Below is my initial understanding of the design challenge I’ve chosen to undertake for course LRNT527:
Design Challenge
Overview
A large Canadian tax software company on boards about 7500 temporary employees every year in preparation for tax season. These employees need to complete the company’s mandatory learning and development program as part of their onboarding process.
During onboarding, information needs to flow from PeopleSoft (the company’s HR payroll system) to Cornerstone On Demand (its LMS). Because the company implemented its LMS before its HR system, there are a number of challenges with getting the two systems to “talk” to one another. Both implementations were somewhat rushed, so capabilities the systems and the impact to end users were not fully considered.
Design Rationale
Even something as simple as setting up a user ID for new employees to log into the LMS and complete required training is a painful process. The company would like to create a more “integrated and seamless experience” for employees who need to use Cornerstone.
Problem Scenario
How might a digital learning resource improve the onboarding experience for employees who need to use Cornerstone?
Success Determinants
Success will be determined by the degree to which the design solution alleviates the “pain and suffering” that employees who log on to Cornerstone for the first time are currently experiencing. A good design solution will explore and leverage unused capabilities of the LMS and HR systems.
Parameters
The design solution will be constrained by timing (two weeks for a needs assessment and three weeks for prototype development), budget ($0), technology (LMS and HR systems), and resources (no more than one hour per resource, no more than three resources).
Empathy Methods
To address this design challenge, I chose to undertake a number of different empathy methods.
Individual Phone Interview
I began by conducting a phone interview with the Associate VP of People & Culture at the company to develop my initial understanding of the design challenge (outlined above). Together, we identified additional individuals who it would make sense for me to meet with.
Group In-Person Interview
I then met in-person with both the AVP and a Business Solutions Specialist who works closely with Cornerstone. Interviewing the Business Solutions Specialist allowed me to refine my design challenge further, focusing specifically on how we might resolve issues with duplicate records being created.
Journey Map
Based on this conversation, I roughly sketched out a journey map (below) to pinpoint where different technologies and issues were occurring and which people or roles were involved at each step.
Video Conference/Observation
Using this journey map, I met with the Team Lead of Learning Coordination and Administration using Skype for Business. During the call, I received a demonstration of how learners initially log in to Cornerstone and how they are able to modify their data once their account has been created.
Collectively, these methods allowed me to gain much deeper insight as to the issues the company, instructors, and end users experience when trying to get learners to access Cornerstone for the first time.
Challenges
One challenge I encountered while using these empathy methods was that each subject matter expert had a limited view of the issue, so I need to speak to multiple people to piece together the full scope of the problem. Given the ethical constraints of this course, which limited my involvement to speaking with three people, and for no more than an hour each, I was not able to interview an HR/payroll representative, an instructor, anyone from the technology department, or any new or returning end users.
Another challenge I encountered was a level of resistance from one subject matter expert, who did not want me to explore specific lines of questioning, and defensiveness from another subject matter expert who felt the need to justify previous business decisions. Neither were open to the possibility that other solutions may be available than those implemented in the past, though the AVP mentioned how useful it was to have a fresh set of eyes on the problem.
As part of feedback I received on my academic paper outline, Dr. Irwin DeVries encouraged me to give myself “some room to explore a little more freely” (personal communication, May 2018). I am going to apply his feedback to my blog and do a bit of uncensored freewriting for this post.
Where to start? I feel like I am behind in this course because I have been overwhelmed working on three instructional design projects for my clients simultaneously. But I am obviously learning something from LRNT526 because I just finished creating a full-day training course that applied the concept of critical inquiry, which is what this course is about.
While creating a training course, I realized having learners create their own learning materials (job aides, checklists, etc.) is not only aligned with constructivism, self-directed learning, and critical inquiry but also is extremely convenient in a time crunch. (I had just five days to create the course from start to finish.)
Preparing a learning plan and outline as part of a larger deliverable for LRNT526 has shown me the practical value of taking time to reflect before moving forward. I have been introduced to critical reflection in other courses, but this is the first time I have had the chance to practice it mindfully in real-life. I spent all day Monday reviewing content inputs and my previous MALAT readings to decide on the instructional design approach I would take, and I am so happy with the results. I hope my clients will be too when I present the course for their sign off tomorrow.
So, what does the training course I created have to do with curated video libraries and digital learning modalities? Absolutely nothing. The course I created will be delivered entirely face-to-face, and given the short turnaround, creating educational videos and getting sign-offs was not possible. That said, what I learned about learner engagement as part of my research into educational video has proven valuable, both professionally and academically.
I struggled initially to settle on a grounding learning theory for my academic paper, so I ended up going down a bit of a rabbit hole and spent a few (very enjoyable) hours reading a variety of articles about learning theories that support learner engagement.
The articles were not documented in my learning plan, and not all of them will make it into my final paper, but out of genuine curiosity, I found myself digging into the connection between learner engagement and interaction, the interaction equivalency theorem, situated learning, transactional distance, self-directed learning, and learner control.
One quote in particular stood out to me: “effective learning environments are framed within the convergence of four overlapping lenses” (p.47, Anderson, 2006). Those lenses are community-centred, knowledge-centred, learner-centred, and assessment-centred (Anderson, 2006). I realized in my exploration of educational videos as a learning modality, and my focus on learner engagement in particular, I was taking a very learner-centred approach.
In my readings, I also returned to the debate between Kozma (1994) and Clark (1994). They debated whether the medium itself influences learning or whether the choice of how to use media (aka instructional design decisions) influence learning. I do not think the debate was ever fully resolved, as both authors made valid points, but as I conclude this post, I cannot help but notice my discussion of educational video as a learning modality spent less time reflecting on the medium and more time on its supporting theories.
My freewriting has come to an end. My apologies for the long post, but as Blaise Pascal has been attributed as saying, “I have made this longer than usual because I have not had time to make it shorter” (translation by Quote Investigator, 2o12).
References
Anderson, T. A. U. (2006). Towards a Theory of Online Learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Online Learning (2nd ed., Vol. 2006, pp. 195–215). Edmonton: Athabasca University.
Kozma, R. B. (1994). Will Media Influence Learning? Reframing the Debate. Educational Technology Research and Development, 42(2), 7–19.
Clark, R. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Education Technology Research and Development, 37, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299046
QuoteInvestigator (2012). If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter. Retrieved from https://quoteinvestigator.com/2012/04/28/shorter-letter/
In exploring educational video, I am curious how using video for educational purposes might affect engagement of adult learners. To narrow my scope, I have chosen to focus on one specific aspect of educational video and learning engagement:
How might video length and other time-based instructional design approaches affect adult learner engagement with asynchronous educational videos in a corporate digital learning environment?
I recently finished reading a top 10 New York Times nonfiction bestseller, “When: The Scientific Secrets of Perfect Timing” by Daniel Pink (2018), which influenced my decision to focus on engagement factors related to when rather than what. My question was further informed by my experience with educational videos to date, as both a learner and an instructional designer. Below is a brief critical reflection on these experiences, following the ORID (objective, reflective, interpretive, decisional) critical reflection model (Write Online, 2015).
As a learner, I have mostly watched educational videos by searching how to complete tasks on Youtube, arguably the most well-known video-sharing site in Canada. Search results are variable in quality but ultimately provide me with the information I am looking for when I need it. As a learner, I am occasionally frustrated by the lack of relevant search results and the amount of time spent searching for the right piece of information. However, I am usually gratified once I find the video I am looking for, which makes the effort worthwhile. I have learned to overlook long-winded introductions and to skip through content to locate and absorb the information I need. While Youtube is a great place to find a wealth of information, I would love to discover more curated video library sites that serve a similar purpose but are more personalized to my interests.
As an instructional designer, I have created educational videos using screencast technology to demonstrate software tasks for adult learners in a corporate environment. These videos are typically played during instructor-led sessions and are sometimes accessible to learners following the session. I feel a constant tension between producing quality videos that contribute to learner satisfaction and producing “good enough” videos that lead to desired learning outcomes but perhaps not the highest learner satisfaction. Over time, I have learned shortcuts that allow me to maximize resources; these shortcuts have improved the videos I produce while also requiring less effort. Now that I am proficient in creating screencasts, I need to make sure I do not become complacent. Technology continues to evolve, and I need to make a point of evolving with it or risk having my technical skills become outdated.
Screenshot, Ted-Ed curated video series. Retrieved from https://ed.ted.com/series/?series=animation-basics.
Our team (Adam, Amber, Katie, and Stu) has selected the curated video library as a modality to explore, and we’ve chosen a series of Ted-Ed videos on animation for our instance. Our group had limited experience with Ted-Ed, so it represents a free, easily accessed resource that we can all participate in without preconceived judgments in place. Each member of our team works in the private sector and is interested in the implications related to video-based learning within our various profit-centric industries. We chose an animation series as it will allow us to evaluate our modality through the lens of a new or novice learner to a certain topic.
Background reading
With a diverse selection of video-based learnings to choose from, learners from all over the world are motivated to use video-based learning in their everyday lives. Learner engagement with video is simple, and the content is accessible and relevant to anything from daily tasks to academic challenges (Maniar, Bennett, Hand, & Allan, 2008).
From changing a spare tire at home through the use of YouTube, to gaining skills that can be certified by vendors such as Coursera, the world is quickly building micro-learning resources in the form of videos.
A quick glance through academic literature and additional web sources demonstrated that a significant amount of research has been done on this subject. From previous courses, we know studies have been conducted since the first deployment of video-based learning through government-sponsored educational television broadcasts (Reiser, 2001). Since then, each new advancement in technology has helped learners and creators evolve the way we learn with this technology. The opportunity to explore this research and begin to synthesize and develop answers to our own questions is both appealing and educational.
Here are a couple of resources we have found that may prove useful in our exploration:
Our curiosity in this field is high. While we have more exploration to do before we can decide what specific questions we plan to answer, some of the topics we may investigate include:
Understanding the true value proposition of video-based learning and asking “why is this a better modality than others?”
Understanding the cognitive-load implications of the multi-screened environment we occupy
Uncovering the barriers that may or may not exist as a result of screen sizes
Exploring the design theory behind the production of a video
At what point quality distracts or detracts from the learning experience.
What drives the validity and benefits, as well as the challenges of video-based learning.
Exploring the effect of closed captioning and voice-over narration on cognitive load.
Uncovering the differences in retention when differing modal combinations are used.
References
Maniar, N., Bennett, E., Hand, S., & Allan, G. (2008). The effect of mobile phone screen size on video based learning. JSW, 3(4), 51-61.
Reiser, R. A. (2001). A history of instructional design and technology: Part I: A history of instructional media. Educational Technology Research and Development, 49(1), 53. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504506
This course has broadened my understanding of change management theories and methodologies. Having used PROSCI’s methodology almost exclusively over the last 10 years, it was refreshing to examine change management in a new light. The course also reminded me of the importance of project management. While I have always tracked my time, budget, and deliverables carefully for client projects, the readings in the course provided a good reminder to keep key stakeholders involved and aware of my progress.
As an independent consultant, I am rarely in the position to lead change within organizations in a formal capacity. Rather, my form of leadership comes in the form of recommendations to my clients, based on theory, experience, and best practice. Using influence and interpersonal skills has been the most effective way for me to encourage change.
Having been involved in multiple large-scale, complex organizational transformations in the past, I have no desire to go through that process again. Change is tough at the best of times, and though I am more than capable of fulfilling change management roles, I much prefer to limit my scope to change within the realm of digital learning, which is easier to manage.
Overall, my perspective on leading change for digital learning environments has not changed significantly. I have a deeper appreciation for the theories that underpin change management and project management, and the course provided good reinforcement for work I am already doing as part of my daily responsibilities.
A recent project I was involved with was the implementation of new procurement processes and related technologies for supply chain management (SCM) in a large oil and gas company.
The goals of the project were communicated in a 12-minute video sent to the entire SCM department as well as other affected groups in the organization. The main benefits of the project were organizational (profitability, productivity), but there was little obvious benefit to employees.
Key stakeholders included the vice president (VP) of SCM, subject matter experts (SMEs), contract administrators, and contract bidders.
The project’s success was limited. SMEs fundamentally disagreed with their VP’s idealistic view of how procurement activities should be done versus the reality of how activities were actually completed. Though training (elearning modules) developed for the project was well-received by end users, the outcome of the project could have been improved by resolving misalignment between key stakeholders.
A training plan was developed for the project, which included standard project management components: tasks, assigned to, estimated effort, deadlines, milestones, etc. If a more robust project plan was developed, I did not have access to it.
I highly doubt any specific method for planning was used given the artificial deadlines and the frequently shifting timelines. Training development took twice as long as originally anticipated and had cost overruns in the tens of thousands of dollars. These time and cost impacts were a direct result of misalignment between key stakeholders.
Had more time and effort been allocated up front for leaders and SMEs to reach alignment on the desired outcomes of the project, less time and money would have been required to develop training. Unfortunately, stakeholder engagement was outside my scope for this specific project. Having a dedicated project manager to oversee the project may have also helped keep timelines on track.
My project management approach
As a business owner (albeit, for a company of one), I regularly rely on project management skills to manage my work. In fact, all of my billable client work is project-based. The nature of project work creates some financial instability, so I do what I can to mitigate those risks. Below is a description of my project management approach.
Initiating: Typically at the outset of every project, I meet in person with clients to clarify their expectations for deliverables (scope), timelines, and costs. Then I provide a high-level (ballpark) estimate. I have stopped including a contingency in estimates because they are rarely approved.
On approval of the estimate by key stakeholders (often the project sponsor), I propose a more detailed change, training, and/or communications solution that falls within the client’s budget. One challenge I regularly encounter is – metaphorically speaking -clients asking for a Ferrari when they only have budget for a Ford.
Planning: On approval of the proposed solution, I develop a detailed work plan for the deliverables I am accountable for, including required inputs, assumptions, and dependencies. Most of my timelines are in a t- format since I’ve found project rollout dates regularly change.
I have also worked on projects that required me to develop Gantt charts or use project management software like Microsoft Project, but most of my planning is simple enough to be done in Excel or Word. I have also created project management documents called Minute-by-Minutes (MBMs), which are used to plan one-time events where literally every minute must be coordinated.
Execution/implementation: I track my time daily using an app called Toggl. The app allows me to track both billable and nonbillable hours, track multiple clients, and record specific tasks. If I forget to track my time, I go through my internet and email history for timestamps that help me record my time after the fact. Knowing I need to hit a certain time target per day and per week ensures I hold myself accountable. (I do not share the time tracking with my clients so they do not see how odd my working hours are.)
Monitoring and controlling: During the project, I provide all clients with weekly project status updates; this ensures I stay accountable for my progress on deliverables and is my main form of communication with clients. The main focus of my updates is any risks that have the potential to derail progress. This lays the groundwork for issuing a scope change, should I need one. I also provide monthly invoices to stay accountable for costs.
Closing: After the project, I follow up with a phone call to the client to debrief on what worked and what did not (lessons learned) so that I can improve the process for the next project (process improvement). I also carry errors and omissions insurance should I ever need it (risk management).
Note: this visual is password-protected because it contains client-specific examples. Please contact me for the password if you would like to view the graphic.
This week I met up with an executive from a Calgary-based elearning firm. Though we had connected on LinkedIn, this was the first time we had met in person, so our conversation meandered through a number of topics: our respective career paths, how we typically find clients, our pricing structures for projects, and some of the more interesting projects we have encountered.
I asked my colleague about his experience of change management in the context of elearning. I have always assumed that learning and development was an integral part of the project team for change initiatives; I was surprised to hear that has not been his experience.
My colleague said he is often unaware of the larger change initiatives taking place within a customer’s organization, for a couple of reasons. First, much of the work his firm does is won through a formal RFP process, which means the customer provides exactly as much information as is needed to begin the project, and no more. Second, the firm clearly establishes itself as an elearning rather than a management consulting firm; it does not provide consulting services because of the increased liability associated with it.
I asked my colleague how he handled situations where customers requested elearning services that were clearly not the right solution to a business problem. He admitted those projects were challenging. While he tries to educate his customers on what makes for effective elearning, his hands are tied when customers insist on instructional design and development parameters that are not best practice.
My colleague said the best change/elearning projects he has worked on were part of a larger change initiative. Elearning was not seen as the solution to a business problem but as one intervention of many needed to make a change successful.
I have spent the last decade working on enterprise technology and business process improvement initiatives as part of an organizational change management team. As a result, I had a hard time appreciating the theories and perspectives mentioned in the change management articles for this unit.
In particular, I struggled with the fact that the multiple change theories discussed in the articles by Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015), Biech (2007) and Weiner (2009) failed to include an organizational change model, Prosci, which is currently being practiced around the world.
Prosci is a change management company that provides related training, research, and consulting services to corporations. The company compiles an annual best practices guide for change management based on a robust global survey of organizations undergoing change. It has also developed the ADKAR model of change, a change management toolkit, a change management maturity model, and many other resources for organizations.
I suspect the oversight of Prosci in the literature is because Prosci’s research does not meet the research criteria demanded of academic publications; however, I believe research conducted using real organizations and real change management issues is more relevant than theoretical readings.
For example, I learned the “ready, willing, and able” concept on-the-job, and I appreciated the simplicity that the phrase embodied. Years later, I am now discovering the theory behind the phrase. Weiner (2009) unnecessarily complicated this approach in his discussion of change valence and change efficacy; it was not until he defined organizational readiness as “a state of being both psychologically and behaviorally prepared to take action (i.e., willing and able)” (p. 2) that I was able to connect my professional experience with theory.
In practice, I typically follow Prosci’s ADKAR model when developing change management plans for my clients. ADKAR stands for awareness, desire, knowledge, ability, and reinforcement. Though each stage could include multiple change management interventions, I use typically map awareness to communication activities, desire to leadership activities, knowledge and ability to training activities, and reinforcement to performance support activities.
I have also read Kotter’s Leading Change (1996), Johnson’s Who Moved My Cheese (1998), and Boston Consulting Group’s The Change Monster (2002). Each of these books has informed my understanding of change management.
A senior change management practitioner once told me that no matter what goes right during a change initiative, lack of leadership support would guarantee a project to fail. She said she would never accept a client contract without first meeting with the executive sponsor and confirming he or she was fully committed to supporting the change initiative.
Her comments speak to the importance of leadership in managing change. Biech’s (2007) change model talks about the need to harmonize and align leadership; Weiner (2009) talks about how leaders need to communicate and act consistently in support of change; Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) draw on the leadership discipline as part of their change management literature review. While Al-Haddad and Kotnour (2015) do not explicitly mention leadership in the taxonomy of change literature or systematic change method, the need for effective leadership during change is woven throughout their discussion.
While I understand the connection between leadership and change management, I am having a hard time making the connection between change management and digital learning environments the way I think these readings are intended. I see digital learning environments as being used in support of larger change management initiatives, not as a driver of change itself. While education technology trends are appearing such as the movement toward open access publishing, massive open online courses, and more flexible learning management systems, I see these changes on quite a small scale compared to the other enterprise projects I work on. These issues would be more prominent in K-12 and higher education and would require significant leadership support to create change in those institutions, but I see changes to digital learning environments as far more incremental and easier to manage in the corporate world.
References
Al-Haddad, S., & Kotnour, T. (2015). Integrating the organizational change literature: a model for successful change. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 28(2), 234-262.
Biech, E. (2007). Models for Change. In Thriving Through Change: A Leader’s Practical Guide to Change Mastery. 235.
Weiner, B. J. (2009). A theory of organizational readiness for change. Implementation Science, 4(67).
Prosci (2018). People. Change. Results. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from prosci.com
An example of strategic and creative thinking in leading organizational change management.
To be an effective leader, it is important to play to your strengths. Research backs this perspective, indicating people who know and use their strengths are six times more likely to be engaged at work and be almost eight percent more productive in their role (Gallup Strengths Centre, 2017a). Marcus Buckingham, co-author of Now, Discover Your Strengths (Buckingham & Clifton, 2001) says, “when people spend the majority of each day on the job using their greatest talents and engaged in their favorite tasks, basically doing exactly what they want to do, both they and their organizations will win” (Buckingham, 2017, para. 2).
I used Clifton’s StrengthsFinder Assessment (2009) and Seligman’s Values in Action (VIA) Signature Strengths Test (2013) to define my personal strengths. As a result, two strengths on which I have built my professional practice are strategic thinking and creativity. Embodying a strategic and creative mindset has influenced my personal leadership style and has helped me lead clients through digital learning projects.
Strategic thinking and creativity
Strategic thinking is about making good decisions. It means analyzing information, identifying problems, looking at situations from multiple perspectives, not making assumptions, and using evidence to inform decisions (Seligman, 2013; Clifton, 2009).
Creativity is about coming up with new ideas and exploring different ways of doing things. From a personal perspective, it means, “You are never content with doing something the conventional way if a better way is possible” (VIA Institute of Character, 2018), while organizationally, it means “being able to find connections between seemingly disparate phenomena” (Gallup Strengths Centre, 2012b, Ideation).
I have seen real-life evidence in my professional life, both through my own practice and by observing others, that strategic thinking and creativity are two attributes of effective leadership. Academic literature grounds this evidence in theory.
Connecting leadership theories to personal strengths
Strategic and creative personal strengths can be underpinned by multiple theories of leadership, only two of which I will explore here: reflective leadership and adaptive leadership. Both reflective and adaptive leadership connect to strategic thinking through analytical, problem-solving, critical thinking, questioning, and decision-making skills. Similarly, reflective and adaptive leadership connect to creativity through the ability to be innovative and generate new ideas.
Castelli (2015) speaks to the strategic and creative mindsets required of leaders, saying, “Internal characteristics such as critical thinking, long-term planning and finding innovative ways to solve problems with an equal focus on people and profit is the basis for reflective leadership” (p. 218).
In the context of adaptive leadership, Khan (2017) also speaks to the need for leaders to be strategic, saying “Adaptive leaders are adept in knowing what the problems are, defining them carefully, and finding appropriate solutions” (p. 179). However, Khan cautions that adaptive leadership is not always well-received within organizations. Resistance to change can hamper a leader’s willingness to be creative and propose innovative ideas that may help solve organizational issues.
Leadership through organizational change
After drawing a connection between strategic thinking, creativity, and leadership, I would describe my leadership approach as not only strategic and creative but also reflective and adaptive. Adaptive and reflective theories of leadership share some commonalities, one of which is the ability to help organizations manage change. My career in organizational change management is no coincidence.
Starting my career in corporate communications, I was soon drawn to change management, which was characterized by a working environment that evolved daily in response to new and changing circumstances. I thrived on the challenge of analyzing problems and coming up with solutions, and I prided myself on ideas that were not only pragmatic but also new and innovative. (For example, I created a comic strip that gave employees a voice during a challenging enterprise-wise business transformation program; the comic strip enabled the organization to address employee concerns in a human, empathetic way.)
Having supported multiple enterprise-wide technology implementations and business improvement initiatives over the last ten years, I agree with both Castelli (2015) and Khan (2017) that now, more than ever, today’s leaders need to manage change effectively.
Leaders need to take a more thoughtful approach to decision making to achieve organizational goals, especially the pace of change in a global marketplace continues to accelerate and grow in complexity (Castelli, 2015). At the same time, leaders need to pay attention to the external environment, because factors outside their control are creating pressure on organizations to change (Khan, 2017).
While Castelli (2015) and Khan (2017) both advocate for managing change effectively, one author advocates for a highly introspective approach while the other advocates for a focus on the surrounding environment. I would argue managing change requires both an inward (reflective) and outward (adaptive) perspective. Only by balancing reflective and adaptive leadership approaches can leaders be effective in managing change.
Digital leadership and change
If strategic thinking and creativity are part of reflective and adaptive leadership, and if both theories of leadership are helpful in leading organizational change, how might strategic thinking and creativity help leaders manage ever-changing digital learning environments?
Sheninger (2014), says “Digital leadership is not about flashy tools, but a strategic mindset that leverages available resources to improve what we do, while anticipating the changes needed to cultivate a …culture focused on engagement and achievement” (p. 2). He continues, “Leaders must begin to establish a vision and strategic plan …dedicated to learning in a more digital world” (p. 4). To see how Sheninger’s statements might play out in real life, I turned to my own professional practice.
Many clients have asked for help managing change within their digital learning environment, and one example in particular comes to mind. Notoriously slow to adopt new technologies, a client is finally venturing into the world of e-learning. Unfortunately, the organization has no desire to create e-learning courses suitable for mobile devices. With the trend toward organizational Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) programs and Gartner (2016) confirming use of personal smartphones for business as a workplace standard, I believe my client is being short-sighted in their desktop-only approach to e-learning.
After considering both my client’s long-term and short-term needs (reflective leadership) and being aware of external trends (adaptive leadership), I proposed an authoring tool with a fully responsive e-learning platform (a strategic, creative solution). My client accepted the proposal, so even though the organization is not ready for mobile learning just yet, it will be prepared for mobile learning in the future, without needing to rebuild all of its desktop e-learning courses from scratch.
This is the power of adaptive and reflective leadership, and the power of playing to your strengths.
Buckingham, M. & Clifton, D. (2001). Now, Discover Your Strengths. New York: Gallup Press.
Castelli, P. (2015). Reflective leadership review: a framework for improving organisational performance. Journal of Management Development, 35(2), 190-216. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMD-08-2015-0112
Clifton, D. (2009). StrengthsFinder Assessment. New York: Gallup Press.
Gallup Strengths Centre. (2017a). Discover the assessment empowering 17,935,282 people to succeed. Retrieved from https://www.gallupstrengthscenter.com/
Khan, N. (2017). Adaptive or Transactional Leadership in Current Higher Education: A Brief Comparison. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(3), 178-183.
Rath, T. (2007) StrengthsFinder 2.0. New York: Gallup Press.
Seligman, M. (2012). Flourish: A Visionary New Understanding of Happiness and Well-being. New York: Attria Books.
