More and more organizations are rushing towards upskilling their employees.
While the intention is good, the expectations are misplaced. It is fair to expect the individuals to gain skills at the end of the campaign, but in many cases, it is unrealistic.
This is where we get it wrong. Generally, any upskilling course has two elements: learning of a new tool/method and learning a mental model/thinking process.
Depending on the subject at hand, the composition of these two elements vary.
For example: a course on ‘Design thinking for problem solution’ may constitute 20% of tools and 80% of mental models or a course on ‘Adobe Creative Suit’ may constitute 70% of tools and 30% of mental models.
The expected outcome of the employee upskilling is rendered unrealistic when we sign the incompatible individuals for an upskilling course. This does not mean that everyone cannot learn everything. What this means is the pace at which some individuals learn is different from others. Also, some individuals respond better to a particular type of combination of tools and mental model courses than others. Signing these incompatible individuals for an incompatible paced and constituted course results in disappointment. Not only for organizations but also for the individuals.
Organizations see little to no effect of the upskilling campaign in the results. Individuals beat themselves up thinking they’re not smart enough to get the most of the opportunity provided by the organizations.
The truth is, both of the entities are incorrect in their judgement.
One way to deal with this situation is to study and understand the individual learning style of the staff. Before recommending them to a particular course, enough homework needs to be done on the content of the course and the compatibility of the course for different individuals.
Of course, all of this requires time, commitment and intention. But then, which impactful work doesn’t requires these ingredients?
The point is to do more of the work that matters, for the people who care.