|
|
|
|||||
|
specialists in enhancement and management of human performance |
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Almost anything one could say about knowledge turnover or the blight of data now descending upon us would be cliché. And executives who want to keep their jobs better stand tall in favor of ongoing staff education even as some are compelled to cut time and budget for it. However, before you approve or disapprove the latest seminar requests, it may be prudent to examine this cost line item called "staff training and development." In another article, I questioned the efficacy of sales training. Here I want to challenge the entire concept of "training" as it is currently practiced in most businesses. No, I do not advocate doing away with staff development. I would just like executives to be clear about the value of what they are paying for. I have been in the business of delivering information to employees for the past two decades and, sad to say, I have seen very little actual training. The fault lies in management's failure to distinguish between the various kinds of employee instruction--teaching, training and coaching--and their appropriate application. What passes for "training" in corporations today is mostly teaching. Teaching is the presentation of information. Training involves more than simply presenting new data. It involves information about a skill, demonstration of that skill and then repetitive practice of the skill. In other words, training should be about creating behavioral changes that added together form a new competency. The mere insertion of more data into your employees' heads does not constitute training. Frankly, I would not sign off nor pay for it. Imagine pilots' skill levels if all they attended were lectures, videos and group discussions followed by a single session in a flight simulator. Would you want to be on a plane they were controlling? No? Then why do you place the success of your business in the hands and minds of people with this type of instruction? People who have sat through mind-numbing hours of "product training", which is really nothing more than an agitated presenter verbalizing a three-ring binder to the accompaniment of PowerPoint slides most closely resembling colored eye charts. For all its promotion to the contrary, most "corporate training" has very little time allocated to practice, let alone, repetitive practice. These programs claim much group discussion, video and "learn by doing." But observe one of the sessions and you'll find the class leader is the only person busy discussing and doing. Most of the time participants are passively listening or thumbing manuals. And if they are "discussing", chances are much of the talk is work chatter or gossip, not conversation about course content. Also, it is extremely rare to see any instruction that requires participants to repeat an exercise. Rarer still to find any course that truly examines participants on how much new knowledge and skills they have put into practice, say, three months after the learning experience. Most testing is immediate and serves the designers of the course rather than the participants or the company that buys the course. In all fairness, "training" companies and consultants must design learning experiences around impossible corporate frameworks. For years, it has been established that large group lecture and student cramming are the worst ways to produce learning and behavioral change. However, companies still continue to insist on putting twenty or more employees together for a one-time training (usually a half-day to five days). Many times such "training" is crammed into other corporate HQ meetings. These event schedulers argue that once the participants are "trained", they can practice on the job or study on their own time. But practice means repeating and experimenting with new behaviors when nothing is at stake. How often is nothing at stake in a business interaction? And with employees putting in 50-90 hour weeks, how much home study can an employer honestly expect? The area of business learning that suffers the most is human contact skills: sales, interviewing, performance review, manager development and customer service, to name a few. These "soft skills" are more difficult to present and practice than hard skills like computer programming, manufacturing processes and financial reporting. "Hard skill" learning is easier because there is better and more immediate feedback to the learner. The program does not respond; the process fails or the numbers don't add up. Also, since "hard skills" can be readily corrected and don't require another human being for interaction, they lend themselves to practice. You should also be aware that the new buzz, coaching, exists in a distinct paradigm of its own. Coaching presupposes that a participant already has basic skills and knowledge. What a coach provides is observation and motivational feedback in when, where and how to apply those skills appropriately on the job. The toughest thing about business coaching is that it usually requires one-on-one or very small group observation in the field followed by true practice sessions. And good coaches are not simply good skill practitioners. They are people adept at noticing small details in a behavior and communicating to learners in precise, understandable terms. They are also consummate motivators. In today's business environments ongoing employee learning is a critical necessity. But before you sign for that six figure staff development program, practice some executive due diligence. Are you really buying training and coaching? Or is it just one more teaching that most of your staff will forget before the seminar leader walks out of the building? First, ask some pointed questions about what changes in staff competency your business requires. Then quiz your HR department or vendor on how this training will produce and guarantee employee behavioral change. Realize that participants will lose 50-80% of what is presented in a day-long seminar without continued practice and study. Consider who are the proposed coaches and if your employees have the basic skills and knowledge that are the raw essentials to be coached. Last, stop paying lip service to continuing staff education. Do not submit to the public relations or ego pressures of large week-long resort events mainlining celebrity speakers. Make sure your company training is really training. Do not mix it in with a bunch of other informational meetings. Last, actively seek the ideal--small groups (3-8 people), shorter sessions (three hours) scheduled over longer periods. And demand that ample time be set aside for practice, especially for "soft skills" (or performance skills) training. Negotiate with vendors to split day-long training into two half-days with less participant minimums. Be sure to quiz participants' knowledge and skills at both the end of the session and later in the year. Set that up in the original contract. Be willing to pay for value. Such decisions and their implementations are tough. They may appear more time and cost intensive at the beginning, but the ROI in the long run could be your executive edge. (NOTE: Allies Consulting offers a menu of programs that can help you become masterful in your work, or your staff to do so, like our Executive Coaching programs. They will meet or exceed your expectations: they are designed to deliver real results. They also leverage our other programs, magnifying your ROI!)
|
POBox 9635