Firms following an integrated learning strategy need to consider not only when to use on- and off-the-job learning but also how to make learning on the job even more effective, says Barry Dean. Such effectiveness can be improved by a combination of knowledge management and e-learning provided this is not at the cost of human interaction
At the recent Sherwood breakfast workshops there was discussion of the shift from ‘off-the-job’ to ‘on-the-job’ learning. My colleague Tony Reiss described the shift as being from ‘comprehensive suites of training programmes’ involving ‘competency frameworks, performance/development reviews and clear guidelines on career progression’ to ‘integrated learning’ which seeks to ‘tailor training strategies and delivery more closely to specific practice group or office needs … using technology (e.g. intranets and e-learning) and on-the-job or executive coaching to supplement or replace training courses’ (see Ten tips to make training more effective for more).
On-the-job learning can be very effective in:
· integrating the learning of technical and managerial skills in the context in which they will be used;
· aligning learning with business strategy;
· situating learning in the real world;
· providing more scope on-the-job coaching;
· using technology to support learning;
· involving internal staff (including partners) in staff development; and
· linking learning with the HR and other support functions.
Firms pursuing an integrated learning strategy need to consider the proper role for on-the-job learning and how to make learning on the job more effective. The benefit is likely to be faster development and greater job satisfaction for the individual and a quicker investment return for the firm.
There are obviously circumstances which will make off- rather than on-the-job learning more appropriate. Off-the-job learning is less focussed on the job at hand. It is therefore better for conveying context and underlying concepts and structures. As such, it can be used as a counterweight to the narrowing of knowledge implicit in the ever-increasing specialisation of legal practice.
It also provides a less stressful environment in which issues can be explored more fully. Thinking can be less driven by the need to avoid ‘mistakes’. It is therefore more likely to encourage lateral thinking and experimentation. By presenting a simplified view of the real world, it enables the learner to see the ‘wood’ rather than the ‘trees’.
It is also more appropriate for less familiar aspects of one’s work and improving tasks performed intuitively rather than purposely. It has real value for the novice and in areas which even the experienced are encountering for the first time. It is therefore, particularly appropriate as a countering the ‘harness’ theory of management, best summed up in the sentiment: ‘Don’t ask me how I ‘manage’ my work. I just put on my harness and go!’.
In short, even when pursuing an integrated learning strategy, off-the-job learning remains essential if fee-earners are to learn to become innovative and critical practitioners with a mastery of the technical and managerial skills required of their jobs.
There are no hard and fast rules for determining when to use off- or on-the-job learning. The decision is a matter of judgement. The fact remains that under an integrated learning strategy, more emphasis is likely to be given to on-the-job learning. The real question then is how to get the most out of it.
Most lawyers, when asked where they have learned most will reply, ‘on-the-job’. This may explain why so little attention has been paid in most law firms to how it takes place and how best to optimise it. ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’. The current approach is an example of ‘harness’ management. The learning happens, rather than being managed to be as effective as possible. If that is correct, there are two consequences.
Two consequences
In the first place, the process must be inherently effective to be as successful as it is thought to be. A moment’s reflection will explain why this is so. By definition, what is being learned is both relevant and up-to-date. It occurs ‘just in time’. The ‘learning’ is reinforced by application and repetition. The method, learning by doing, is appropriate to learning to perform tasks. It is practical. Most importantly, the learner is highly motivated. It is led by role models whose judgement is highly prized. It is driven by the need to deliver service to the client. It is also directly related to performance of that service and therefore, to both tangible and intangible reward and recognition within the firm.
In the second place, making learning on the job more effective will be building from a position of strength. Off-the-job learning has to fight for its place in the learning processes of law firms. On-the-job learning is part of the firm’s raison d’être – delivery of service to the client.
Over the last decade or so, knowledge management has been the most significant driver in making learning on the job more effective in law firms. KM provides know-how at the point of most need, when the job is being done. It facilitates learning in much the same way as a good supervisor or mentor. KM has also changed the nature of ‘knowledge’ within law firms. Practice is now handled in a far more structured and systematic way. It is learned rather than picked up ad hoc. More lawyers understand why things are done rather than just that they are done. KM has the potential to broaden learning on-the-job and thereby encourage the development of innovate and critical practitioners.
The mistake that many firms have made is to see KM in terms only of systems and procedures. There is a tendency to overlook the human processes which are central to any learning. Talking about the work, whether in KM meetings or on-the-job, is as much a part of good KM as are precedents, know-how collections and data bases. They also make on-the-job learning more effective. Key ‘talking on the job’ processes include ‘communities of practice’, delegation, supervision and mentoring. They are both KM and learning processes.
The role of IT in supporting KM systems has long been recognised. If anything, there is an unfortunate tendency to regard IT as the heart of those systems. Its role in learning and development is much less developed. It has considerable potential. It can help the learner in recalling, understanding and applying what is being learned. It facilitates communication and can help to overcome some of the problems associated with ‘communities of practice’, delegation, supervision and mentoring. Most importantly, it can be delivered on the job and therefore enhance and reinforce on-the-job learning.
As with KM, IT – in the form of e-learning – is not a substitute for other more traditional learning processes. Once again, some firms have ignored this, seriously burnt their fingers and dug deep into their pockets in the process.
Good KM enhanced and supported by carefully crafted e-learning systems can make learning on-the-job much more effective (see Knowledge management: using knowledge management systems to support on-the-job learning in our Summer 2004 newsletter).
The bits of the jigsaw are all there. The challenge is to put them together so that they interact symbiotically. One can do this by trial and error. That approach has an enormous advantage. Any attempt to change the way in which client work is handled is bound to be difficult. A cautious approach advancing little by little is more likely to be successful than large-scale, loudly trumpeted changes. Even so, it is probably better to have some idea of where one is trying to go and why.
Case study
A recent project for a client suggests that a simulation or case study provides a useful way of thinking these issues through. We used a simple case study of an inexperienced potential high flier who was asked to handle a particular kind of work for the first time. At one level, this allowed us to explore how she acquired the know-how she needed and then to consider how that process might be improved.
More interestingly, and I had not anticipated this, it led to a discussion of the limits of the support and systems that should be available. In the case study, even though we could identify further improvements, the end result could have been viewed as a success. The client was satisfied and continued to use the firm. With limited support, the fee-earner had crafted her own solution where none was readily available. In the process she had learned important skills. She had also learned to cope with pressure and had gained confidence in her ability to do so. The view of her as a potential partner was not merely confirmed but also strengthened by performance in the field. She probably was a better practitioner as a result.
The case study therefore raised the important difference between ‘spoon feeding’ and ‘handholding’ implicit in setting up any KM system. No more than a page long, the case study gave a practical context for exploring these issues. It certainly provoked considerable discussion amongst the lawyers.
Contact Barry Dean
