Outcome-Based Learning Needs an Outcome

It would be foolish to argue against the concept that ultimately states that we need to ensure that our people can effectively achieve the outcomes associated with their roles. As a concept, this is not new. We train people how to run the reports they need, capture a customer query, or even create a prompt to get an answer from ChatGPT. There has always been an aspiration that this type of training would provide the right information at the right time (look up JIT training). Go back even further; it was called the Help function.

So why is there a focus on Outcome-Based Learning? The cynic in me thinks that the driver for this is the recognition that training too often does not deliver an ROI. If you speak to an Instructional Designer, they will tell you the root cause is that the learning objectives and outcomes have not been adequately defined.

Outcomes are easy to monitor, and if the right outcomes are identified, organizations can measure the impact of any investment, assuming there are changes in the outcomes.

We should define the outcomes before considering the training’s needs and measure any change between previous and current states.

Let’s start by defining what we mean by outcome. I believe an outcome is a measurable result of an activity. For example, suppose the activity uses AI to research before a sales call. In that case, the outcome is the individual looking credible in front of a Customer and having a meaningful conversation.

To effectively define the outcome, you have to truly understand the needs of a role and be able to reverse engineer the capability of the individual to deliver the outcome.

Behavioral response options:

• I rely on marketing to share industry information and look at the customers’ websites.
• I ask ChatGPT to tell me what is happening in the industry and help identify the customer strategy.
• I know how to use prompt engineering to identify the key risks and opportunities in the industry and align these to the company’s strategy, producing the key discussion points for my call.
• I have built a series of prompts that enable me to analyze the industry and customers. The prompts deliver a suggested agenda for the conversation and list the insights I should share.

We can then link the outcomes to suggested Just in Time Training (JIT) to help the individual deliver the desired outcome.

But is it as simple as that? We have to decide what the desired outcome of development is. Is it to create well-rounded people who use their critical thinking skills to be the most effective in their roles? Or is it to ensure people do precisely what we tell them to do in the way we ask them to do it, hoping that we have covered every eventuality

 In my naivety, I hope people will desire to deliver the former (well-rounded people who use their critical thinking skills). Recognizing that this is hard, they provide the latter, and I hope that on-the-job training and experience will help bridge the gap.

This is when people turn to the 70:20:10 model, which is based on a belief that 70% of learning should be done on the job, 20% is informal learning (also known as coaching), and 10% is formal. So clearly, the 70% should be linked to the JIT training, and we learn as we do. I think some people out there may believe that we no longer need to focus on creating well-rounded people; instead, we should drop them into the job and tell them what they need to do and when they need to do it.

I agree with the concept behind the model, but I think people miss its subtlety.

Let me describe it differently:

First, we must ensure the fundamentals are in place to deliver meaningful behavioral change. Let’s call it addressing Why we need to do things and What that means in terms of activities. For those interested, from a learning strategy perspective, this takes people from Unconsciously Incompetent to Consciously Incompetent and ready to be Consciously Competent.

Then, we must ensure that people know how to achieve outcomes from the activity. This makes someone truly Consciously Competent.

Finally, we must become truly effective in carrying out the activity, giving the desired outcome that delivers the business’s desired results. We are now Unconsciously Competent.

So, I would argue that the model we should follow is:

• 10% – Get the basics right and ensure everyone knows the Why and the What via formal learning.
• 70% – Get the How in place and improve via on-the-job activities through JIT learning.
• 20% – Put coaching in place to make people truly effective.

• 10%: Get your formal learning in place to take people from Unconsciously Competent to Consciously Incompetent.
• 70%: Get your on-the-job training to make people Consciously Competent, continually measuring the outcomes to help drive the focus of the learning.
• 20%: Use coaching to make people truly effective – Unconsciously Competent and deliver your promised ROI.

Addressing the fundamentals of learning is crucial for achieving meaningful behavioral change. It starts with understanding the ‘why’ and ‘what’ of tasks, which lays the groundwork for deeper learning. By establishing a solid foundation, employees can transition from being unconsciously incompetent to consciously competent, eventually becoming experts in their fields. This progression is essential for ensuring that learning translates into tangible improvements in performance and productivity.

Development is not just about following instructions; it’s about fostering critical thinking and adaptability. The desired outcome of any development program should be to create individuals who can think independently and solve problems creatively. While structured guidelines are important, encouraging employees to question and explore ensures they are prepared for unforeseen challenges. This balance between critical thinking and adherence to instructions is essential for cultivating a workforce that is both innovative and reliable.

To achieve the best results, development must focus on nurturing both the ability to follow structured processes and the capacity for independent thought. This dual approach ensures that employees are not only efficient in their current roles but also equipped to handle future challenges with confidence and creativity.

Are you ready to transform your learning and development strategy? Embrace the power of outcome-based learning and see the difference it can make in achieving your organizational goals. By focusing on real-world application and measurable results, you can ensure that your team is not only knowledgeable but also highly effective in their roles. Dive deeper into the 10:70:20 framework and discover how it can revolutionize your approach to training and development. Click the button below to explore more about implementing these strategies and start your journey towards a more competent and confident workforce.