Common misconceptions v latest evidence
There are a number of myths / misconceptions popping up about various learning formats. Before we go any further, let’s tackle some of them.
“Everyone else is going back to face-to-face”
It’s a mixed picture– but most aren’t. Only 15% of our UK programmes are (compared with 5% last year); 50% in US.
Larger, global clients are much lower, favouring green targets, greater scale, and reduced costs.
“We get better evaluation scores from face-to-face”
Sometimes face to face is higher, other times it’s virtual – it really depends on the quality of the design. Travelling a long way to walk through a PowerPoint in a bare room with a bad lunch never scores well.
“People are more likely to turn up for F2F sessions”
We find F2F sessions are more likely to be disrupted or cancelled than virtual – due to travel issues, meeting clashes, family commitments. A blended journey with a regular slot has the best participation.
The virtual cancellation rate is 7.5% compared with 24% for F2F (UK data)
“F2F is better for ‘the 3C’s’ collaboration, creativity, connection”
Well-designed virtual and F2F can deliver ‘the 3Cs’ – depending on the type of content, learning design and the group.
We don’t recommend hybrid sessions – i.e., some in the room and some virtual – this is rarely done well. Hybrid/blended journeys work best.
Evidence shows remote teams can outcompete in-person teams by adopting best practices in digital communication and collaboration (HBR, 2022)
“People need be together to practice skills”
Bringing people together in a room may be valuable for joint sense-making or practice. Ideally, they gain basic knowledge before at their own pace / time then use the time together to apply it.
“A virtual human can be as good as a flesh-and-blood one when it comes to helping people practice new leadership skills” (Neurosciencenews.com, 2021)
“People are sick of digital / zoom / teams”
In our experience, people are sick of badly run virtual sessions – rather than virtual sessions per se. Travelling a long way to walk through a PowerPoint in a bare room and a bad lunch never scores well.
In practice, it is a mixed picture. Sometime face to face is higher, other times it’s virtual – it really depends on the effectiveness of the design.
So, if commonly held assumptions can’t guide our choices about the best format, how should we as HR / L&D professionals make wise decisions about the best learning format?
Based on over 30 years of experience, we believe there are four top considerations when making these decisions.