Workplace learning is a growing issue for leaders and HR professionals. Digital technology for many is an increasingly important tool in delivering this training, helping plug the skills gap and drive organisational improvement. The OEB Summit in Reykjavik last week saw experts gather from around the world, to discuss the impact of tech on education – in the context of both educational facilities and the workplace.

Some incredible ideas were discussed and examples given of how technology is changing the way we learn and develop. What impact will (Massive Online Open Content) courses have for example? How will technology and greater access to it allow us to scale up leadership learning and training, so that it’s no longer the preserve of the privileged few; but widespread and ingrained in workplaces and formal education? How can technology deliver bespoke learning and training, suited to a variety of needs and learning styles?

These questions and more ensured that the conference was as fascinating as it was instructional, and there was much for HR and leadership professionals to take away from it.

Behind the formal programme however, some of the bigger questions remained unanswered, and indicate that while technology is transformative, it is not a silver bullet.

Andrew Keen, a long-time thorn in the side of technology evangelists, questioned the power relationships inherent to technology. In the context of education and training for example, who is accountable for the ways in which technology determines the agenda of education and the curriculums which underpin it.

This point was expanded upon by leading educationalists and trainers. Inge de Waard, of InnoEnergy Europe asked who is writing the code which underpins our digital learning? The reality is that, for all the egalitarian potential of online and digital technology, the stewardship of that technology is confined to a narrow group of wealthy people in Silicon Valley and other tech hotspots around the world. Dr Mairéad Nic Giolla Mhichíl from Dublin’s National Institute of Digital Learning, likewise asked who controls the learning discourse and what ‘hidden curriculums’ there might be.

Technology also brings with it practical considerations for both educationalists and training professionals. Helen Keegan from Coventry University considered the arcane ways in which we continue to measure educational outcomes and how these methodologies might be disrupted by digital innovation. And what happens when technology comes face to face with budget constraints, people management and other issues which inevitably impact workplace learning.  

A major issue for me at the conference however, which was conspicuous by its absence from the main programme, was the ongoing impact of diversity on the training agenda. Despite best intentions, a large majority of the main speakers in Reykjavik were white males of a certain age. And when, in the closing session, a (female) audience member asked the panel how an ongoing lack of diversity could be addressed, the response was along the lines of, ‘there’s 20 minutes left of the conference, shouldn’t we talk about something important?’.

Plus ca change!

This for me was one of the most salient, if unintended, moments at the conference and is indicative of the limits to the change which technology alone can deliver. Some things are changing. Last week’s election for example saw the number of women returned to Westminster top 200 for the first time. Likewise, we saw more than 50 BAME candidates elected and more than 50% of returned MPs attended state schools. What has brought this change about in recent decades however is a positive diversity agenda. An approach and methodology which has recognised the barriers people can face because of their gender, background or sexuality; and then worked hard to address them.

There is still a long way to go, especially it seems, in the worlds of technology and training provision. If we are going to deliver the training organisations need, in a way which is inclusive of all and which recognises inequalities in the system, we need to talk about the diversity agenda. As such, for me, the question of diversity is more than important enough to occupy the final 20 minutes of next year’s conference.