New Learning Impulses

🎧 Unser zweiter Podcast von der NEW WORK EVOLUTION ist da: Mit Prof. Dr. Anja Schmitz und Jan Foelsing haben Kristina und Julia über New Learning, Lernbegleitung und natürlich - das Thema der Themen - über Künstliche Intelligenz und ihre Rolle in der Lernbegleitung gesprochen. Wo kann KI unterstützen, Prozesse entschlacken und wo gilt es Grenzen zu setzen? 🤝 Achja und wir hatten einen Überraschungsgast. Jan hat Angelika Raab im Publikum entdeckt und spontan auf die Podcastbühne geholt. Danke für deine spontanen Einblicke, Angelika - zur Lernbegleitung bei Datev! Hört rein! 👉 Diese Folge findet ihr wie immer überall, wo es Podcasts gibt: Apple Podcast: https://lnkd.in/ec35M36v Spotify: https://lnkd.in/eyG3yyEr #Podcast #KI #Lernen #Lernbegleitung

I love that this article is called "Reimagined: Development in the Future of Work". This is not a piece about reimagining "training", it's about accelerating and supporting performance. A place L&D squarely needs to focus on in the volatile world we're attempting to support. Do I sound like a broken record yet? 😊 – Our work/design needs to shift to the workflow and supporting learning and performance there! Here are three powerful quotes: - "The boundary between learning and work has disappeared. The goal is no longer to ADD learning into the flow of work - it’s to MERGE work and development. Daily work is now designed as a developmental engine. Instead of asking how to encourage employees to make time to learn, organizations are now asking: How do we make daily challenges catalysts for growth?" - "Organizations are striving to become skills-based—using skills as the foundation of talent processes to build a more agile, adaptive workforce. Achieving this vision requires embedding skills development into the flow of work and breaking down silos between HR, L&D, and other people functions to create a unified, skills-centric approach." - "Learning measurement must move beyond measuring events to becoming full data ecosystems that track what’s being learned, how, and toward what goals." https://lnkd.in/e3QnknH5 | 12 comments on LinkedIn

As someone who’s worked in L&D for +25 years, I’m tired of hearing: “L&D needs to align with business.” Of course it does. But here's why we haven't. Most HR leaders still treat L&D like a perk. But in this economy, it has to be a performance lever. This is what I took from reading a recent article published in HR Executive that makes a strong case for HR embracing a new era of L&D. But here’s the problem: the old era never really ended for many organisations. Despite years of talk about aligning learning with the business, most HR and L&D teams still prioritise: - Courses over capabilities - Content libraries over clear outcomes - Engagement metrics over business impact And now, with AI, skills shortages and constant disruption, we’re finally being told: It’s time to take L&D seriously. So what are we waiting for? If L&D is going to earn its place at the strategy table, we (and our HR leaders) need to stop thinking and acting like we’re a support function and start behaving as a mechanism for business performance. That means: - Defining learning by the problems it solves - Working backwards from performance gaps rather than starting with content or programs - Using data to diagnose and influence, not just report on attendance and completions The opportunity here isn’t just to “embrace a new era”, it’s to lead it. So here’s my challenge to HR and L&D leaders alike: - Are you going to double down on what’s comfortable? - Or are you ready to lead learning like performance depends on it (because it now does)? Thank you Dani Johnson from RedThread Research for your insights in this article. (The link to this HR Executive article is in the comments) | 73 comments on LinkedIn

Global companies are spending billions on Learning & Development but skills gaps are still growing. Here’s what’s going on. According to McKinsey, 87% of companies say they’re facing a skills gap right now and yet L&D budgets are still creeping up, overall. Learning platforms are everywhere. Content is abundant. Something doesn’t add up. Here’s what I think: We’re not solving the skills gap because we’re not actually focused on skills. We’re still focused on learning activity: Hours spent learning. Hits on the LMS. Content consumed. Satisfaction achieved. All under the assumption that more learning = more capability. But that’s not how it works. People don’t build skills by attending programs or consuming content. They build skills by doing the work differently, with clarity, feedback, practice and support. And that only happens when L&D is laser-focused on performance: - What people are expected to do - What’s getting in their way - And what will help them get better at it Until we stop measuring our success by what we deliver and start measuring it by what improves, we’ll keep pouring money into the same hole. The skills gap isn’t a learning problem. It’s a performance problem. If we want to close the skills gap, we need to stop acting like content is the solution and start treating capability as the goal. Because until we make the shift from learning inputs to performance outcomes, we’re not developing skills, we’re just delivering learning. And not only is that not enough, the skills gaps will keep growing. | 78 comments on LinkedIn

Since the launch of the L&D Maturity Model in March, I’ve been able to assess the collective maturity of the profession. Some results are surprising - and troubling. Here's a breakdown and my call to action for L&D leaders: BACKGROUND There are 7 themes in the L&D Maturity Model: - Learning strategy - Leadership alignment - SME collaboration - Learner engagement - Learning needs identification - Training processes - Learning metrics PROBLEM Of these themes, L&D professionals have self-assessed their functions as the LEAST MATURE in: - Learning needs identification - Learner engagement - Learning metrics I'm not sure about you, but I see this as alarming because what this tells me is: 1. We don’t know if we’re working on the right things. 2. Learners don’t often engage. 3. We’re not able to measure our impact. The relationship between each of these is fundamental to the success of our function and yet our maturity is lowest on them. SOLUTION Imagine L&D was its own business for a moment. If that was the case, we would see its critical path as: 1) Align on the biggest challenges Before anything else, we need to ruthlessly align to the biggest challenges facing our organisation and our employees. No more assumptions, we need to validate with data and before we spend any time (let alone money, effort and credibility), we need to ensure our intake process is robust. 2) Quantify the challenges and determine what success looks like Put metrics to the problems at the outset and determine what success we’re aiming for, i.e. bake measurement into the initial planning stage and then measure milestones towards it. If it can’t be quantified, don’t do it! 3) Engage learners like problem-solving partners Help learners understand what's at stake and the role they play in the solution. Share the data with them, understand their lived experience and co-create alongside them and their more experienced peers and colleagues. Anything other than this would be a wild swing, the business would burn money and we’d go out of business. TAKEAWAY L&D maturity isn’t taking what we're already doing and just doing it a little bit better. It's about transforming what we're doing entirely. It’s about connecting with both the reason L&D should exist in the organisation and the possibilities that a mature and functioning department can bring. We cannot stop at building an L&D storefront of generic 'solutions'. L&D maturity starts with believing in more, creating a vision of a business aligned function, articulating the benefits and engaging all stakeholders. This versus a shop front approach to L&D is a no-brainer. Often it’s our abilities to articulate the vision and sell it to stakeholders (including our own teams) that’s holding us back. More on that topic in the future.... | 65 comments on LinkedIn

𝗙𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 – 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗿*𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗻? 𝘋𝘪𝘦 𝘝𝘰𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘯 𝘷𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳 ›𝘞𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘨‹ 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘦 𝘒ö𝘱𝘧𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘔𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘳𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘢𝘳 𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘳 ›𝘞𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦- 𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘒𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘻𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘨‹ 𝘪𝘯 𝘚𝘦𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘸𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘤𝘩. 𝘎𝘭𝘦𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘻𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘨 𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘢𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘳, 𝘥𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦s 𝘓𝘦𝘩𝘳𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘮 𝘋𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘨 𝘮𝘪𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘒𝘐 𝘪𝘮 𝘈𝘳𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘴𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘻𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘦𝘳𝘩𝘦𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘦𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘻𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘐𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘹𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘥𝘢𝘴𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘦 𝘓𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘪𝘦 𝘝𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘶𝘯𝘨 𝘧ü𝘳 𝘪𝘩𝘳 𝘦𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘦𝘴 𝘓𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘣𝘴𝘵 ü𝘣𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘩𝘮𝘦𝘯. Dabei dürfen die Mitarbeitenden nicht allein gelassen werden. Sie benötigen die Flankierung von Lernbegleitenden. 𝗟𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗹𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲 𝗲𝗿𝗺ö𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘇𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗲 d𝗲𝗿 𝗟𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻 𝗶𝗺 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘇𝗲𝘀𝘀– 𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘁, 𝗸𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗯𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃 𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗞𝗜-𝘂𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝘂𝘁𝘇𝘁. In professionell begleiteten Lernprozessen steht die Entwicklung der Selbstorganisationsfähigkeit im Vordergrund. Daraus ergibt sich folgendes 𝗔𝘂𝗳𝗴𝗮𝗯𝗲𝗻𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗳𝗶𝗹: 𝟭. 𝗦𝗲𝗹𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗿𝗴𝗮𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗟𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗲𝗻 𝗲𝗿𝗺ö𝗴𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗻 Gemeinsam mit Learning & Development wird laufend der Ermöglichungsrahmen für selbstorganisiertes Lernen – Learning Experience Platform – weiterentwickelt. 𝟮. 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗸𝗹ä𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗴 Gemeinsam werden regelmäßig die aktuellen Herausforderungen reflektiert, die beruflichen Ziele geklärt und evtl. die Skills-Diagnostik eingeführt. 𝟯. 𝗞𝗜-𝗯𝗮𝘀𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀-𝗗𝗶𝗮𝗴𝗻𝗼𝘀𝘁𝗶𝗸 Die Lernenden diagnostizieren ihre Skills eigenverantwortlich und planen ihr Lernen selbstorganisiert. Die Lernbegleitenden unterstützen bei Bedarf dabei, die Lernpfade zu strukturieren, Prioritäten zu setzen und eigenständig Entscheidungen zum Lernprozess zu treffen. 𝟰. 𝗟𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗹𝗲𝗶𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝗮𝘂𝗳 𝗔𝘂𝗴𝗲𝗻𝗵ö𝗵𝗲 Die Lernbegleitenden fördern die Selbstorganisation, geben konstruktives Feedback sowie Impulse und bieten Reflexionsräume. 𝟱. 𝗡𝗲𝘁𝘇𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗸𝗲 𝗮𝘂𝗳𝗯𝗮𝘂𝗲𝗻 𝘂𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗳𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗲𝗻 Lernbegleitende unterstützen beim Aufbau von Lerngemeinschaften. 𝗔𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗻 𝗮𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗯𝗲𝗴𝗹𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲 Neben fachlich-methodischer und konzeptioneller Expertise benötigen Lernbegleitende die Kompetenz zum werteorientierten, fördernden und impulsgebenden Handeln mit hoher Expertise. Deshalb ist der gezielte, praxisbezogene Skillsaufbau der heutigen Trainer*innen für Future Learning erforderlich. 𝗦𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗦𝗶𝗲 𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝘂𝗻𝘀 ü𝗯𝗲𝗿 𝗱𝗶𝗲 𝗞𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘄𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘂𝗻𝗴 𝘇𝘂𝗺/𝗿 𝗭𝗲𝗿𝘁. 𝗦𝗸𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘀𝗺𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿*𝗶𝗻

Groß Lindow, Juli 2025 - Der Bildungs-Stakeholder "Betriebsrat" nimmt eine zentrale Rolle ein, wenn es um Compliance im Unternehmen geht. Der Betriebsrat verfügt nämlich über ein gesetzlich verankertes Mitbestimmungsrecht bei allen Maßnahmen, die compliance-relevante Aspekte betreffen – etwa Regelungen zum Datenschutz oder zur Leistungs- und Verhaltenskontrolle. Und da mittlerweile nahezu jedes IT-System, jedes Tool oder jede Anwendung – insbesondere solche mit KI-Funktionalitäten – personenbezogene Daten erhebt und verwendet, ist es nachvollziehbar, dass der Betriebsrat in diesen Zeiten stark gefordert ist. » MEHR

If I could wave a magic wand over Learning & Development, I’d remove one thing. One thing that would immediately improve everything from our impact to our efficiency. That one thing would be: Everybody’s expectations of what L&D is supposed to do. And I mean everybody… Senior leaders Line managers The workforce HR And yes, even us in L&D Because the biggest barrier to impactful Learning & Development isn’t budget, bandwidth or buy-in… It’s the baggage. We’re carrying around decades of assumptions about what L&D should look like that have very little to do with actually improving performance or closing skills gaps. If we could hit reset and define our role from scratch we’d operate very differently. We’d prioritise: - Support over solutions - Performance over participation - Outcomes over optics But we don’t, because everyone thinks they know what L&D should be. And that’s what’s holding us back. So here’s the real challenge: Can we slowly but surely rewrite the narrative starting with how we talk about both: what we do and the value we bring? Thoughts? | 30 comments on LinkedIn

The social signals behind employee retention "Research has long shown that employees at the center of an organizational network—those with many active connections—are 24 percent less likely to leave." 🤔 Michael Arena and Aaron Chasan highlight an important insight: employee connection, not just engagement, is the true bedrock of retention: 👉 “In today’s networked workplace, social withdrawal is often the first—and most reliable—indicator that someone’s already halfway out the door.” For HR to genuinely impact business performance and employee experience, we must leverage social signals to build robust internal networks. Michael and Aaron outline four high-impact ways HR can proactively employee connection and significantly reduce attrition: 🔎 Utilise network analysis: Identify early flight risks by spotting employees with few or declining connections. 🔎 Facilitate connection moments: Deliberately create opportunities for interaction, especially in hybrid settings, using tools like interest-based matching. 🔎 Support relationship-rich teams: Encourage cross-functional initiatives and invest in psychologically safe team cultures. 🔎 Routinely pulse central employees: Their engagement profoundly influences the entire network. "In today’s networked workplace, social withdrawal is often the first—and most reliable—indicator that someone’s already halfway out the door." 👉 This report is featured in the June edition of the Data Driven HR Monthly, which you can access here: https://lnkd.in/exEqY-Hn 👈 #humanresources #organizationalnetworkanalysis #peopleanalytics #leadership #culture #socialcapital | 18 comments on LinkedIn

Upskilling in the AI era is fundamental for every company regardless of size and is often viewed as a necessary business investment. Additionally, many companies connect workforce upskilling to business functions (operations, manufacturing, legal, etc.

EY just broke the biggest lie in corporate learning. They trained 44,000 employees internally. Then launched an AI Academy using 200 real-world use cases. The result? 50+ actual AI projects launched across five enterprises. Plus leadership-driven AI manifestos. That's the story I shared recently. It got more reactions and shares than anything I've posted. The support: ↳ Those who liked and shared it ↳ "We're already doing this approach" ↳ "This is exactly what we want to implement" But what I liked the most is how the experts responded. The pushback: ↳ "50 projects means nothing without context" ↳ "What about the projects that failed?" ↳ "Where's your control group?" ↳ "This sounds like survivor bias" ↳ "Did you measure actual skill transfer?" ↳ "Will this work for topics other than AI?" ↳ "Correlation isn't causation" Fair points. All of them. But here's what I'm doubling down on: We're measuring the wrong damn things. L&D isn't in the learning business. We're in the building business. L&D's focus should be simple: ↳ What solutions can our people build? Our measurement strategy should be reimagined around that core ability. Not: ↳ Did they complete the course? ↳ Did they pass the quiz? ↳ Did they like the content? While we debate attribution methodology: ↳ 97% of enterprises still cite talent gaps ↳ $366B spent annually on corporate training ↳ Minimal business impact to show for it The uncomfortable truth? Perfect measurement of learning consumption ≠ Performance change EY's numbers might be messy. ↳ Their attribution might be flawed. ↳ Their methodology might be incomplete. But they're asking the right question: "What did people actually build?" The experts want rigor. I want it too. But let's get rigorous about what matters: ↳ Solutions created ↳ Problems solved ↳ Value delivered I'm building a coalition of L&D leaders ready to abandon traditional metrics. If you're already measuring "what people build" - I want to hear your story. If you're ready to start - let's connect and figure this out together. Who's in? [Check out my original post and the expert responses - link in comments] #WorkplaceLearning #LearningAndDevelopment #PerformanceSupport #ReimagineLND 🔁 Resonates? Share it—let's reimagine L&D together! ➕ Follow me, Santhosh Kumar, for unconventional insights that challenge how we lead and learn.

📊 Welchen Reifegrad hat eure L&D-Arbeit? Wo steht ihr und wie könnt ihr euch gezielt weiterentwickeln? 💡In diesem Video stelle ich euch das L&D-Reifegradmo...

L&Ds aren't very happy with their LMS platforms, that's for sure 🥲 We recently launched our first tools report, and below 👇🏻 you can find 7 insights around LMSs & LXPs. Want to read more? － Download the free report 👉 https://lnkd.in/dBZzW6TZ － Join the Offbeat Fellowship to explore all our insights 👉 https://lnkd.in/dx3REqBh Hope you'll find this useful! 💜 #learninganddevelopment #learningmanagementsystem #learningexperienceplatform #learningtools

We’re at a turning point. AI can generate faster, broader, cheaper content than ever. So the real differentiator isn’t knowledge, it’s experience design that actually influences behaviour and builds people's capability. And that’s tough. Because designing for experience means starting with the challenges people face, not topics or content. It means accepting that 'learning' doesn’t always feel good, in fact, it’s often the sting of experience that actually drives change. It’s layered too. Like an onion. The micro layer: our senses and emotions The meso layer: the interactions and activities we’re part of The macro layer: the strategic shifts in thinking and behaviour Some of the best experiences are completely invisible. Others stop us in our tracks and change us forever. But they’re rarely a one-off event. The most powerful ones are embedded in how we work, not added on after the fact. So let’s stop trying to make learning cute or entertaining (ie the Disneyfication effect). Let’s stop pretending every experience needs to feel good. Be honest. Build what’s real. And what actually makes a difference. Because if AI owns the content, then we’ve got to own the context. This means suba diving (see previous post..it will make sense, i promise), not snorkelling. If you’re interested in learning design that genuinely supports performance and growth, feel free to get in touch. As many know, I love talking about it.

An eagerness to learn is essential for innovation. But the way we learn—and the order in which we partake in various learning activities—can make the difference between effective growth and potential missed opportunities. Jean-François Harvey, Johnathan Cromwell, Kevin J. Johnson, and I studied more than 160 innovation teams and found that the key to faster, clearer progress is: Structured learning 👷🏗️ Our research, published in the Administrative Science Quarterly Journal, highlights four distinct types of learning behaviors used by high-performing teams and examines variations in the sequence and blend of these types of team learning. Without a deliberate rhythm, teams risk becoming overwhelmed by continual information intake, leading to confusion and burnout. But by honing a team's ideal 'learning rhythm,' you can avoid overwhelm and instead focus on strategic decision-making and sustainable innovation. Read our research summary now in the Harvard Business Review: https://lnkd.in/e5nU-Kka | 90 comments on LinkedIn

The Learning Journey That Led to Nowhere The carefully curated “learning journey.” Polished decks. Inspiring speakers. Branded workbooks. The kickoff, the modules, the reflection points, the wrap-up. The capstone . It all looked beautiful. But no one changed. No one led differently. No one made a better decision, helped somebody else, solved a harder problem, or grew in any measurable way. They left as they came—only now with a certificate and a champagne toast. And we called it success. Why? Because the survey said they liked it. Because someone said it “landed well.” Because it fit the budget, the time box, and the LMS tracked completion. But deep down, we know better. We know that most learning programs don’t stick. They don’t demand enough. They don’t disturb the old habits. They don’t connect to the real pressures people actually face at work and in life. We’ve made learning comfortable when it’s supposed to be disruptive and difficult. We’ve made it a journey—when it should’ve been an expedition. As practitioners, we carry some of the blame. We built what would be approved, not what was required. We chased polish over power. And we told ourselves that “awareness” was enough. Because if they leave the same way they arrived—was it a journey at all. Or was it a scenic loop.? | 65 comments on LinkedIn

For a long time I felt that if we wanted to answer questions such as ‘how do we design learning experiences?’, ‘how do we measure learning?’, ‘what is our pedagogy based on?’ - or even just explain to stakeholders what it is that we do - then it would help to have an understanding of learning. Thanks again to Ben Gallacher and the #Inrehearsal team for creating this series. #learning #pedagogy #learningdesign #education #training

'You can’t accomplish anything if your stakeholders aren’t on board.' After delivering hundreds of Human Centred Design (5Di©) workshops, ‘Stakeholders’ is one of the topics that comes up time & time again: L&D want to do one thing, the business another. What’s required is a consultative approach rather than an adversarial one - partnering not pushback. In response, I added new resources into the latest version version of the 5Di© toolkit released a few months back (https://lnkd.in/eacUSAbc) - here are a couple of them: #learning #education #consulting #learninganddevelopment #HR #stakeholders | 11 comments on LinkedIn

𝗙𝘂𝘁𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴: 𝗪𝗮𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝗮𝘂𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘄𝗶𝗰𝗸𝗹𝘂𝗻𝗴? In der aktuellen Wirtschaftswoche (1) plädieren Julian Kirchherr und Cawa Younosi für „NO HR“, d. h. die Abschaffung des gesamten Personalbereiches mithilfe Generativer KI und die Rückverlagerung von HR-Aufgaben ins Management. Alles, was besonders viel Fingerspitzengefühl verlangt, insbesondere die Entwicklung ihrer Mitarbeitenden, gehört danach in die Verantwortung der Führungskräfte. Routinetätigkeiten wie das Erstellen von Arbeitsverträgen, Schulungszertifikaten oder die erste Sichtung von Bewerbungen übernimmt die Maschine. Ihre Hauptargumente sind:  • Die Führungskräfte sollen Personalaufgaben direkt verantworten, um eine engere Verknüpfung der strategischen Unternehmensziele mit dem Personalmanagement zu erreichen.   • Traditionelle HR-Abteilungen sollten in ihren Strukturen überdacht oder sogar abgeschafft werden, um mehr Agilität zu ermöglichen. Nicht nur administrative Aufgaben wie Arbeitsverträge, werden automatisiert, auch Arbeitszeugnisse oder Umfragen werden mit Hilfe der KI bearbeitet. Was auf den ersten Blick sehr radikal wirkt, beinhaltet aus meiner Sicht diskussionswürdige Aspekte. Mit diesem Vorschlag rücken viele Aufgaben wieder dorthin, wo sie eigentlich schon immer hingehörten, zur Führungskraft. Zu ihrer Verantwortung rechnen danach Onboarding, Nachfolgeplanung oder die gezielte Skillsentwicklung im Team sowie Fragen von Kultur und Transformation. Sie entwickeln sich zu „𝗣𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗠𝗮𝗻𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗿*𝗶𝗻𝗻𝗲𝗻“. Ich bin der Überzeugung, dass weiterhin eine HR-Funktion benötigt wird, aber mit relativ wenigen, hoch spezialisierten Expert*innen, z. B. für die mittelfristige Personalbedarfsplanung und insbesondere für 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 & 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Im Future Learning stehen nämlich die Mitarbeitenden im Mittelpunkt, die mit Unterstützung der KI selbst ihre Lernpfade planen und im Arbeitsprozess umsetzen. Ihre Führungskräfte werden deshalb zu ihren Entwicklungspartner*innen, die ihre personalisierten Lernpfade ermöglichen. Die Personalentwicklung wandelt sich folglich zum 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗻 𝗟𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗿𝗰𝗵𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗸𝘁𝗲𝗻, zu 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 & 𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. Diese baut und optimiert laufend das "Lernhaus" als Ermöglichungsraum für selbstorganisiertes Lernen im Dialog mit der generativen KI , begleitet Lernprojekte sowie die notwendigen Veränderungsprozesse und evaluiert den Lernerfolg. 𝗟&𝗗 𝘄𝗶𝗿𝗱 𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗶𝘁 𝘇𝘂𝗿 𝘇𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗹𝗲𝗻 𝗨𝗺𝘀𝗲𝘁𝘇𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Daraus ergibt sich folgende Rollenverteilung im Future Learning. (1) https://lnkd.in/eiupSJae

Nichts vergessen und alles schnell finden: Seit einigen Monaten nutze ich ein einfaches System, um wichtige Daten und Informationen aus meinem Leben besser zu speichern und zu organisieren. So funktioniert es.

Sie möchten Ihre L&D-Karriere vorantreiben? Diese Auswahl an Fachressourcen bringt Sie auf den richtigen Weg.

„Nicht wer du bist, sondern was du kannst, entscheidet über deine Rolle.“ – Ein Paradigmenwechsel, der gerade dabei ist, unsere Arbeitswelt auf den Kopf zu s...

But Google is not representative of most companies. Not even of tech companies. They can (and should!) be AI-first in every respect—yesterday. Virtually all other companies will take a slower approach, maintaining their learning content and systems, for now. So don’t think you need to drop everything immediately. Instead, work out what a more measured approach looks like for your organisation. Think about how you’re preparing your data, metadata, internal and external content—and your people—for this not-so-distant future when agents are doing more and more of the work, multiplying productivity. Help your company lead the way—don’t await instructions! That said, I think most three-year horizons will include the other big pull quote from this piece: Google will “focus on teaching employees how to use modern artificial intelligence tools in their daily work routines.” That, I believe, is where the most worthy—and therefore sustainable—L&D efforts lie: not in creating courses and force-feeding them to people, but in enabling people to work better with AI. ♻️ Please REPOST if people you’re connected to may like this. ➕ Follow Marc Zao-Sanders for more of this kind of thing. #AI #learning #filtered.com #acelo.ai https://lnkd.in/ehA2pB_R ps: I'm working fractionally for both acelo.ai (sales x AI) and filtered.com (learning content x AI). If you're interested in talking about either, DM me)

An Introduction to Training from the Back of the Room (TBR) where we use brain-based accelerated learning to create engaging fun learning experiences.Trainin...

404: Bildung not found - Wie Lernen wieder berühren kannSchule soll aufs Leben vorbereiten. Einige fordern mehr Wissen über Steuern und Finanzen, KI liefert ...

B𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘴 𝘓𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘷𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘶𝘴: • 𝘞𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴- 𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘘𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘬𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘻𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘧𝘶𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦 𝘨𝘭𝘦𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘯 𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘮 𝘊𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘶𝘮 𝘷𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘦𝘨𝘦𝘣𝘦𝘯.  • 𝘋𝘪𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘡𝘪𝘦𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘥𝘰𝘳𝘨𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘓𝘦𝘩𝘳𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 „𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘵“.  • 𝘋𝘪𝘦 𝘈𝘶𝘧𝘣𝘢𝘶 𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘏𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘭𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘴𝘧𝘢𝘩𝘪𝘨𝘬𝘦𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘗𝘳𝘢𝘹𝘪𝘴 (𝘒𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘻𝘦𝘯) 𝘸𝘪𝘳𝘥 𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘛𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘶𝘧𝘨𝘢𝘣𝘦𝘯 𝘨𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘵. Wir erleben aktuell, verstärkt durch die Künstliche Intelligenz, einen Paradigmenwechsel, der diese betriebliche Didaktik auf den Kopf stellt:  • Formelle Bildungsangebote auf Basis von Curricula werden nach und nach durch „𝗙𝗹𝗶𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗱 𝗖𝘂𝗿𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘂𝗹𝗮“ (vgl. Sabine Seufert 2024) ersetzt. Danach bilden Werte und Kompetenzen – Soft Skills – die Ziele des Corporate Learning. Wissen und Qualifikation sind natürlich weiterhin notwendig, sind aber nicht mehr das Ziel des Lernens, sondern die notwendige Voraussetzung. Dies bedeutet, dass das erforderliche Wissen beispielsweise auch kuratiert durch die KI zur Verfügung gestellt werden kann.  • Der wichtigste Lernort wird der 𝗔𝗿𝗯𝗲𝗶𝘁𝘀𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘇𝗲𝘀𝘀, weil Werte und Kompetenzen nur selbstorganisiert bei der Bewältigung von realen Herausforderungen aufgebaut werden können. Daraus ergibt sich folgender Planungsrythmus. 1. Am Anfang steht die Frage, in welcher 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝘅𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗴 die angestrebten Soft-Skills aufgebaut werden können. In Abstimmung mit ihren Führungskräften vereinbaren die Mitarbeitenden auf Basis ihrer Skills Diagnostik personalisierte Lernpfade im Arbeitsprozess.   2. Im zweiten Schritt ist zu klären, welche 𝗙𝗹𝗮𝗻𝗸𝗶𝗲𝗿𝘂𝗻𝗴 die selbstorganisierten Lernprozesse der Mitarbeitenden benötigen. Dabei spielt das soziale Lernen eine zentrale Rolle. Begleitet werden diese Prozesse durch die Beratung und Begleitung durch Lernbegleitende und Expert*innen.  3. Erst im dritten Schritt werden diese Lernmaßnahmen bei Bedarf durch 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴𝘀 ergänzt. Beispielsweise bieten sich Methodentrainings, z. B. zu SCRUM, an, wenn die ausgewählten Praxisaufgaben nach agilen Prinzipien erfolgen sollen.   4. In unterstützenden 𝗪𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗱𝘂𝗻𝗴𝘀𝗺𝗮ß𝗻𝗮𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻 können Basiswissen und Grundqualifikationen aufgebaut oder Anstöße für die selbstorganisierten Lernprozess gegeben werden. Lernen erfolgt von Anfang an in der Praxis, indem Arbeiten und Lernen zusammenwachsen. Damit erübrigen sich Konzepte zur Förderung des Lerntransfers weitgehend. Die Verantwortung für das Lernen wandert damit zu den Mitarbeitenden, die dabei von der Personalentwicklung und Ihrer Führungskraft unterstützt werden.

-- Task criticality and risk are central considerations in performance support design. When there's high consequence for error (safety risks, costly damage, or life-or-death stakes) the skill guide design needs to be highly intentional, context-aware, and tightly integrated into the environment of use. -- A skill guide is great in high-risk situations (we were in an airline context). In a low-stakes context a pre-flight checklist is great for trained pilots. It supports memory recall for the essential steps in a high-risk task. -- In a context such as de-icing a plane, a diagram-based skill guide is great to illustrate the basic controls of the machine. This helps build mental models. -- In flight simulation training, skill guides can walk a novice through tasks like starting the engine, adjusting trim, or responding to a warning light. These guides scaffold learning and reduce cognitive load in a controlled environment. -- Of course, skill guides can't always replace training. Real-time control of a plane requires deeply embodied skill: fine motor control, situational awareness, and rapid decision-making. You can't guide someone through that just in time with a single page or even a tablet-based tool. -- In life-critical systems, there’s a threshold beyond which skill guides must give way to rigorous training, simulation, and certification. Performance support becomes a supplement, not a substitute in these contexts. Bob and Con have had immeasurable impact on my career and perspective when it comes to human performance. I even asked Bob to write the foreword of my most recent book. Their 5 Moments of Need framework enables direct alignment to real-time needs of workers. The moments of need are: 1. New (When learning something for the first time) 2. More (When there's a need to deepen or expand knowledge or skills) 3. Apply (When performing a task or applying knowledge in real situations) 4. Solve (When encountering a problem or unexpected challenge) 5. Change (When adapting to change such as a new process, tool, or an organizational shift) When learning is designed against these moments of need, job performance not only becomes more effective, but the worker gets more done quicker and with minimal disruption and frustration. By addressing these moments effectively, you can optimize learning outcomes and drive tangible results.