May. Available at: http://www.trainingjournal. com/blog/articles-blogs-is-it-relevant [Accessed 7 September 2012]. KAHNEMAN, D. (2011) Thinking, fast and slow. London: Allen Lane. LAVIE, N. (2010) Attention, distraction and cognitive control under load. Current Directions in Psychological Science. Vol 19, No 3, June. pp143–148. MAGER, R.F. (1984) Preparing instructional objectives. 2nd ed. Belmont, CA: David S. Lake. MAMMARELLA, I.C., LUCANGELI, D. and CORNOLDI, C. (2010) Spatial working memory and arithmetic deficits in children with nonverbal learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Vol 43, No 5. pp455–68. MARGERISON, C. and McCANN, D. (1995) Team management: practical new approaches. Didcot: Management Books 2000. MARTINEZ-CANABAL, A., AKERS, K.G. and JOSSELYN, S.A. (2012) Age-dependent effects of hippocampal neurogenesis suppression on spatial learning. Hippocampus. 23 July. PARKER, G.M. (2008) Team players and team work: new strategies for developing successful collaboration. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. PEDLER, M., BURGOYNE, J. and BOYDELL, T. (1991) The learning company. London: McGraw-Hill. PINK, D.H. (2005) A whole new mind: why right-brainers will rule the future. New York: Penguin. PITTENGER, D.J. (1993) The utility of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Review of Educational Research. Vol 63, No 4, Winter. pp467–88. POSNER, M.I. and PETERSEN, S.E. (1990) The attention system of the human brain. Annual Review of Neuroscience. Vol 13. pp25–42. POUNDSTONE, W. (2012) Are you smart enough to work at Google? London: Oneworld Publications. PRESTON, J. and SHIPTON, H. (2011) The relationship between age, stress and learning during organisational change [online]. Conference paper. CIPD Centres Conference. Keele University, 22–23 June. Available at: http://www.cipd.co.uk/NR/rdonlyres/783DEC19-C7B8-421A-8F83-A3C420599764/0/ PrestonandShiptonresearchpaperC.pdf [Accessed 7 September 2012]. 19    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable organisation performance

RATEY, J. and HAGEMAN, E. (2008) Spark! How exercise will improve the performance of your brain. London: Quercus.

stewardship, future-fit leadership organisations REYNOLDS, M. (1997) Learning styles: a critique. Management Learning. Vol 28, No 2, June. pp115–33. and governance RUONA, W.E.A. (2001) The foundational impact of the Training Within Industry project on the human resource development profession. Advances in Developing Human Resources. Vol 3, No 2, May. pp119–26. SADLER-SMITH, E. (2006) Learning and development for managers: perspectives from research and practice. Oxford: Blackwell. SAHAKIAN, B. (2010) Smart drugs. Royal Institution ‘Talking Points’ Lecture. 22 February. Audio download. http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayContent&id=00000003823 [Accessed 7 September 2012]. SCHOFIELD, C.P. building and HONORE, S. (2009) Generation Y and learning xxx [online]. 360˚: the Ashridge insightsJournal. from Asia Winter 2009–2010. pp26-32. Available at: http://www.ashridge.org.uk/website/content.nsf/FileLibrary/B89ECF HR capability 594F4B61FC802576880055F97A/$file/360_Winter09_web.pdf SCHOLZ, J., KLEIN, M.C. and BEHRENS, T.E. (2009) Training induces changes in white-matter architecture. Nature Neuroscience. Vol 12, No 11, November. pp1370–71. SHEWHART, W.A. (1986) Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. New York: Dover. SINCLAIR, A. (2007) 0–5: How small children make a big difference [online]. Provocation series. Vol 3, No 1. London: Work Foundation. Available at: http://www.theworkfoundation.com/Reports/26/05-how-smallchildren-make-a-big-difference [Accessed 8 August 2012]. SUGDEN, C., HOUSDEN, C.R. and AGGARWAL, R. (2012) Effect of pharmacological enhancement on the cognitive and critical psychomotor performance of sleep-deprived doctors: a randomized controlled trial. Annals of Surgery. Vol 255, No 2, February. pp222–7. SWAILES, S. and SENIOR, B. (2001) The Learning Styles Questionnaire: closing comments? International Journal of Selection and Assessment. Vol 9, No 3, September. pp215–16. SWANSON, R.A. (2001) Human resource development and its underlying theory. Human Resource Development International. Vol 4, No 3, September. pp299–332. TAPSCOTT, D. and WILLIAMS, A. (2007) Wikinomics: how mass collaboration changes everything. London: Atlantic Books. THAYER, P.W. (1988). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and enhancing human performance. Unpublished manuscript. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina State University. Department of Psychology. VAN DIERENDONCK, D. and GROEN, R. (2011) Belbin revisited: a multitrait-multimethod investigation of a team role instrument. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology. Vol 20, No 3, June. pp345–66. WATERS, R.J. (2012) Learning style instruments: reasons why research evidence might have a weak influence on practitioner choice. Human Resource Development International. Vol 15, No 1, February. pp119–29. WILSON, C. (2010) Tools of the trade. Training Journal. April. pp61–6. ZHANG, L-F. and STERNBERG, R.J. (2009) Intellectual styles: Nehru jacket or solid blue blazer? In: ZHANG, L-F. and STERNBERG, R.J. (eds) Perspectives on the nature of intellectual styles. New York: Springer. pp291–8.

20    From Steady State to Ready State: A need for fresh thinking in learning and talent development?

sustainable org

ation performance

sustainable organisation performance Future-fit organisations is one of the four themes in our Sustainable Organisation Performance research programme. The other three themes are stewardship, leadership and stewardship, future-fit governance, building HR capability and insights from Asia. Within leadership organisations each of these themes we will research a range of topics and and governance stewardship, future-fit draw on a variety of perspectives to enable us to provide insightleadership organisations led thought leadership that can be used to drive organisation and governance performance for the long term.

sustainable organisation performance sustainable organisation performance building insights from Asia

HR capability

building HR capability

xxx

stewardship, stewardship, leadershipleadership and governance and governance

building building HR capability HR capability Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 151 The Broadway London SW19 1JQ UK Tel: +44 (0)20 8612 6200 Fax: +44 (0)20 8612 6201 Email: [email protected] Website: cipd.co.uk Incorporated by Royal Charter Registered charity no.1079797

insights from A

future-fit future-fit organisations organisations

xxx

xxx

Issued: September 2012 Reference: 5913 © Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development 2012

xxx

insights insights from Asia fro