Ban the word Training

[David Brown]

How many of you see what I see? - a corporate world where training is perceived as the major development tool, where the easy way out is for HR to intervene through a performance review which involves people expecting that one of the otputs will be a training course.
Most of what we learn we learn on the job, but there are plenty of other learning vehicles, such as coaching by the line manager, projects and..... (see Meeting Development Needs, attached) which are under used to our cost.
If we wish to secure value for money, and credibility, for learning - how about the approach toutlined in the attached Development Activity That Delivers Results, which identifies whether the gap being addressed is to do with knowledge, skill, or behaviour. Armed with this framework, we could come up with development action to suit each need.
But first, we could expand people's horizons and move them from their straight jacket by banning the use of the word training for a trial period. They'd soon get the hang of it!

[Mohd Rizal Hassan]

I agree, David! :) I often tell people that I am a Learning Facilitator, not a trainer. A 'trainer' to me conjures up the image of a person training a dog or a tiger, or any other type of animal for that matter, to do tricks :) I come from the view point that we facilitate learning because learning falls on the choice of the participant to actually learn or not learn.

[Nigel Wyatt]

David, I would agree that many organisations and their managers are wedded to the idea of a one or two day training course to meet all there needs, I think today there are all sorts of other interesting ways we could develop, educate and up skill people (and ourselves). I hope this networking group will in part be a help in developing its members - not least by providing challenging and new ides. see the link in Meir Navon's recent post below - http://hrdcafe.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=655986%3ATopic%3A301 it includes a description of "learning networks" .

[Christopher Brown]

I agree wholeheartedly - sort of.

A great deal of learning takes place on the job - I learned my first trade as an apprentice in the good old days. However there was also a need to get away from the job and spend some time learning things that the job would never introduce me too. I was learning to be a structural engineer and on the job I would never have learned about brick laying but at College in the classroom I did. To be equipped to do an excellent job rather than a good one needs a greater degree of learning than simply what you do when you are "at work".

Don't we need a plan that involves a broad spectrum of options - including training. Sorry to use the naughty word. Training shouldn't be seen as the cure all for every learning need but I still think a classroom (oops I meant training facilitating space or whatever we want to call it) has its place.

So I am in complete agreement - almost.

[David Brown]

Agreed Christopher. Your example is a good example of appropriate use of training. The pity is that so many people are not aware of the broad spectrum of options that you refer to. We can but influence a few!
Best wishes
David

[Meir Navon]

I'd like to suggest that you take a look at the blogs of Jay Cross ( www.internetime.com).

He speaks ( and even wrote an interesting book) on Informal learning. He suggests that 80% of all the knowledge the employee needs to perform in his job is reached through informal methods( by the cooler, friends, googlin, etc...) , but only 20% of the budget is devoted to it. When you look at Formal learning, you have the opposite picture.

I find all of this quite interesting.

[David Brown]

How true, and how sad Meir. What a pity people don't understand this, and use it to manage imoroved performance. Thanks

[Lee Lam]

Hi all,

I think there is another element to this and that is the perception of the employee. In many companies, employees who feel undervalued believe that an investment in their training is a way of the company showing they are worth something. They also know that if it is an accredited course, it is something they can take with them if they leave :-) They don't necessarily need or want the training offered, but want the company to show that they care about them.

I agree that coaching in this environment can be extremely beneficial but only if the employees understand the value attached to it and see it as a true investment in them as individuals.

Thanks,

Lee

[David Brown]

Agreed Lee. Thanks. The reason I offered my provocative thought is that too often I see training offered as a sop, when what is needed is a real committment to supporting people's development.
Best wishes, David

[Len Horridge]

Yes, "training" has a certain connotation... I now call it anyhting but (coaching, breifing, polishing, discussion, development, heck, I'd call it Ralph if neccssary) and it's amazing the diffrent response you get.

[Andy McBurnie]

I would absolutely agree here. Training has its place but is not the answer to all situations and is not seen by personnel as such. The evidence is below. The researchers asked personnel from a variety of organisations what the most common type of development offered was and what they considered to be the most effective.

Development Opportunities ranked by commonly experienced and impact (1 = High)

Commonly experienced development type

1 Training courses
2 Personal development plan
3= Talent Management programme
3= Leadership skills development
4 Mentoring
5 Secondments
6= Internal coach
6= External coach

Impact on motivation, performance and commitment

1 External coach
2 Internal coach
3 Secondments
4= Talent Management programme
4= Leadership skills development
4= Training courses
5 Mentoring
6 Personal development plan

Source: Phillips, P. S. (2006), Selection and Development Review, Vol.22, No. 5

Andy

[David Brown]

I've just replied to the wrong posting. Sorry Andy, and thanks for your slant on the topic
All the best
David

[David Brown]

Good one Ralph