Author: Jack Shaw

After 20 minutes, I nearly finished a 25-page online needs assessment for my organization before I clicked the last page and submitted it–disgusted that I had wasted my time. The survey asked me what I needed to do my job. It asked me if what was offered did the job. Is there some other form of training I might be more likely to benefit from? I found the list of topics interesting, mostly relevant to any job, but, for the most part, for someone in my situation–pointless.

There lies the disconnect. Training is still not offered in any meaningful way that makes me want to do my job better. I do it well. We all can benefit from more knowledge–certainly specific knowledge of our jobs–but the why is usually because it is in the best interest in the company. For any training to be beneficial it must be desired; it must have a purpose and a reason to be delivered. What is the end result? How do participants benefit–if they cannot see the benefits of their employment, or their personal development?

It makes employees want to scream: “Leave me alone!” Filling out 25 pages of forms feels like I’m helping someone draft an attractive curricula, not training intended for me.

Then, the next day, I had to sit in a conference call meeting discussing the same needs assessment, but this turned out to be a discussion in which employees expressed concerns about how outside hires shouldn’t be allowed the training because it would give them an unfair advantage over the agency employees. In other words, once the contract was over, the outside hires could use that training on the outside. Bugger!

The training is intended for the company–not me, personally. I get it. But shouldn’t it be? I do the work. The training should be part of my portfolio just as my education and work experience. You know that I will put it on my resume for my next job interview, which is where I am going if I feel any less appreciated because right now people think I can no longer do my job.

Training is rarely viewed as an opportunity to succeed, but rather a way of increasing productivity. Fair enough for business sake, but lousy for personnel retention.

Here’s the way to keep me. Train me for the next job when I’ve mastered this one, or train me for another if this doesn’t look like it’s the best fit. I’m good for something. You invested time and money when you hired me. Help me help you get the most out of your investment.

I have seen very little reward offered for taking extra training–let alone the extra time out of the office or plant. If anything, I have seen more bosses and colleagues upset that people are in training instead of at their place of work. In training for what? Usually, just to do their jobs better, or it’s legal thing and we all have to do it. Is that good to me? Sell me on it. If we all have to do, let’s do it together at one time–if we can. Make it fun–if we can. We have to do it so that makes us a team. The alternative is doing it online (snore) or web cast (also snore).

All of us want to be productive; some of us want to be the “go-to” guy or gal; some of us even want to be boss one day. Put us on a development track where to succeed in training is a good thing. Maybe we don’t have the jobs at the moment, but times change, and we can be ready to fill them with people who have worked to gain the right knowledge to get there.

Get rid of the needs assessment disconnect. Make a training plan that works for the individual, not just the company. It might just mean the employee and company can live happily ever after. But that’s just me. If you have comments or questions on the subject, let’s start a dialogue.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

In my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development, I talk about how the idea of training and development began in the cave, how we learned what we know today from the cave men and women who were motivated by survival. Only our organization’s survival is at stake today, not our lives. Imagine what problem solving training issues might have looked like in the cave council. The only difference would be the campfires to keep the cave warm.

These are my words and opinions. Please feel free to disagree and comment, or contact me. If you’re interested in more of my points of view–my Cave Man way of looking at things, I have a website where you can find other items I have written. For more information on my peculiar take on training, check out my best selling The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development, and for a look at a world that truly needs a reality check, see my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality! Meanwhile, Happy Training.

I am well advised of the power of gazing in everyday matters.

One of my cats uses gazing to communicate its undying love for me. Seriously. She gazes intently, staring and then blinks a few times; if you’ve studied animal behavior, you know it means she loves me–with the glint in her misty blue eyes. Not unlike the girl in the first Indiana Jones’ movie who gazes longingly into Professor Indiana’s eyes and drops her eyelids, which say, “Love Me,” written there obviously with what I hope is erasable ink.

There is even a dating site that uses party gazing as one of the activities to set up dates. There’s actually a time limit before you get yourself in trouble. I know that the length of a human gaze indicates potential intimacy, or, in less romantic practical terms, if someone is receptive to our presence. (Psychology 101) Good communicators, especially trainers, or those who don’t want to commit, should know just when to quit.

Let’s face it: in training, it’s probably not a good idea for your participants to gaze longingly in your eyes as you present, nor the opposite. Despite the fact it is distracting for you as a speaker or trainer, it could be disastrous for your presentation. Gazing in public speaking or in training has the ability to enhance or detract from your presentation and the intended communication. As for the audience gazing at us, that’s exactly what we want; but we want to control the communication, keep the gaze receptive and direct their attention to what we want them to see. The rule of thumb: gaze only long enough to be received, give them your special glint, and move on.

For those of you who don’t get me yet. The glint I’m referring to is similar to a smile and a wink. We all do it to make that special connection with each member of our audience if we can. It says, “I’m talking to you.”

And, you can believe corporate training firms include it as essential in any how-to or train-the-trainer guide. Without good eye contact or gazing, you lose your audiences–a point trainers can’t afford to miss, according to Lisa Braithwaite, a colleague of mine with a similar background. Eye contact is so important to what we do. It means control or the environment; therefore, control of the communication–and the all-important message.

To illustrate how this can happen even in a simple setting: when sitting in a meeting, and you notice the speaker’s eyes never meet yours. If you look at that person and speak, you have immediate control of the conversation and the communication. The speaker before you never never had it–even though words may have been spewing forth.

Even if the speaker were attractive beyond compare and if you had been too distracted by physical beauty to listen, the result would have been the same. No communication coming from his or her lips met your ears with any impact. Think about the first time you met the “love of your life” and were speechless. Looking at someone intently affects them emotionally, hopefully in a good way. Perhaps “love at first sight” is mixed with pheromones, I don’t know; but, in any case, the receiver has to respond emotionally. In our case, the training environment, we prefer just complete attention.

It is the same with any audience. If you can’t look them in the eye–and you know what that means with larger audiences, make them think you are, or you will not be able to control or manage the message you are trying to convey.

Don’t believe me? Try it for fun. This works best if you are doing a session on communication. Continue looking at an audience member and don’t let up until you get a reaction from him or her. Interestingly enough, you will probably get a reaction from the audience beforehand. Audience members want your attention. This only proves the right amount of gazing is good, but too little or too much is bad. Good speakers control eye contact extremely well. Besides timing their gazing, they use eye contact to make others follow where their eyes go to emphasize a message. Eye contact can signal the audience when you plan to make a shift–kind of a head nod that says, “this way.”

It is because you aren’t receiving a “proper” gaze, that you have to concentrate when listening closely to someone who has strabismus or “crooked eyes,” or amblyopia or “lazy eye.” On the other hand, what if you the speaker or the trainer is the one afflicted with this malady? Although in some cases either form of misdirected eyes can be corrected, but mostly at a young age when it is most likely to affect vision.

That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t speak or train. Academy Award-Winner Forest Whitaker’s left eye ptosis, which is the drooping eyelid, has been “called intriguing” by critics; and Joe Mantegna, who has Bell’s palsy, which causes one side of the face to droop and can result in one eye not closing, has not suffered a lack of acting jobs because of his unusual look either.

I do advise letting your audience know in a humorous way you may not seem at times as if you are looking at them but assure them you have “special powers” and can see all. Of course, you know I’m kidding. Use your own way to let them know you are aware they may be affected by this and it will actually make them pay closer attention (again, Psychology 101).

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

We call it professional development training. Here’s a little different take. I call it, The Black Belt Art of Training. My middle school children have been taking the same kind of training for years.

ract among most trainers, I think. But do tell me if I have hit on something we are doing later. We can exchange the terms.

My son received his second degree black belt at 12. My daughter, who took a break to be on a gymnastics team and take dance lessons is a little behind at 11. She’s testing for her first degree black belt this weekend at Yi’s Karate. Grand Master YI calls it “Karate” because it is more recognizable to the general public, but in the dojang (dojo in Japanese), they refer to what they do as Tang So Do. It’s one of several Korean versions called generically, Tae Kwon Do, which is a version of the Japanese karate.

So why do I bring this up? This is training of a whole sort. That makes it a little different from what we do as trainers. Karate, and all the martial arts in fact, train “body and mind” (and some might add, “soul”). To be adequately “trained” for a black belt, there are a number of phases the students go through. This is not like The Karate Kid “Wipe on, wipe off!”

These kids and adults learn the culture (the why), the language (concentrate on communication to speak the same language), learn specific knowledge and practice it until they are proficient enough at it to take a test in front of their peers, and they must exhibit honorable character qualities for a belt of that rank.

They must adhere to not only a strict code of conduct, but also a respect for the uniform, tradition, honor and those who have achieved higher ranks, which for the kids, includes honoring and obeying parents, respecting others and the like. So what’s not to like? The lower belts where basic techniques are learned and little mistakes are allowed progress faster than those at the higher levels–those who would be the teachers, the masters of their martial art one day. Those at the lower levels may progress in months of training, while the advanced black belt ranks stay years before advancing to the next degree. The exact amount of time and requirements vary with the school of karate but they all have them.

My kids have to write essays each time they test for the next higher belt on some aspect of why they are training. At first it isn’t too deep, later it becomes infused with techniques and philosophies, and finally teaching and leadership. By the time the training is completed, there is a level of proficiency that can be compared in any similar school. Respect among peers and higher belts is acknowledged and mutually expressed with a bow.

Now, I’m not saying we should bow to each other. I think we do that subconsciously as we acknowledge position. In the military, respect for the service tradition, honor and code of conduct is extremely important for both enlisted and officer. By the way, the code of conduct is not just for rules of war when you are captured; that experience is actually a test of the code. Rank is earned obviously and maintains a certain consistency about it. I should also mention that junior grade, field grade and general grade officers are involved in professional development training throughout their careers. In fact, not completing one course of study can prevent a promotion and ultimately lead to retirement.

There is much value in professional development, but the value is in its consistency and transparency of application.

Corporately, some leaders come up the ranks of the company but many come from outside the company where other factors come into play–like money, potential earnings for the company based on what an individual may bring in terms of experience–even contacts. Few peers know them and fewer workers know them.

But where do we train junior executives to be senior executives like they do in karate. I’m sure there are training companies who would love that contract, but it seems the answer is simpler than hire an outside company.

This is just my opinion, but it seems the karate guys have it right. We should breed leaders. Just kidding. That’s not far from the truth if that is what professional development means. We raise them up. We train them to be leaders. We teach them the company way, but let’s do one better.

Let’s infuse them with ideals, let them learn and make mistakes without derailing them before they start–no black eyes, no black balls–just black belts. Keep adding more training to take them to the next level and reward them when they get there. Each time. A small raise would do it, and have it count for something in an evaluation. Even better give credit to fine application of these principles from time to time.

Your true performers come out, stay positive and their peers see performance as a true reason for promotions and bonuses. All your employees see it, too. We respect hard working individuals. Most of us give credit where it’s due.

Basic principles of all training:

• Trainees learn the language
• Trainees learn the “why”
• Trainees learn the tools
• Trainees learn the art

As trainees learn the “why,” they gain a deeper understanding of the purpose and reasoning behind what they do.

With that comes confidence and wisdom. And, the ability to learn from others. Many a leader will say they don’t have the lock on answers, yet they do have the last word.

Finally, managers should reward the accomplishment of the training. Reward keeps us all going to the next step–especially when it is seen by others.

The Black Belt Art of Training.

These are my words and opinions. Please feel free to disagree and comment, or contact me. If you’re interested in more of my points of view–my Cave Man way of looking at things, I have a website where you can find other items I have written. For more information on my peculiar take on training, check out my best selling The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development, and for a look at a world that truly needs a reality check, see my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality! Meanwhile, Happy Training.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

What exactly is cave man training? Actually, I just made it up to get your attention. You probably know it as non-traditional training. Bringing in outsiders, people in related fields to train in the areas where we are similar.

Traditional training is more about bringing in the trainer who is in our field, with years of experience and wisdom to teach us the best way to do our jobs. It seems to me the non-traditional trainers should be the cave man trainers, who did it first. The fact it is the other way around should tell us something. I think what I do is considered non-traditional training or coaching because I apply the techniques of any field that I find applicable in the training environment; however, I definitely see myself as a cave man. Let me tell you why.

In a previous post, I wrote about actors training lawyers, which can make great sense from a communicator point of view. Something both fields need. Non-traditional training? Lawyers need to communicate. Another application might be to bring in psychologists to discuss predicting behavior of juries and judges. I just recently saw a website of a group of lawyers who specialize in training other lawyers. Traditional? Same for lawyers specializing in training, in graphic arts. Now, the line is blurred. Well, they are teaching other lawyers, and it makes sense. The fact they are lawyers may be a draw; we prefer people like ourselves. However, it is the differences that bring them to the table to train the lawyers.

Trainers are very often the subject matter experts in their company training others on what they know. So, essentially the same thing, but they are essentially our cave men and women of old who have new ways to share. But here is the twist. Even though we may bring in outsiders, we want them to be mostly the same as us only have more specific information. Even so, it seems even the experts who train others in the same field have to change it up a bit, not only to make themselves more marketable, but to add something to the training. The bottom line must be an improvement of training. So it’s still training from outside the box to use an overused but certainly appropriate term makes perfect sense. I would love to train trainers to be communicators and vice versa. The best of both worlds.

So, what does all this mean? It means bring to the table what is useful–I’ve said this before–and do what works, whether it is outside the organization or not. A hunter who can bring more animals to cook for dinner is more important than the hunter who brings just one–even the biggest. Back then, there were no boxes, no precise measurements, just the need for survival so anything relative was important or could be.

Ask people a general question like why do you love your job, and they will give you a general answer like, “I like working with people.” Pretty basic answer. People who know how to work with people well regardless of their profession could have something to offer. I’m sure someone has written a book on the art of bartending and the art of barbering–two professions that deal with people in much the same way. They have a diverse group of clients. So, what’s similar here?

Obviously the service product these professions offer is different. What is similar? The art of small talk. Who needs small talk? Everyone. Narrow it down to business. People who sell, people who consult, people who work with other people, etc. Does someone who teaches sales people know how to be better sales person? More than likely, but he or she has something special beyond the track record to offer. Where did that come from? Sales experience. Perhaps. But, I’m also willing to bet it is from experience that came from elsewhere.

I’ve known people whose lives went totally different directions than they ever thought they would. While I liked writing and acting, my first love was animal behavior. It wasn’t that I wasn’t good at it that I didn’t go into the field; I had gone a non-traditional route to study animal behavior in psychology, but, at that time, psychologists who studied animals did it in the lab, which wasn’t what I wanted to do. What I wanted was to work with animals in a zoo or in the wild; however, those traditional jobs went to zoologists, biologists, and veterinarians–not psychologists. I suppose now Animal Planet would love me if I were 30 years younger. Even education promoted the “box” mindset.

So, often we think of who we are as the specialized education we got, the title we hold, the company or work we do rather than the sum of many things.

I suppose I’m still close to psychology when I talk about communicating and learning. Animals learn, and I can tell you, comparative psychologists study animal learning and behavior to draw similar conclusions about human behavior. We haven’t forgotten we are animals, too, have we? Just more sophisticated ones. We’re back to the beginning.

I was fortunate to have a job in the Air Force as a special assignments editor and writer. My boss was not the editor of the news service, but the chief of public affairs. I asked, “what does a special assignments writer do? His answer, “I don’t know but it sounds like an opportunity to ask a lot of questions about things you and everyone else knows nothing about.” I don’t know if he was being particularly wise or saying something that just sounded like it, but being the young “butter bar” (second lieutenant) I was, it made a perverse sense. I walked around the headquarters and asked people what they did. And I shared what I learned. In public affairs, just knowing what others do is important.

In any organization, it helps to know what others are doing. It’s a motivator. Learning about people who are doing work unrelated to my own is therefore useful. Not only that, maybe there is some overlap, some connection I can make. Maybe there is a collaborative possibility to create a more efficient process or product.

I know this is a non-traditional post on training so why do I think it is important enough to write about? I think, sometimes we get stuck. All of us–managers and trainers alike–forget we are all tied together by being the same species (back to animals again). Why else do we have retreats and motivation seminars, but to remind us that we all work together. We are supposed learn from each other, too.

The biggest problem as I see it is that people tend to overspecialize, build their own boxes. And, we think people outside our box don’t know what we do. Actually, they know some of what we do, and some of it may be something we have overlooked or not paid adequate attention to. Learning comes to those who apply information to what is relevant to them. We need to be more cave men or cave women trainers.

Pardon me if this sounds sexist; it’s not intended to be. Just prehistoric. It used to be the women, weaker males and children were the gathers of the small items that were earthbound and easy to pick up, while the men hunted. Individuals were picked by their physical characteristics. Later as tools were discovered, sharp objects had more uses than just killing. Some clever people, even some of the hunters, became adept at using those tools and trained others who were interested. Bang, we have civilization beginning as we know it. Much simpler then since there were fewer specialties, but there was a real need for some to specialize. To not do it then, would make you obsolete–probably extinct. Today, if that’s all you know, you’ll soon be obsolete. In the old world, in time, those who knew the most, the wise men, became leaders over the strongest ones. While a good throwing arm could down a large animal, a planned hunt that came from experience could bring down many animals.

I could go into the whole commerce development thing, but I’ll leave that to the sociologists and anthropologists and linguists and MBAs. They all have something to offer on the subject despite their different educations and backgrounds. No? I’m guessing here anyway to make a point.

Bringing in talent whose different background tells the same story of demonstrates a relevant lesson that is generally more engaging to an audience. Like science fiction and fantasy can tell us a lesson about today by placing that lesson in a world unlike our own. Theatre does it often as well. How else do you make a dramatic statement?

The examples that support the authors’ views mimic our real world, but we are interested more in what is different than what is the same and when we see it at the end, it makes perfect sense. If it’s done well, of course. It’s a simple device authors use to keep us from arguing the point before we’ve heard the whole argument. A lesson not found in our backyard, that exists in an unfamiliar world, is going to be remembered–especially if we make our own connections to our work. Learning takes place best in that environment. However, the key is the relevancy must be spelled out early, or you’ll lose those who don’t see far from the box.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

Training can be misinterpreted by managers. It can be looked upon erroneously as the solution for a host of business productivity problems, and time or credit given reluctantly for attendance. Some managers see training as a way of moving forward. Some see cross training employees and enhancing professional skills of value only in times of trouble. So, why waste money?

Training is rarely given the problem-solving prominence it deserves; while giving the employee new or improved skills to do a better job, it can also point out what is not a training issue at all. Instead of accolades for serving the company interests well, employee training seems shunned by management as a waste of productive time, and a point of avoidance, derision, and refusal among employees for a variety of reasons. Potential boredom, the lack of desire to vary their routine and the fear of change are pretty basic. However, among those reasons, is the one they share with management: it is seen as either a waste of time or taking valuable time away from the “real” work at hand.

What should be a win-win for both groups becomes the opposite.

It is up to us to work with the managers and trainers-in-residence to find out what is truly needed by the company to make sure we can deliver it. Knowing the company’s frame of reference in the big picture, local management’s view, the training developer’s experiences and the employees’ attitudes toward the company’s concerns can all help us in the training process to prove its value.

I recently wrote a few blogs that focused on the need for the employees or trainees to be as much a part of this process as management and trainers. If a employee doesn’t want to be trained, or sees no value in it, chances are it will do no good anyway and management is bound to echo those sentiments once the lack of results are evident. Training with a great deal of local preparation works better than canned scenarios. Check out Training Brainstorm: Evaluating Trainers, Who Needs Training: Who Gets to Decide, and Was the Guy Who Won the Client’s Audition Better than You?

From a communications side: Isn’t this what it’s all about? Managers can’t communicate what’s needed; trainers can’t ask the right questions. Since we are the trainers, maybe we ought to be concentrating on asking the right questions. And, it’s not just a matter of providing the right information. It has to be about communicating that information in such a way as to be memorable and motivating.

If we want to be seen as successful, we have to bring the messages home so well they get to management and make them see the value of training.

Managers can also be threatened by training that illuminates negative issues–not training-related–that may be affecting productivity. At that moment, trainers can be right in the middle of the fray. Caught between the participants and management. Say the wrong thing and you’ll never work for the company again; say the right thing and you are the hero of the day and hopefully remembered longer than that.

Effective delivery of training also involves presentation skills that can soften that blow to management. We need to allow time to prepare our participants (and management) and present the material in a positive way–one that tries to eliminate or soften the negative issues–if we can. Some may not agree, but I think trainers need to be expert at presenting material in as much as they may need to be the subject matter expert, offering technical advice.

Remember that boring professor who knew so much, but lost you in 10 minutes? Knowing the answers is not the same as being able to communicate them well and for positive effect. If presenting isn’t a strong suit but analysis and providing solutions is, use a forum that best suits your methods. Perhaps a more intimate discussion forum with key management types.

Now, I see myself as a pretty good presenter, but I have to do a lot of homework on my subject matter. See my article When Learning Takes Place: PowerPoint vs Presenter and Training Assessments: Personality Counts, we come back to knowing our audience: participants and managers, and what they need and want. The practice, preparation and homework helps, whichever way we have to go.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development.

Piggybacking on two of my latest blogs– Who Needs Training: Who Gets to Decide and Was the Guy Who Won the Audition Better Than You, I’m going to take a few minutes to brainstorm how we evaluate trainers and what it can mean. Obviously this is not going to be an in depth study, but I hope it will give us some ideas.

Let’s start from the basic evaluation after a training session. Some questions you will find include:

• did the trainer meet your specific needs for training?
• was the trainer qualified to speak to this subject?
• did the trainer hold your attention throughout the training session?
• was the trainer interactive in his/her approach?
• did the trainer offer you a chance to voice your questions or concerns?

These are just points I picked off the top of my head. I didn’t even consult a training form, but I’m sure you’ve seen questions liked this or statements and the from one to nine, with one being the worst and nine being the best…

I could substitute or add “speaker” to “trainer” because often they are referred to in the same way, but to keep it simple throughout, I’ll just refer to the “trainer.” Now, let’s address the questions one at a time.

Did the trainer meet your specific needs for training? Think back about how much he would know about your specific need for training. If you are the manager or the trainer-in-resident (my term for training person in charge), did you discuss at length and provide additional materials to help the trainer determine the breadth of subject he or she was to cover. Additionally, did you tell him/her about the level of proficiency his or her audience had coming into the session? Did you have an accurate gauge of such information? Did the trainer or speaker?

Was the trainer qualified to speak to those specific needs? One would presume so–especially if he were selected to perform or facilitate the training. Granted, some oversell does exist, but it can exist both in the training company and management: the trainer who wants the job and feels he/she can handle it and the manager who hopes for the same because training is sometimes thought (erroneously) to be the answer to any productivity problem. Either way, the trainees have been had when that question has not been fully determined.

Did the trainer hold your attention…? A number of factors come to bear here, including the individual communication talent of the trainer, but consider also the audience frame of mind. Is the audience the “after lunch bunch?”

They don’t really want to be there. Or they have predetermined all training is boring.

They are sure they have too much real work to be done back at the office.

Or, maybe some of that work made it to the training subconsciously, unconsciously or surreptitiously in paper or electronic data form. I could ask a lot of questions here about who is not ready for training, but use your imagination and let’s keep it short.

The last two questions are easy to answer. Either the trainer did something interactive or he/she didn’t. Was he supposed to according to the contract? Did he need to? Was his subject of the nature, where anecdotal tales are more memorable. Or, do we assume because it is in the form, it is a must for any trainer? Research does show that “interactive” or participatory training is good, but not for everyone. If the question– “did the trainer’s approach seem appropriate to the subject in question?”–is not in the evaluation, maybe it should be.

Did the trainer allow you time to voice questions or concerns? Were there questions? Was there time? Did the trainer offer to answer questions later, or have discussions after the training session in a different location, or even offer a card and a chance to discuss anytime? Some of these options can prove even more fruitful.

The trainer can do only so much. He or she can improve presenting, facilitating or speaking skills, but they can’t change what wasn’t given to them by management or the trainer-in-residence.

The connection to the other blogs: trainers have some control of the training situation they are about to be put in, but not all of it. If they ask the right questions, they can be prepared. If management asks the right questions and offers the information the trainer asks for as well as anything else they might think relevant, the result can’t help but be more useful. No guarantees, but opening the door wide for effective communication to take place is never a bad idea. People who don’t want to be trained for whatever reason are resistant and liable to sabotage the training for everyone else.

Armed with enough information, a trainer, working with management and the trainer-in-resident, can make the training event positive and worthwhile.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

My last article about Was the Guy Who Won the Client’s Audition Better than You? may have really seemed off-topic to some, and my apologies to those who didn’t find my sentiment to their liking, but I think it was a valid point. Maybe I can re-address it here in different and more positive terms with a shorter story.

While my article may have been illustrative of a training situation, it is not probably one common to many of us. It is to me because I am a voice actor, actor/director, communicator and trainer. I don’t know about you, but I don’t like to think in terms of absolutes. There is the trend to put everything with a number–the three things you need to know, ten ways to do this or that, five secrets to wealth and posterity.

Pardon my substandard English: It ain’t possible! While the number gives an absolute answer–and absolute answers are comforting, life is too complicated to be set in stone. From my customer service days I have a different perspective regarding clients.

Clients are our livelihood; there is no denying that. Without clients, we cannot survive. But we have to engage them in a professional, oftentimes subtle way. Clients have to want you–and you in particular if your business relationship is to become successful.

I played tennis when I was younger. I used to go off by myself and practice serves in a local court. One day, an older woman in her sixties was watching me play.

“You need some help badly.”

Was I that bad?

I tried to ignore her. I needed to work on my swing.

“I can help,” she continued.

“Really,” I said sarcastically.

I was young and had been taught to respect my elders so I didn’t have a rude comeback–just the sarcasm, which she ignored.

“You can use my Wimbledon racket,” she said.

She got my attention. Her approach wasn’t optimum, but she got my attention by letting me know in a subtle way she had the “chutzpah” and the “chops” to work with a kid like me.

I learned from her. She became my unofficial trainer and coach. She had been to Wimbledon and she was good. When I got to where I could win a set or two occasionally, we stopped–but only because I had school. I had no real designs to be a pro. I played in college, but only for fun.

I think what I learned is that, if I hadn’t felt I needed the training no amount of “you need training to succeed” sentiment was going to make me ask for it–let alone pay for it. I knew I needed it and she had let me know her qualifications–take it or leave it. I took it.

We need to make our qualifications known in such a way as to draw attention to them in the right way. Not egotistically, not arrogantly. I don’t care how good we are, if that’s the way we express our qualifications; that’s how we lose customers, that’s how we lose clients. We can’t get too “big” for them. Bully me into using your services. You might, if I think I need you badly enough, get me once, but not twice.

Better to compliment the good, say you can help. Give potential clients the opportunity to see for themselves or hear from others how you good you are. The likelihood of a fit and long-term relationship is much enhanced.

End of shorter story. By the way, I still have that Wimbledon racket.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.