Let’s unpack why people forget training. First, a few training myths.
😬 High budget doesn’t mean good or memorable. 😬 Animation doesn’t mean engaging. 😬 Microlearning is misunderstood; spaced repetition is the benefit.
If you could hear my tone, those words aren’t said in judgment. In year one of Ethics Insight, I wasted much time on animation - style over substance. I later got an education on microlearning from professionals. And, every training session I run, I get anonymous feedback, which can be brutal. Training is unforgiving, especially with risk topics that - you’ve seen the meme, “More compliance training, said no one, ever.”
In this context, we need to minimise wastage and maximise retention - step in Hermann Ebbinghaus and his Forgetting Curve model.
I can’t draw curves with a mouse; that much is clear. But hopefully, the image conveys the point. Without follow-up reminders, 80-90% of what we were trained on is gone after a month. Think about the cost of your one-and-done annual training - the training provider, the platform, the opportunity cost, people’s time, etc. Accepting a 90% loss of RoI in a month is tough.
Following up with reminders needn’t be more training. It could be a time delay between training completion and the quiz. Or a follow-up email three days later with a cheatsheet - top 5 issues to look for when onboarding a new supplier. You know, something focused.
Apps like DuoLingo record our mistakes and target additional tests and refreshers accordingly. Not only does this aid learning, but it’s also less annoying than being tested on stuff you already know. Software can do this (at the individual user level).
I am NOT advocating lots more training. I am suggesting that maybe we’d get a better RoI if we used data we already have (on employees) to:
👉 Target specific functions with relevant, relatable, and abbreviated training. 👉 Test comprehension (not attendance), adapting our materials accordingly. 👉 Use feedback/comprehension data to follow up with tips, tricks, cheat sheets, etc.
Training is about communication. The medium (alone) is not the message.
Ethics & Not Being a Criminal
When you step back, the words “Ethics & Compliance” are odd. In other contexts, we tend not to pair a (generally) desirable state with adherence to laws. At least, we don’t if we’re trying to tell them what we want them to do:
😬 Generosity & prudence 😬 Freedom & responsibility 😬 Honesty & politics 😬 Truth & advertising 😬 Creativity & conformity
This may be why ethics can be hard to socialise across global organisations. Employees know you’re monitoring and policing the “compliance” bit, but what about ethical behaviour?
To simplify ethics, ask two questions:
- Are you ethical - scale (not that often, some of the time, most of the time, all of the time)
- Are other people (same scale 👆)
The responses to Q1 should see around 70% of people choosing “most of the time”. The remainder will be “all of the time”, with a few “some of the time”. Then they’ll vote on Q2, and we drop to around 30%-40% for “most of the time”, usually no “all of the time”, and a smattering of “not that often”. What’s going on?
We judge ourselves on our intentions. Others judge us on our actions. If I cut you off as I race to the school to collect my sick child, my intentions (in my head) might justify that action. You see a jerk cutting you off.
The “Ethics” bit in E&C is to avoid one of the most significant risks in any organisational culture: never thinking, “How does what we’re doing look to others?” Because we “could” doesn’t mean we “should”.