Today, a TRDEV-L group member posted an interesting message asking what’s wrong with training? I sent a reply to him via the list, but thought I’d share it here as a think piece and stimulus for comment.
Why is it so? Do people have so many bad experience in training that they don’t believe training is any good? Have they been exposed to so many bad trainers that they don’t believe there are any good ones? (Phil Connell)
Good question(s). It’s bed time soon, but as it happens, I was just watching an The Office Episode (British version) wherein there is a training session. I mentioned to my wife that watching it reminded me of why I am no longer inclined to do training anymore as a trainer, although I’m not sure why.
I’m sure my reactions aren’t common, but I’ve never liked attending training. It’s too slow and cumbersome as far as learning goes. We have to go through all kinds of crap just to “go over” even basic messages and learning. It seems like there is so much “process” (ie. icebreakers, energizers, useless group work, etc) that there’s no meat on the bones.
Now, I’ve generally behaved myself in training and tried to enjoy the social process, but that’s not what I think training should be.
…and I think that there’s simply too much foolish stuff trainers believe needs to be incorporated into training.
The Office episode just reminded me of how silly the things trainers do can appear to people. And how uncomfortable and boring they are to many.
…now about the fact that most trainers are simply terrible and don’t a) know how to teach and b) don’t know enough about the content and c) seem to think that the yoyo sitting beside me who knows nothing more about the topic than I do should somehow share his expertise with me!
Hey, have your say? What IS wrong with training?
#1 by Steve on August 27, 2009 - 10:44 pm
Been a trainer, have made these mistakes. Here are the two things I see as the biggest problems with training:
1. Trainers think ‘me-centric’, ‘my content-centric’. Moast, if not all, training events are such a miniscule slice of an individual’s professional development picture. Yet, as trainers, we neglect the real opportunities to make a difference and we focus on the event. The event doesn’t matter in the big picture.
2. Training seize mentorship opportunities, focus on relevance, and reveal secrets early. Most training events don’t do that.
#2 by Linda Farley on August 27, 2009 - 10:44 pm
While I know there are many, many great trainers out there…I would agree that many trainers are in the position for the wrong reason (they are a SME-Subject Matter Expert- or were available, or couldn’t do the job they were previously assigned to, or the company believes that “anyone can be a trainer,” or they are a “people person,” and on and on…
Trainers need education, training and coaching to be professional in their field.
That said, there are a lot of great trainers who have to deliver poorly designed training.
And, finally, there are many training classes delivered to fix a problem that training can’t fix. Training is a substitute for real management, handling tough problems and even terminating people who won’t/can’t do the job.
I’ll be interested to hear other comments on this question.
#3 by Steve on August 27, 2009 - 10:45 pm
Most…
#4 by Milan Davidovic on August 28, 2009 - 8:06 am
Question: what is it about a given context that allows poor training to take place?
#5 by Bill Gascoyne on August 28, 2009 - 11:53 am
re: Milan’s question — Poor training can take place for a number of reasons, but the first one that comes to my mind (as a designer and deliverer of training for a number of years) is that someone has leapt to the conclusion that training is the solution to a given problem. There are often a number of other (cheaper!) solutions, usually involving easier access to required information. Design a quick reference card (”cheat sheet”), or put the information on line and make sure everyone knows where to find it, rather than wasting time in a classroom trying to force it down everyone’s throats.
#6 by Milan Davidovic on August 30, 2009 - 12:05 pm
@Bill I’ve heard this one, but people don’t spring from the womb thinking that performance problems are automatically solved by training. Somewhere along the way, they acquire this attitude. Where’s it coming from?
#7 by Barbara Kuklewicz on August 28, 2009 - 6:01 pm
Hi, Robert,
I agree with the comments and can summarize by saying that Learning & Development professionals sometimes (often?) lack skills in conducting needs analysis that identifies the causes of the gaps between ideal and current performance. Thus, they design workshops that do not focus on the correct skills and knowledge that closes the gaps. In addition, they fail to get the commitment of the participants’ managers in reinforcing the new skills and knowledge when participants return to their jobs. Consequently they can’t demonstrate quantifiable measures of training impact.
#8 by Sherrie Dotson on August 28, 2009 - 10:44 pm
I really think a large part of the problem with training is we have changed. Today, we get what we know from the web, television, social groups. It’s all sound bites, immediate, and compact. It’s great. But it leaves a flawed impression.
There is this illusion that because we can get so much information so quickly surely, surely we can master anything to which we dedicated an incredible 2,3, even 5 days of our very valuable, very expensive time. In that amount of precious time, we should walk out with all knowledge imparted and absolutely all problems solved.
As such, we walk into the classroom with all these incredible expectations that we proceed to dump on one individual – we tell an instructor they must teach at the pace we expect, teach only the content we expect, be the expert we expect, be the lively conversationalist we expect, relate every concept with incredible simplicity while going to great depths of detail on every side topic and tangent that could possibly be derived from the current subject matter, fully manage the classroom experience, tailor anything and everything on the fly to our immediate needs and whims, extend the content if we want it to be 3 days, cut it down to 4 hours but leave absolutely nothing out and so forth, ad nauseum.
Consequently, I have to agree with the statement that those who train have a tendency to become “me centric and content centric.” Hey, it’s a well proven survival tactic. Particularly these days, when for an instructor, the training event has become practically an oddessy that must be persevered through prayer and possibly drugs.
#9 by Robert Bacal on August 30, 2009 - 11:38 am
Certainly think what you say is true. The time issue is one that has been creeping in for ages, where the clients/managers are saying: Do all this and do it without disrupting things (ie. do it in a few hours). It’s still a “training is overhead” mentality rather than “training is an investment that adds to the bottom line”.
But trainers feed this, by not saying no.
But still it remains that we seem to think about people who go to training like some strange form of large form factored child that has to be entertained, coddled, put into groups, debriefed, and, in a pinch, napped.
I personally would not hire most trainers unless they demonstrated a commitment to LEARNING content.
#10 by Sherrie Dotson on September 9, 2009 - 9:29 am
Actually, I don’t think most of the people in the trenches of training, development or delivery consider the people children at all. And I have met very few who ever deliberately choose to stand in front of a class and deliver anything on which they didn’t know the content. Nor anyone who develops that wouldn’t love to be able to do one on one assessments with the customer rather than get the information 3rd and 4th hand. The pressure comes from a management structure that wants to “show value” in training, and does so by capitualating to every request. There is a great deal of “talk,” and endless meetings around performance improvement, learning theory, business objectives; but most of what is implemented has little real impact. The improvements are cosmetic and the actual detailed analysis and work required to build worthwhile programs still remain beyond the grasp and budgets of most training organizations. So you are left with getting exactly what you reward–if you reward your trainers based upon end of course evaluations, then the objective of the trainer becomes to please, not to teach. If you reward your trainers on the number of courses taught, regardless of subject, every quarter, then you get classes where the trainers do not necessarily have expertise in the subject. If you tell a trainer they keep their job by doing what they are told, when they are told to do it, then you get what you get.
#11 by Richard on August 30, 2009 - 12:38 pm
@Milan re: people don’t spring from the womb thinking that performance problems are automatically solved by training. Somewhere along the way, they acquire this attitude. Where’s it coming from?
Gosh, it seems to me sometimes that people do come from the womb this way. My background is more in technical/equipment training. A manager will look at equipment down-time and, after looking at all of the mechanical, electronic, and process issues finally conclude the fault lies with someone not doing the right thing and the gut response seems to be: Send the guy to training. Bring in the vendor to conduct training. Etc. Why?
Because managers have no training or background in human performance. They don’t cover this in an MBA program. After years of going to school and college, after training in the military and elsewhere, it is assumed by people in the workplace that training is the solution. No matter that Tom Gilbert wrote Human Competence back in 1978 and Mager/Pipe wrote about performance analysis in 1983. (And others after them.) It still has not proliferated beyond a few “trainers.”
I liken your question about “people” and “they” with respect to human performance to medical doctors with respect to sickness and wellness. Why do they automatically think that drugs or surgery is the answer? They don’t spring from the womb this way. Where did they get this attitude?
#12 by Milan Davidovic on August 30, 2009 - 1:54 pm
@Richard re: doctors and drugs/surgery, good question. Perhaps there’s a “reward” elsewhere in their context that supports such thinking.
Is there something in the organizational context that “rewards” managers for thinking that the answer is training?
#13 by Kannan Hariharan on September 3, 2009 - 1:50 am
Following is where I think the problem lies:
“No flexibility to the trainer to experiment, innovate and improve the training methodology and content.”
Don’t know how many of you would agree here though!!
#14 by Anand Dwivedi on September 4, 2009 - 12:56 am
What’s wrong with training?
What’s wrong with people?
What’s wrong with US govt?
What’s wrong with Iraq?
What’s wrong with Pakistan?
What’s wrong with India?
What’s wrong with UN?
What’s wrong with terrorists?
What’s wrong with relegion?
What’s wrong with world economy?
What’s wrong with ethical practices?
What’s wrong with corporate governance?
The list is endless…
First of all lets not place at the centre of any discussion.
My thought:
Thousand of years of history is witness to tha fact that we have great trainers from every walk of life. I call them 1st generation trainers.
They are dead now.
We are today witnessing the birth of 2nd generation.
Let’s all learn from the 1st generation trainers & subsiquently contribute to make 2nd generation even better.
Regards,
Anand
#15 by Manoharan Rathinam on September 4, 2009 - 2:08 am
An interesting topic that trainers should be discussing or just following. I try to see this situation from the shoes of a participant… and I end up with more questions
> Why did I get nominated for this program?
> Why should I learn this concept?
> Will this new learning help me?
> Did my manager get trained on this subject?
> Is it possible to implement this in my workplace?
> Will my manager help me to implement this new learning?
> Have I understood the concept in the right way?
> If I ask a question during the training – will I look stupid?
> Why is the trainer treating us like we no nothing about the subject?
> How did the trainer assume that we are not practicing these ideas?
> Why is he defending his ideas so strongly?
> Why did he pick me to ask the question?
> Why is he conducting the class like a school teacher?
> Why did we play this game?………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
> Did I switch off the geyser?
> What time is the program going to end?
> Will I catch the train in time?
> Will I reach home by 8PM?
> What should I cook for dinner?
> Why am I feeling sleepy?
> What if others notice that I am slee…….ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
#16 by Akshay Duggal on September 4, 2009 - 2:51 am
Hi All,
Interesting discussion … There is not much that is wrong with training, other than the way a LOT of business managers think about it. Anything when viewed as a panacea to cure all ills will fail including penicillin! I strongly agree with the fact that unless someone spends some quality time in identifying root causes and continues to blame only their people’s lack of knowledge, skills or attitudes then we will continue to be where we are. Training is viewed as a necessary evil or as someone earlier said an overhead activity instead of as another tool in their kitty to do what they have been hired to do – make the business successful! Most feel insecure about exposing too much of the “real” floor practices as they believe it may be the real edge they have or see it as “you do training leave running the business to us”.
To be fair though a LOT of trainers do not help by way of their own behaviors. So many that I know only think about the activity and running the event well. They may remember the learning objectives (enabling objectives) but really get caught up with – Is the venue good? How’s the food there? Will people have fun? Are they going to like me? – Questions that they are most often burdened with by client side managers. What is forgotten in all of this is the business objective (terminal objective) behind the program.
Ironically the same client managers who hire you and get so concerned about the logistics, forget about the business objectives and spend a bomb on it in terms of $$ & energy then quickly turn around and crib about the expense and obsess about no improvement!
Do they spring from the womb like that…. Yeah metaphorically… I don’t remember any of the business courses teaching future managers on how to harness learning in the real world; so they are “born” from the warm surroundings of the university to the corp. world where they learn by observing their seniors who I have described earlier. So there ya go …..
#17 by Mark on September 6, 2009 - 5:00 pm
The question is too broad. There are many symptoms that persist in the training industry. At the root of many, if not all, of the symptoms can be traced back to the lack of formal training in the field of education and training. Most training organizations hire ‘trainers’ based on subject matter expertise. Hence, most trainers are not competent in learning theory, instructional design, evaluation and measurement, etc. More simply put, there is an abundance of people that present themselves as training professionals, that are merely competent in a narrow sphere of content knowledge. Because many organizations hire based on previous training experience, the problem persists and grows. The only way out of this is to hire training personnel with demonstrated formal preparation in the field of education/training. Much like one would not hire other professionals without evidence of preparation, the same rule applies (law, medicine, accounting, engineering, etc). Even at the public school level, there is a requirement for professional preparation.
Also, there is a false expectation that a trainer is all things; instructional designer, instructor, etc. Especially with today’s technology, there has been an industrialization of education, notably characterized by distinct roles in the education delivery process. You can read more about this concept from researchers such as Otto Peters.
There is just too much here to go into much more detail, but to capstone this discussion, a trainer is a type of educator, and requires formal preparation in many areas in order to be considered a true professional. Acting professional is often confused with being a true knowledge based professional, as evidenced by the acquisition of knowledge. No one would use the services of many professionals without some type of license or certification. You would not even hire a plumber if they were not licensed. But yet, in training, anyone can unilaterally declare he/she is a training professional/expert.