Author: Jack Shaw

Often combined, often confused, often misused is the best way to describe the relationship between Management and Leadership. Here is the problem for trainers: they aren’t the same thing. Training one is teaching nuts and bolts to a mechanic. One is more mechanic than engineer.

Ask yourself if it is better to have one leader or many in a single company? One leader, many managers? One manager, many leaders? One leader/manager and many leader/managers? Did we end up in the same place? I think that managers must be leaders in some ways in order to accomplish their specific mission, which, in turn, contributes to the company mission.

There are differences and similarities; there are times when the same person is both. Here is the big problem. Being the Boss often gives you the choice. Companies rise on the backs of leadership and falls on the backs of management when that leadership vision fails. If it is a vision shared by all company leaders, that makes a difference, doesn’t it.

You can lead a program or you can manage a program. I get the feeling the program that is being led is going someplace, and the one that is being managed is rather static. Now, I used semantics to make it more confusing. That was my point. Clearly there are differences and degrees of importance. Both are incredibly important to the company.

More importantly, I think we need to train leadership at all levels, not just the highest, not just those we call managers.

Now, it’s time to look at a definition. Encarta says a manager is the following:

1. organizer of business: somebody who is responsible for directing and controlling the work and staff of a business, or of a department within it
2. organizer of somebody’s business affairs: somebody who organizes and controls the business affairs of somebody such as a professional entertainer
3. organizer of affairs of athlete: somebody who organizes and controls the training of an athlete or a sports team
4. competent handler: somebody who handles or controls something, especially somebody who works skillfully
5. compute program for basic computer operations: a computer program designed to carry out the basic functions of a computer’s operations
6. student in charge of team’s equipment: a student who takes care of the equipment and records of a high school or college sports team under the supervision of a coach

Synonyms: boss, director, executive, administrator, supervisor, leader, chief, superior

Notice that leader is among the definitions. Now that definition, also from Encarta: (I have purposely left out some of the obvious that do not apply, i.e., a fishing leader.)

1. somebody whom people follow: somebody who guides or directs others
2. somebody or something in lead: somebody or something in front of all others, e.g. in a race or procession
3. somebody in charge of others: the head of a nation, political party, legislative body, or military unit
4. music musical conductor: a conductor of a band or group
5. U.K. music principal musician: the principal performer of an orchestra or of a section of an orchestra
6. U.K. press article expressing editorial opinion: a newspaper article expressing the opinion of the editor

Again, the synonyms often mingle with those of the managers. That tells me English speakers, at least, connect the two or see them as the same. That also means we often expect the same. We expect managers to lead or at least to have some measure of leadership. I also suspect a leader that has no management skills is not going to be as effective either.

Budgets have put us all behind the technology curve—at least for government agencies as far as I know. The lower the budgets the less we can spend on the latest technology, including the latest Microsoft Office software. While we should be looking at the latest, we are just now getting the previous version, 2007, and coming from 2003, there needs to be a modicum of training for everyone to be able to use it easily.

Sounds simple. It needs little motivation since we all need it to do the most basic of jobs. A little instruction will go a long way. Now, I have this software at home and use it regularly; in fact, I have the 2010 version so I can probably pass on the training, providing it’s not mandatory. If it is I will do my best to wiggle out of it. Good thing, too, I hear.

I’m sure the story was told to me without exaggeration, and even it wasn’t, it’s still a good example of what not to do, how even the most basic of training can be a disaster. This is why I hate training. Well, I don’t. Not really, but it gives others good reason to. I know you’re anxious to hear the story so here it goes:

The trainer, Bob, who is a subject matter expert from Microsoft is late to his own Webinar. I won’t argue the merits of other training versus Webinars; in fact, this seems an appropriate format for this basic subject where you can demonstrate right on the screen. The Webinar is also connected via a phone line so it is really a combination of Webinar and one-way conference call. The lack of technology again.

But it is not technology that whips the trainer, but the trainer who needs to apply the whip. Bob needs to be in control, not only of his own equipment, but of an audience of hundreds waiting anxiously for how to use the new software. Maybe this doesn’t happen with certified trainers, I hope not, but Bob may be one, or not since he works for Microsoft. He probably just rushed to do what was so routine that he could do it with his eyes closed—except he forgot to check his equipment and test it beforehand.

First, he couldn’t get the Webinar working, but he already had people on audio so he had to explain and apologize (not good), then his version of Microsoft Office 2007 didn’t work on his computer, and he announced once again he had been having troubles with it but it seemed to be working alright a few minutes ago.

His is a case, not just of gremlins but a reoccurring problem with his computer. It doesn’t take a genius to say, make sure your equipment is in perfect working order—at least test it a couple of times—more if you are not positive of its dependability. He finally decides to use his version of 2010, which is pretty close to 2007. Really. He did. Bob has now wasted 10-15 minutes of his training time, and is rushing to catch up. And, he’s not using the same software he is training everyone else on.

Rushing through his demonstration, Bob is going so fast he has lost half of his audiences, and the questions start pinging off the walls. He is frustrated and they are frustrated. They are motivated to learn, while he is motivated to quit. He charges ahead, this time tackling what he thinks will be of interest to his audience: the blogging features of the software. The what? Not knowing his audience, he is now teaching them something most will never use on the job. Some may find it interesting, nonetheless. Training ends with less than half of what should have been covered. His Webinar audience was stunned by his ineptitude, miffed by the waste of time, and some audience members are actually concerned with what they missed since they really need this training.

So, what have we learned from Bob’s training disaster?

1. Always be prepared, whatever the format, and check out your equipment. Boy Scout Rule Number One. Actually, I don’t know which scout rule it is, but it should have been Bob’s number one,
2. Treat every training session as the most important training you’ll ever do. Your passion, real or imagined, will come through and might even make you believe it. Sell it like you’re selling it for the first time. This training, however behind in the software budge curve, was necessary and important to those viewing the Webinar and hearing the audio on the phone. They can’t help the budget.
3. Apologize for being a minute or two late for starting, but don’t make excuses—especially for what could have been prevented prior planning and practice.
4. Use what you are supposed to be training on—not a substitute. I suppose I should give points for quick thinking but after what I’ve heard so far, I’m already wondering about Bob’s ability to tell me what I need to know.
5. Have a backup plan. Undependable computer? Get another computer or have one standing by. Have a backup plan. Did you notice I said it twice. It’s that important.
6. Bob’s worst sin in my opinion is in not knowing his audience. He trained them in something they didn’t have a reason to know. It was nice to know and interesting, and he could have incorporated it as “a nice to know” sort of thing–if he had had enough time.

This comes down to what I always say: Know Your Audience, Know Your Subject, and Know Yourself! All the rest is conversation. For more information on what I always say and about my philosophy on training, communication and other related topics check out my website.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

On the surface these four points seem to fulfill what the company wants and (and what you want) in a needs assessment.

The company wants to:

1. Inform you of currently available training and determine your need or interest in taking training,
2. Gather and prioritize your ideas for additional training areas,
3. Determine the capacity of company staff to train others, and
4. Assess how you like to take training.

These four, with the liberal use of “you” try to tell you in the nicest way that this training is all about you, but you know otherwise. It is, of course, in your best interest if you can predict the value it will ultimately have for you. But this is still framed for the company’s best interest.

Taken by themselves, they are fine. They certainly represent the thinking and collaboration of several key staff members in coming up with these final four. The framers are team players, certainly, and they are trying to include all the employees. If asked, they probably have the same questions–but they really are team players without question.

However, it does leave some questions for others willing to ask. Input or buy-in? How will your information be used? Will it serve as justification for more funding to do the job more to your liking, or just sit there coupled with an excuse of why that can’t be accomplished? What happened to “what’s in it for me?”

Perhaps, that’s the real kicker. There is no mention of “what’s in it for me” other than you might be able to take training the way you prefer it, and helping you do your job better. If I’m already exemplary (I say modestly), will it prepare me for a promotion? Does training even count for that? If you think you don’t need training, does it matter? Sure, it does, but maybe it hasn’t been explained to you.

1. The most effective training you can deliver is that training that motivates employees to use what they learn. Asking them what they need or how they prefer to be trained is an important first step.
2. We always seem to start with a needs assessment (often a survey just like this), but we fail in mentioning how this training will be managed and what’s in it for me besides becoming an exemplary employee is left out of the introduction.

Perhaps a conversation or communique addressing how valuable this training will be to employees–career-wise, personally and company-wise–is important to ensure a motivated workforce. To do so, we have to assume people plan to have a company career and have goals for the future. We’re naive if we think if they don’t have. Motivated training can lead us to the company vision for the future; it benefits us in getting the most for our efforts.

We start with a needs assessment, but it has always been my opinion that you can’t assume everyone knows or remembers how this training will benefit them as well as the company.

While it’s logical that a needs assessment comes first before the training plan, consideration should be given to the weight training will be given to employees and management, and how that training will be used. I wouldn’t be surprised that in most cases the training plan is already created and this survey is to gain buy-in or rubber stamping from the employees. I could be wrong, but it is also conceivable the training budget has been set and decisions have already made on how to apply those resources. I hope not, because in those cases, a needs assessment survey like the one described is relatively pointless.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

We aren’t the only ones concerned with training outcomes.

According to an Army Times article title, Soldier Training is in For a Big Overhaul, Lt. Gen. Benjamin C. Freakley, commander of Accessions Command, says “We sometimes get overly focused on goals — passing a PT test, qualifying with a weapon, learning Army values and being a good follower in basic training.”

“Is that what we want,” Freakley asked, “or do we want soldiers who not only know Army values, but internalize them; who are proud to be a member of a team, and whose pride motivates the team to a higher performance level?”

In my last post, I talked about Leadership Training in Five Ways to Look at Bosses — a Leadership Training Profile and used the military as an example of type of program that gets results. Now, at a more basic level of everyday training, the military is discovering that in today’s complex world of fighting, there is the need for soldiers to adapt quickly and discovering that outcome-based training is better plan and is making changes in how they are training the troops. This is the most sweeping change for military training in general in four decades.

According to the Army Times, the current operational environment as one of “persistent conflict” that is complex and multidimensional, requiring initiative and adaptability at all levels. This, in turn, has led the training community to become less concerned with processes than the outcome of training. As should we the corporate, business and government trainers, whose world is also “complex and multidimensional.” There’s no doubt that initiative and adaptability is also on our list of desirables when training.

While outcome-based education has its naysayers who say it breeds mediocrity by lowering success standards to meet student inadequacy, some training pundits say there can be the tendency to do that with training. They say teachers and schools want the good numbers OBE can deliver at the expense of the students. To make it happen means lowering the standard so everyone is successful; but I disagree that trainers can be tempted to do the same. The Army seems to agree with me that mediocrity is not the goal. It can’t be. How can we avoid mediocrity in the outcome?

Look for Innovation in Process.

Good training needs assessments, established standards and performance requirements and identifying the most desirable results make outcome based training a whole other matter. Don’t compromise the need because it’s difficult to get there. Keep the need and be innovative in the process to find a way to make it happen.

We accept innovation in most processes, especially if it makes the end product more profitable. If we train the same way, aren’t we doing the same thing. We should look at the whole picture, but we get caught up in trying to minimize to maximize the output. We’re still trying to do the same thing here, but putting the focus on the outcome and exploring new techniques to get there. It really doesn’t sound any different than creating a needs assessment, developing a training plan and implementing the training plan to get there. Often, once through the training, we check off training accomplished without really knowing it has taken.

Identify a Standard of Success.

Freakley said the standard for success under Outcome-Based Training is for the drill sergeant and company commander to look at a soldier and ask themselves whether they would feel comfortable taking that individual into combat.

“If the answer is yes, then you have done your job,” he said. “If the answer is no, then we have to determine if the soldier is trainable.

The same should hold for us. Our corporate or business combat is of a different nature, but if we don’t get what we want we should keep trying and adapt. If the job looks impossible we have to move that individual or get rid of him, but I’m for re-training, if he or she is willing, and still wants to be with the company.

In the military, the major objective of outcome-based training is to transform civilian volunteers into soldiers who immediately can contribute to mission accomplishment in their first unit of assignment. Of course the training continues beyond that for each additional mission.

Drill sergeants and other training officials strive to produce soldiers who are:

• Proud team members who possess the character and commitment to live Army values and the warrior ethos.

• Confident, adaptable, mentally agile and accountable for their own actions.

• Physically, mentally, spiritually and emotionally ready to fight as a ground combatant.

• Masters of critical combat skills and proficient in basic soldiering skills in all environments.

• Self-disciplined, willing and adaptive thinkers, capable of solving problems commensurate with position and experience.

This is not unlike at all what we want for our trainees; only the specific adjectives are different. We definitely want to train the basics.

Assessment.

If we are process oriented, we may lose sight of the results. You can teach it, but can you use it? This brings me to the assessment portion. How can you tell if your training has been successful. You can ask questions, present hypothetical situations, but reall test is in the results, ironically.

Better yet is to keep adding to the training, provide groups that promote actions that keep us centered on outcomes. We have what we want. Trust our trainees to use the abilities we sought to develop; you can’t go wrong to reinforce the confidence you have in them.

An aside. I have always been one to look everywhere for answers, to ask questions, to want to know about a lot of things. Some people want to know how machines work, how computers work, how numbers work; but I’ve always wanted to know what makes people work. Perhaps, that’s the social psychologist in me rather than the trainer.

A book on leadership by Dr. Wes Roberts and Bill Ross from 1989. Some might consider it high on storytelling and low on training explanation, but sometimes a little makes you dig for more once your interest is piqued. Its title: Leadership Lessons from Star Trek-The Next Generation, MAKE IT SO. It does seem to be trait-oriented by they way it is chaptered. The book presents scenes from the series where leadership was on call, when those desired outcomes of training as a Starfleet officer was definitely needed. Captain Jean Luc Picard seemed to have the right outcome-based training to handle “complex and multidimensional” situations with “initiative and adaptability.” Imagine that, and from Hollywood. Do you suppose they had a trainer to advise the writers? It is a different way of looking at leadership and by a reverse look at the results, and it appears the training was outcome based, but that is only my opinion.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

I hope to get a least a smile from my film metaphors, but what do you expect from an actor turned trainer? When we write it is said we should always write what we know. And, that is what I have tried to do here. I hope you find my take interesting or entertaining (hopefully both), but, most of all, in caveman speak, that I bring food for the cave. Food for thought, nourishment for the soul, vitamins for energy, etc.

I find training and development to be a fascinating field although my approach may sometimes deviate a bit to the employee or trainee side of things rather than the trainer, training developer, or training manager. These days, at a time when we really need to see the people in the jobs perform their best, and knowing the uncertainty of the economy, trainers need to do what seems impossible and see that it gets done.

And we have to do it with fewer resources than we used to have, meaning more in-house training, less outsourcing–if at all, and do more than just train. We need to give hope, motivate and or train. We need to see the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of training, and make any training the “affair to remember” of my last article. Understand when I say the “ugly” of training, I only mean the process our trainees may find utterly boring and repulsive. We can’t help that on the surface so much–the fact it exists or we must train on certain subjects that in themselves are boring and perceived by some as a waste of time. That subject training may be mandated by law.

But we can try to make the most of it by reaching out to those who find it repugnant to see value in it–like it or not–out of necessity. That means dealing with individuals to whom the subject or the process seems entirely unnecessary. This means acknowledging at a minimum there is more to people than their job. We can’t ignore their job and their place in the company; however, we can try to incorporate it within their reality of survival–their world being more than company.

Some see their jobs only as a means to survive; however, I think most of us enjoy our jobs–or at least try to make the best of them. Sometimes those jobs become us and who we are–our very identity. Remember, Death of a Salesman, a perfect tragedy of a life ruined by becoming too much of one thing and forgetting the rest of his identity is important, too. This has been said often by teachers and trainers, and you’ve said it yourself, we shouldn’t train subjects but people. Ironic isn’t that in some countries subjects and people can be the same thing. We no longer have a monarchy ruling this country so people aren’t subjects. While people learn subjects, they really have to be connected or should be, dare I say it, to Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs. We should identify people as being more than the job. The subjects we train or teach are a part of the whole–not the whole.

When I wrote What Would A Caveman DO: How We Know What We Do About Training, I was writing about a simplified time, when training was a matter of survival, when people needed and wanted to learn more to do their jobs more efficiently. Doing their jobs more efficiently put more food on the table, made a better shelter, or otherwise helped them survive and thrive.

We have to have a similar take on training even today. If we can’t directly help someone survive this economy, we can at least acknowledge trainees as people who have the same worries as the rest of us, and make it positive. The off-hand remark a trainer may make about having to take a break because it’s in the curriculum or labor union rules, “and we have much more to cover” doesn’t help to promote the feeling we are all in this together.

This is not the time to joke about real lives. People need a break to breathe, to stretch their legs, and to use the bathroom, but also to put things in perspective, to call home and check on the sick kid, to connect with the wife to see if she needs anything–personal stuff. Those things that make them people–human beings.

I’m not saying we aren’t doing these things. Most of us probably are, but I am saying they are still important to do. Everyone wins. To make people a part of the equation means we are the “good;” to not do so, the “bad;” and we know the “ugly” training exists no matter what. Dealing with it positively makes the experience worthwhile for all–even the trainers. No one should feel they are not being served by training. Know that we are all happier doing our job when it is more pleasant. When people appreciate us, we like it. It increases our self esteem.

As trainers, we have the best jobs in the world because we have to be so multifaceted as human beings; the trick is in using these facets together in training others. We trainers must be psychologists, teachers, counselors, trainers, philosophers, and oftentimes, subject-matter-experts as well. It wouldn’t hurt us to do our best to be people experts. In fact, it wouldn’t hurt at all. It might even do a lot of good. I hope you agree.

This has been my take on the “good, the bad, and the ugly” of training. I hope I brought food to the cave and something to think about. I look forward to hearing from you–either here in comment form, or via e-mail. Or, if you like, check out my website. I’m always open to questions and suggestions of topics. If I don’t have a good answer your question or can adequately write about your suggestion in a short article, I’ll try to find someone who feels they can. Maybe that’s you. Let me know. I want to know what you think.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

By the way, my new eBook is available through most major distributors and in most formats. The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development is a look at training through the eyes of others, taking the notion to another more basic level to explore ways we can simplify what we do. We spend so much time “branding” ourselves so we have a different approach to sell. Maybe what we have has complicated the picture for the very people we want to sell to. I have written a book to help us re-think what we do and ask some questions of why. Who is to say, this won’t work for your brand of training; it may even help.

When I asked friends for ideas on training for this article, here’s what I received:

• How to train your dog to use the toilet.
• How to make a mountain out of a mole hill.
• How to make an American quilt.
• How to extract your own wisdom teeth.
• How best to express road rage-flipping the bird or screaming obscenities.
• How to fit the maximum amount of beer in a fridge.
• How to escape a burning building using only # two pencils and dental floss.
• How best to ____ off telemarketers.

Creative, yes, but not at all what I had in mind. But it does tell us what people think about training. It gave me an idea about how we could most effectively be using the learning tools we are given.

Say the word, “training” and it elicits an immediate frown from the trainees-to-be–unless these same employees are anxious to get out of work at their job, which isn’t a good thing either. Most training is boring. It’s always the same thing–prescriptive. Trainers who can take that curriculum and turn it into something more relevant, interesting by adding experiences and examples, some not in the book, and therefore, fun, are the opposite of boring. Yes?

Believe it or not, some trainers are more afraid of the public speaking aspect of training than conducting the training itself. Those trainers do what they have to, but they haven’t necessarily succeeded in making it a memorable experience for the trainees. Not all the necessary communication is written down in the training curriculum or trainer guide. The trainer’s guide doesn’t say be yourself, be self-assured and try to make the trainees want to be a part of this exciting endeavor.

Let’s face it: training guides are meant to help a trainer accomplish the basic delivery of pertinent knowledge and doesn’t cover too much on how to make it relevant on a personal basis. The very business and staid nature of the guide makes some trainers try to make a seemingly “mission impossible” into “an affair to remember” without any help.

We know from research that people learn better when certain techniques are used. We apply those learning techniques in our training modules because they reportedly are the best ways to have our trainees remember what we want them to remember.

But what if they are more focused on nonsense questions like the above, and view this training as having little value?

We’re doing all the right things. We are using the prescribed curriculum; we are using the trainer notes. We have icebreakers, experiential activities, quizzes, and evaluations. But is anyone listening?

Making your training “an affair to remember” will certainly solve that concern.

So, how do you get there?

There are probably some born communicators or those who have learned their craft over the years, but for those who are aren’t, here are some ideas to help you present a more dynamic lesson.

Training, teaching, public speaking, conducting successful meetings, presenting depositions in court or talking to a jury, and, of course, acting are all activities based on a performance, requiring credibility, passion, and the ability to draw from your own personal bag of tricks to make it real. I’ve talked about several of these activities in other blogs, but hopefully, this one can tie them all together.

My biggest concern for trainers is that, for the most part, they are more focused on the process of training according to the trainer’s guide, than on communicating with the trainees or audience. It’s a little like “which came first?” The basics of public speaking apply, taking into account the audience, the subject and the trainer/presenter/speaker, etc. I’m not saying make a speech or lecture instead. Do lecture, if that’s appropriate. Should you follow the “plan,” know that even the introduction of the training itself, the transitions and instructions to carry out the activities, and the overall purpose and motivation for the training must be communicated effectively.

Why do some students love their teachers? Because they’re young and don’t know any better? No, because the teachers are charismatic. They’re fun. They’re themselves and the students know that. The teachers care about the students and ensure they get the a lesson–not just going through the motions. It should be no different with training. And trainers, too.

Know your audience, know your subject and know yourself.

Sounds simplistic and maybe that is the beauty of it. Knowing the audience is primary to any training needs assessment, environment, implementation, and plans. The same goes for the subject–tailored, of course, to your audience. Then, the biggest factor, often ignored by managers and training staff: the assignment of a trainer who can hold and engage the audience with the subject matter.

To some trainers, even though they know training and all the requisite tools, public speaking is still their biggest fear, their “mission impossible” as it is for most people. That is the reason some trainers fall back to the etched-in-stone training process.

Sure, the program takes into account how people learn and what techniques do that best, but bottom-line for trainees is that they have to care. The only way to make them care is to have someone who can grab their attention, make the training meaningful and communicate the message (the subject effectively). That is the job of the trainer or facilitators of training. Either way, we’re going to make that “mission impossible” “an affair to remember.”

For those trainers or facilitators who need help in owning the stage and being more confident, I won’t just say, “practice, practice, practice.” Practice is important, but there are other techniques as well. Actors know how to be comfortable in their own skins as well as others. The trick is to get the right help to identify who you are, and to use that knowledge effectively.

Once you know who you are and why you belong on the stage the rest is conversation–the training module, made easy.

Use the all the personality tools you own, the information you feel critical to communicate and connect with the audience. “Owning” the moment and the stage is key to alleviating public speaking/training fears. This is where the knowing yourself comes in. Everyone has a unique personality and I encourage them to use it. Not everyone is a dance a minute on the stage or a joke teller or a witty soul. But I wouldn’t tell a cowboy about to make a speech he had to take his hat off–especially if that is not who he is. In essence, be yourself and use what is unique about you as you would in talking with friends. Be a person. That will help the moment feel more natural–more like conversation, which isn’t fearful.

Communication considerations for trainers.

• How do you get your audience’s attention and maintain it?
• Recognize different training groups, different approaches, different sizes of training–one size may not fit all.
• How do you make the trainees remember what you said? In public speaking, we use storytelling and humor among other things.
• How do you influence your audience?
• Knowing the charisma you need to become a dynamic and respected communicator or facilitator of training? A hint. It’s already in there. In you!

Effective communication couldn’t be more important in training.

No one should deny our purpose is for our trainees to absorb our subject matter and commit to using it. Even if you have a product that sells itself you still have to have get someone to pay attention to it to know they even want it. Basic communication means we have information to convey and we need our audience to “act” on that information (even if it is just to remember it) or we wouldn’t be there in the first place.

Communication is about sending and receiving information. Actors are taught acting and reacting–virtually the same give and take in a speaking or training environment. Acting is about audience perception and our ability to influence that perception. To get others to listen, to remember, to change their minds or attitudes is communication.

Actors aren’t the only ones who need to know their audience, their subjects, and themselves, trainers should, too, if they want their training sessions to be “affairs to remember.” Those results are the best kind, after all.

The most efficient training is the best communicated training.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Corporations, non-profits and any big organization–especially the financially strapped state and federal government agencies are looking for ways that save money and still accomplish training needs.

My previous article was on meetings that are held to discuss “best practices.” Here is an idea for multifaceted supervisor training that came from one of those meetings that I’d like to share.

We generally take our best workers and promote them to supervisors to do unfamiliar and dissimilar work in a totally foreign environment.

Even if they were team leaders before, it’s a whole different approach to what they did before when they were one of the guys. Now they get to be the “bosses,” separate and apart from their crews and peers. It may seem to them this impending alienation is sorry “reward” for doing a great job, but once they learn the way of things they’ll probably think differently.

Let’s say you’ve managed to snare the young, hard-working employee and gave him the job of supervisor, and you are anxious to see what the diligent and dependable employee can do to make his people more like him.

Hopefully, he can turn his workers into a productivity train—but he has to become a supervisor first, and that requires some additional skills. You hope his attitude will help get him there. You hope you chose well.

Now, you think of training, but they took your money. Maybe he can make it on-the-job without training. Now, that would be the way to lose him.

How did you train supervisors before they took your funding away?

The supervisor took a core set of courses, traveled to some site training and spent a good deal of time just settling in.

Okay, maybe that’s a little too simplistic and ideal, but today what he gets is a big question mark. Today, because funding is low, he is thrown to the wolves and you hope he has a knife or grew instant fangs, or is tossed in the river and you in hope he can swim.

While I like focused, self-directed and motivated, core-based, classroom and exercise-based training, I think mixing classroom training when available, using online training, company-specific training provided by local managers, a support group, and a mentoring system that provides a place for questions and feedback is something to consider seriously.

The biggest problem is getting the core-training in a timely manner.

In the absence of that it makes sense to use the other methods to fill in the gaps. A supervisor support group will help to start with and could be continued indefinitely, creating a pool of supervisors sharing problems and solutions. These groups of 8 to 10, if the company is large enough, need not meet weekly, but monthly or quarterly to share common issues, network and training.

Add in a seasoned mentor who besides, advising, can develop a working relationship with the young supervisor.

The supervisor can possibly take advantage of that relationship rest of his career; after all, who could know him better over time?

It would be the manager who would set up a plan with the mentor, who would meet with and observe the new supervisor in the office; if so needed he could recommend training in addition to providing advice. He follows up with phone calls and emails to keep up the bond that follows the supervisor for his first year at least.

That may be all it takes for the supervisor to come up to speed, but what is the harm of establishing strong links in the company with his peers (supervisor support group) and his mentor—a guide for his career. As for the mentor and other teachers/managers drafted in the process, a little refresher never hurt anyone.

These days of economic uncertainty it might to also refresh their interest in the company goals and needs.

As for the online training, the managers sign on as teachers or teaching assistants and can monitor the supervisors’ progress. Best of all, it doesn’t have the feel of training in the traditional sense; it feels more like support, and it works. It is a Best Practice.

The result: You will have good supervisors to support the line staff, make a case for recruitment and succession planning; and besides growing strong supervisors you will be increasing company productivity. Of course, that’s not a given, but a strong probable with the right talent.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.