Georgia LEARNS 2019

Planning is underway...

The content, format, dates, location and participants are open to your input.

One potential theme is "Proof."

This theme builds on our progression over the last few years from

What are your ideas related to content, format, dates, location and participants?

Comment by Paula Smith on April 2, 2019 at 2:57pm

Paul - I love the theme! Clear, concise, and meaningful across industries, business & education, sectors (public and private), and positions/levels.

It conjures up an image of metrics, accountability, and ROI.  

I’ll gladly support your efforts to make PROOF a success.

Looking forward to catching up soon – I’ll give you a call.



Comment by Paul Terlemezian on April 2, 2019 at 4:10pm

Thanks Paula p I like the image you are conjuring!

I also anticipate more questions and challenges than definitive answers - including one I heard today - is proof worth the effort to gather it!

Looking forward to our conversation!

Comment by Paul Terlemezian on April 2, 2019 at 7:21pm

Earlier today I was asked if incentives could be put in place to assure innovation in the workplace - especially large companies where corporate politics could discourage innovation.

Several years ago with the guidance of the Glenn Pelham Foundation (a Georgia LEARNS permanent partner) I participated in two debates on the topic: "The Corporate Hierarchy Inhibits Innovation."

Here were the audiences and the conclusions:

  1. The first audience was the TAG Workplace Learning Society - the attendees were learning and technology specialists. The outcome of the debate was agreement on the premise - the major source of the inhibition was "fear" - and the consensus was that a champion needs to emerge and be committed enough to the innovation to overcome the fear. This reminds me of the definition of courage - Courage is taking effective action in the presence of fear (as opposed to being fearless.) So my "bias" is that while incentives are good - they may actually be detrimental if the motivation is to remove fear - courage needs fear - as does innovation (IMHO.) The reward is survival and the learning and self-respect that comes with overcoming the challenges associated with innovation. It's kind of like the baby chick developing the strength to survive by breaking its own shell. If it cannot break the shell - it would not have the strength to survive - and if the shell is broken for it - it will not develop the strength to survive.
  2. The second audience was organized by CGG (Creative Growth Group - Andrew Dietz ) - the attendees were primarily lawyers and accountants (some would call them - the "inhibitors.") They also agreed with the premise and defended it as necessary - since otherwise corporate resources could be easily consumed/wasted on half-baked ideas masquerading as "innovation." They asserted that the corporate hierarchy is a "necessary filter." And then as a remarkable outcome from the "inhibitors" they also noted that "filters" need to be cleaned (i.e. trained and brought up-to-date) and sometimes "filters" need to be replaced.

How would a Georgia LEARNS 2019 debate related to innovation, incentives and corporate hierarchy create value for you? What role would you play in the debate? - Participant, Moderator, Researcher, Coach, Observer, Judge - other? Or - perhaps - not interested in the topic or format?




Comment by Jim Everidge on April 3, 2019 at 8:59am


I see 'Proof' as a requirement for being a learning leader today.  We all must seek accountability for the investments that organizations are making in people.  And provide 'proof' that those investments are a reasonable course for the organization to seek shareholder value.  

The good news is that there are significant advancements on all fronts - people, process, and technology.  The role of Data Scientist is becoming recognized and valued.  Methods of compiling and analyzing data are becoming standardized and accepted.  And technologies for visual transformations of data are being delivered in the market.  So the barriers to providing this 'proof' are being lowered.

The challenge is for everyone to embrace and seek the understanding of how they can maximize their own company investments.

Comment by Paul Terlemezian on April 3, 2019 at 9:29am

Jim - thank you. Your clear articulation of 'proof' and the "challenge" that you describe are appreciated and important for our work as a community.

Comment by Bill Crose on April 4, 2019 at 10:54pm

Proof of performance improvement in numbers >= words. I like that! Before = 100. After = 50. Savings = 50. Cost = 10. An extreme example, but who isn't tired of trying to explain training ROI without numbers? I could imagine doing some demos that passively collect and report performance data for proving performance improvement. It would be fun!

Comment by Bill Crose on April 4, 2019 at 11:14pm

Regarding, "The Corporate Hierarchy Inhibits Innovation". Of course it does. It starts with the consultant/grass is greener effect, then the 1,000 edits that turn wine into water takes over. Corporate decision making rewards the lowest common denominator, flattest emotion, highest consensus, and best fitting solutions within budget. Innovation doesn't "fit"..  

Comment by David Gates on April 5, 2019 at 12:18pm

The theme Proof is timely because corporate leaders are increasing the pressure on talent functions to demonstrate (show proof) value of investments in infrastructure around learning and development intended to grow associate and  leader capabilities... to do this innovation is at the core of proof in this case... Innovation gets bantered about and will at times be seen as corporate speak and lip service. From my perspective, Innovation is another word that means Change only sexier and embraced far more... everyone wants to believe they're  innovative...   I need to think this through but I see a great opportunity here...I look forward to more discussion and see this shape up...

Comment by Matt Meador on April 8, 2019 at 9:35am

Proof; catchy. Thinking out loud here----- I keep imagining a wanderer standing on a mountain with a sea of fog below, as Caspar David Friedrich did. What proof is there that anything out there is navigable? Living? Worth doing? Worthy of our time, resouces, or more importantly, effort?(What happen's next?) ---- Done thinking out loud.

The information we need is everywhere around us, it's in the conversations we have, it's in the relationships we nourish, it's in the alliances we promote and strengthen, it's in the wisdom shared; yet we still remain in a sea of fog; we want to see the way- I think "proof" creates a new dynamic for Georigia LEARNS (2019). After reading several of the posts, I think that idea of "change" has been picked up, and there is now the "proof" that change is meaningful, memorable, motivational, and measurable and are all tenets to guide the way. 

Comment by Paul Terlemezian on April 8, 2019 at 5:46pm

Matt - I like the Wanderer analogy.

When I think of the wanderer standing on a mountain looking down on a sea of fog - it makes me think of one whose vision is limited to what exists at an altitude above the fog and who has no access to what they "see" unless they come down from the mountain through the fog.. This could foster a sense of isolation, "aloofness" and perhaps create a "condescending" attitude (based on fear) that there is no reason to risk the fog.

When I think of the wanderer standing at the base of the mountain looking up at the sea of fog - it makes me think of one who has easy access to distractions that keep them busy at their level. I wonder what would foster the curiosity that would cause them to shift from easy access to risky access by climbing the mountain to try and see what might be above - or beyond.

Perhaps someone or something is needed to "guide the way" for the wanderer - no matter where they are standing!

Comment by Sean O'Brien on April 29, 2019 at 3:01pm

Is proof an absolute? As an early stage founder / innovator, absolute proof is an impossibility which is why investors / corporate hierarchies might use the term signal if they understood and were comfortable with the natural ambiguity. The best early stage  innovators and investors ask the best questions about what early stage data might lead to the ultimate proof. I'd suggest a question, "What are you trying to prove" as a topic.

Comment by Paul Terlemezian on April 29, 2019 at 3:41pm

Sean - thank you for the valuable insight - I (want to) believe that "What are you trying to prove" would stimulate useful dialog!

Comment by Paul Terlemezian on June 30, 2019 at 10:42am

The ICD-10  (Coding system used by healthcare) has close to 69,000 diagnosis codes and 71,000 procedure codes.

  • How may diagnosis and procedure codes exist for learning?
  • Is it easier to create a new one than to assure that we have found the best existing one?
  • Is it worth the precision?
  • Do we want the precision?
  • Is it possible to be taken seriously by others - outside of L&D without being able to prove that our answer is effective?
Comment by Hal Schlenger on June 30, 2019 at 12:18pm

aaaaaaaaah.  Some precision, yes.  Who needs the info.  

ICD-10 code W61.33XD is for "Pecked by chicken, subsequent encounter."  For real.   So there are balances.  You need to go back to what are you trying to prove!    

That being said, I think you are in the right direction!


You need to be a member of Georgia LEARNS to add comments!

Join Georgia LEARNS

© 2019   Created by Paul Terlemezian.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service