Diffusion: L&D Innovations

What makes a change slow or fast in some organizations?

By change, I’m referring to adopting a new strategy, working model, software, and best practices in learning and development. My focus here is on the role of L&D in these changes.

Recently, I read Everett Rogers’ book, Diffusion of Innovations, and it occurred to me that diffusion of innovations requires some principles that apply not only to marketers, but also to learning and development professionals. After all, learning professionals have to, at some point in their career, convince their stakeholders of doing things differently to achieve better results.

The rule of thumb, repeatedly stressed in the book , is learning about the culture and customs of a place before promoting a new idea there. No matter what something seems a brilliant idea to us, it might seem completely pointless to others somewhere else. That’s what L&D professionals who play the role of change agents in companies should consider as well.

Two important principles that we should consider are: communication channels and time of adoption.

Communication Channels

In any environment (in our context, workplace), there is the source (e.g., an L&D professional) and the receiver (e.g., the client). They can be either similar in their mindsets or different. Rogers calls them homophilous and heterophilous. Here are his definitions:

“Homophily The degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are similar with respect to certain attributes, such as beliefs, values, social status, education.” (p.18)

“Heterophily is the degree to which pairs of individuals who interact are different with respect to certain attributes.” (p.18)

While we are all aware of the fact that there are similarities and differences between two people, channeling the communication with those who are different than us is the key to diffusion of innovative ideas. In an ideal situation, when you and your client are homophilous, things will work out easily. But, when you are heterophilous, you need to know how to communicate the need for a change without getting frustrated. According to Rogers, this is one the most distinctive problems in the communication of innovations. However, he also points out (and this is the best part that we’d all like) tht the very nature of diffusion demands at least some degree of heterophily between the two parties. And, this can be handled through empathy (i.e., projecting yourself into the role of another). This, in turn, leads to effective communication.


Time is another important variable in diffusion. Simply put, the earliness or lateness of the adoption of an innovation affects the clients’ decision in accepting or rejecting it. That is what we need to be aware of and try to find out. Another point is the period that it takes an innovation to be adopted. We need to ensure the time involved before it’s too late.

I found Rogers’ book, though old, still relevant to any L&D professional who aims for an optimal change in an organization. So, don’t be discouraged with pushbacks! Try to know your client first, how they think, and what their culture in the working environment is, before pushing for any change!


Rogers, E. (1983). Diffusion of Innovations(3rded.). New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing.


When can you trust the experts?

We have all been, in one way or another, persuaded by advertisers to buy something, or induced by salesmen to buy their revolutionary software, or even convinced by researchers that a model or tool is effective. Many of these with none or limited evidence. We are all aware that advertisements include meticulously chosen subliminal effects to influence our decisions. In other words, you are made believe in what ‘experts’ want you to believe in, and you are surrounded by these peripheral persuasions at home, at work, or on the streets. The question is when you can trust them.

In his book, When can you trust the experts, Willingham contends that we should take a more scientific stand toward the things that would affect us, and he offers to distinguish between good science and bad science. After all, with the hype of social media, we are exposed to a large amount of information which could influence our way of thinking and working.

In the first chapter of the book, why smart people believe dumb things, Willingham lays out how an individual behaves or thinks in certain ways because of unconscious persuasion of ads, propaganda, and even social interactions with others. He highlights that we tend to believe things that others believe and this social proof makes the persuasive messages more credible.

Moreover, many of these persuaders use the term “research-based” to persuade us. But, do these “empirical” research offer warrants for the credibility of their claims? Are all the papers published in peer-reviewed journals reliable? It is a known fact that many studies, particularly in health care and education, make sweeping claims which are influenced by conflicts of interest. Unfortunately, the problem is many of these unwarranted studies become widely accepted: for example, “learning styles” or “twenty-first-century skills” in education and schooling. Willingham remarks:

Education researchers have never united as a filed to agree on methods or practices that have sound scientific backing.

So he invites us to tell between good science and bad science. He highlights that in order to protect ourselves from believing false claims, we need to be aware of the peripheral cues in the persuasive messages, so we can discount them, and be aware of our own beliefs, which might bias how we evaluate new information. Besides, he recommends four steps to identify false claims and make the right decision, so that you’ll become more analytical and critical of what you are offered by persuaders around you. These are:

  1. Strip it and Flip it: To strip a claim you should use this sentence “If I do X, then there is a Y percent chance that Z will happen.” X is the persuasive message, Y is the value, and Z is the desired outcome. For example, “if we use online training instead of traditional training, there is a 50 percent chance that our employees’ productivity will increase.”Then flip the outcome. In this technique, flip the outcome or what you are to do. In the above example, the flipped message will be “if we use online training instead of traditional training, there is a 50 percent chance that our employees’ productivity will decrease.” Sometimes, you might have to flip both the persuasive message and outcome to analyze better.
  2. Trace it: To ensure if a claim is scientifically supported, you shouldn’t rely on credentials only. While someone’s status as a professor may indicate that his/her work has scholarly integrity, it doesn’t necessarily signify that the person applied scientific methods in evaluating the recommended change. Moreover, sometimes ‘experts’ or, in this context, persuaders misunderstand other researchers’ claims.
  3. Analyze it: Do not generalize a change based on your experience. Willingham’s main message of his book is “You can’t trust your own experience. You need scientific proof!”
  4. Should I do it: Using the previous three steps, you should ask yourself if  sufficient evidence is provided for the change that the persuader claims. Then consider all the factors that involve the change, and then make a decision.

I don’t personally find it feasible to apply all these steps, but if you are making a decision that involves your health or a substantial amount of money for your company, you might want to consider all of them. When can you trust the experts makes you somewhat more analytical of what you read and hear which concerns your health, work, and education.

Reference: Willingham, D. T. (2012). When can you trust the experts? San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Situational Leadership & Workplace Learning

I have shared in multiple posts that leadership in organizations plays an important role in employees’ performance support including their learning. I recently attended a Workshop on situational leadership created by Ken Blanchard. I’m sharing my key takeaway from the workshop as well as my reflections on how situational leadership can relate to workplace learning. Continue reading Situational Leadership & Workplace Learning

Cognitive Biases and their Impact on Workplace Learning

Recently I attended a workshop by Christine Owen, and learned an interesting aspect of human cognition which we learning designers should consider in workplace learning or training design. The information she shared was both relevant to the leadership and learning designers. She shared what could go wrong at workplace if leaders/employees were not aware of their cognitive biases. Knowing what could impede learning at workplace, we could take the necessary measures in eliminating them. Our cognitive biases could hinder learning, or proper decision-making at workplace. This is because our cognition plays a role in sense-making and how we process information. Continue reading Cognitive Biases and their Impact on Workplace Learning

What Makes Modern Workplace Learning More Attainable?

With new trends in L&D and more revolutionary ideas in workplace learning, you must have witnessed major transitions in organizations moving away from conventional training and adopt online or blended training. However, this is done with the intention of making learners more self-directed, but what has the success percentage been? I mean have the organizations achieved the planned objective –improving performance outcome?

I see the trend moving forward, however, the implementation of all these innovative ideas in an organization remains a challenge. We are all aware of the research reports and the trends in training but knowing is different from doing. Despite research evidence, organizations still continue to believe that training (formal learning) is still the best solution. Only do they replace face-to-face training with online ones. Continue reading What Makes Modern Workplace Learning More Attainable?