Don’t believe me? It’s basic critical thinking. I look around the internet and people are always asking how do you do this or that, what are the steps? Sometimes I smile and say, “If I tell all my secrets…” Actually I have Mary Ellen Guffey to thank for her article, Five Steps to Better Critical-Thinking, Problem-Solving, and Decision-Making Skills from 1998. I’m just going to borrow her title points and we can try to fill in the blanks with training points.
Identify and clarify the problem.
Gather information.
Evaluate the evidence.
Consider alternatives and implications.
Choose and implement the best alternative.
At the university where I teach, we start the students off with critical thinking; the logic is to get the students not to just absorb material but to think about it and use it–not unlike training reasoning. I routinely refer to this as creative thinking because even though it appears dry on the surface, digging deeper, brainstorming, exploring, and playing what if are essentially creative tools.
Let’s put this in training terms now.
First, we want to know if the problem is real or perceived and the age-old training question: we want to identify that the problem a company has is indeed due to a lack of training. As you know some problems are not training problems at all, but organizational. I, for one, don’t like to do business with anyone who would take a job from me and do work that didn’t need to be done in the first place. So, we find out the extent of the problem and research the company to “clarify” the nature of that problem.
Next, we will gather information to evaluate the nature of the evidence (the causes, pinpointing the need that we have determined that needs to be addressed to help us determine what kind of training could be beneficial to resolve the issues
Evaluating the evidence for us means looking at all the factors that affect training an organization: size, level, method and balance that against possible solutions to the problems at hand. Not only that, but here we are looking for spoilers: misinformation, office politics, rigged statistics, etc. We need to ferret out the truth.
All the while we are looking at alternatives to training and different kinds of training, and even if we are the right trainers for the job, as well as the implications our training may have in the short and long term. We must take into account cost factors as well as methods. We are scrutinizing ourselves just as must as we have scrutinized the problem.
Decision time. It would seem now we have enough material to deal with, and that’s just from the company-level; there is also the hands-on training to consider that comes next, and to consider ways to monitor it in the future to see the training lasts or needs refreshers.
So, there you have it. Five steps to analyze needs and solutions. It’s not as hard as it sounds. These are things you may be doing without thinking. Now you know what to call them: critical thinking about… or if you want to be different creative thinking about…, which is my choice. If you aren’t doing this already, maybe you should. It’s basic creative thinking. By the way, Mary Ellen Guffey is a business communicator with several books. I’ve heard there are striking similarities between good trainers and good communicators. Here’s another link you may find helpful in your search for connections: Using Design Method for Problem Solving.
I do 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.
…strategy will require vision, focus, direction and an action planning document.
Everyone who follows this blog knows that I tend to take a softer approach to training that at times may not seem as traditional or as typical of the training principles you are taught in school. I also don’t tend to weigh my page down with off-the-shelf products, although guest writers are more than welcome to do so as long as they write generically about all such products. This blog is not to promote, but to share training ideas and best practices.
Putting people first is a part of any training for me, but there is a business side to it as well that we cannot ignore. Our clients are profit-oriented unless they are non-profit, but they too are still looking at a bottom line.
Training and development in any organization requires a training strategy to achieve success, and a method to make it happen (or implementation). We agree our leaders (as well as our trainers must have vision, focus, direction, and it only makes sense to put it in an action planning document.
Does that mean it is written in stone? I don’t think so, but it will remind us all of where we started and where we should be at all times. Should that change at any time, should we can change that statement to conform with our new vision, direction, focus, etc. immediately? Of course not. Changes to the plan shouldn’t happen whimsically, but only with great thought and discussion.
Without a training strategy or an action plan we do not have a mechanism that establishes for all our means to achieve these grandiose goals, which is what they are if they are not formalized in some way Therefore, the strategy will require vision, focus, direction and an action planning document.
A Training and Development Strategy is a mechanism that establishes what competencies an organization requires in the future and a means to achieve it.
Having it in writing somehow makes it an indelible ink for the corporate culture letter and a motif for the corporate culture in general.
Still another good reason is that a plan is always good. It may be a trite saying but it says it best: anything worth achieving, is worth planning for!
To know how your product or service will be used and how it will affect others before you develop it–that’s planning for the future.
Studies have shown that with a training strategy your productivity improves when just about any corporate spending had a plan.
Many points can be put forward in favor of why you need a training strategy as long as it is related to that plan–even morale.
As part of an effective Strategic Training and Development Plan, you will need detailed versions of the following:
I would argue to keep personal development plans in the forefront…
Corporate/Organizational Vision
Executive Mentoring
Team Development and Team Building
Management and Leadership Development, (not all agree with management as a part of this, but not all management are leaders)
Competency Requirements and Skills Profiling,
Objectives and Action Plans,
Employee Training and Train-the-Trainer needs.
How do these items fit with the Big Five: Equity and Diversity, Organization (and Personnel) Values, Business Process (and Personal) Improvement, Change Management (and Personnel Adjustment), and Organizational Design and Structure?
Traditional approaches identify the customer’s training needs in terms of their organizational strategic plan, compare it with Human Resources’ strategic plan, focus on comprehensive interviews or focus groups, and see how it all meshes with personal development plans.
I would argue to keep personal development plans in the forefront rather than last because personnel matters like personal development plans tend to get lost or given short shrift in favor of the bottom line. People are an invaluable resource–more important than most managers and leaders seem to know when it comes to helping the company get behind productivity. Don’t forget, these are the same people who may be on the ground floor hearing what you are not. Ignore them or treat them like dogs and they may bark and bite instead of being your best friend.
Now back to business.
So how do you keep an eye on things? More planning. This is actually your Strategic Plan for Training and Development. It is the bigger picture. As on the battlefield, a strategic battle includes many tactical units like those below that help implement or make happen the bigger plan happen.
Establish corporate/organizational development needs, present and future,
Set organizational training objectives,
Examine your personnel records with an eye for additional or missed talent to be part of your new training plan, (I find it useful to interview people who expressed an interest in training to become a part of the group during this time; their insight can be amazing.)
Create a training action plan to make sure that you have the necessary systems in place, that you can access resources, other sources deemed appropriate or design training and position it in time for use.
Deliver the training by any number of appropriate methods determined by value and cost effectiveness.
Monitor the training value as well as employee need and satisfaction,
Evaluate the training by assessment and sustainability overtime, and
Revise training and/or training plan if needed, with a plan for making immediate changes to the training itself.
Don’t develop any plan, especially a Strategic Plan for Training and Development, if you aren’t going to use it.
Naturally, training is only as good as your corporate or organizational leadership is willing to support it. Get their buy in first. Make sure you have it worked out to the fullest and it is a win-win. Know what kind of leader your boss is. Some are more impressed by numbers, so find them and give them to him or her. Find other companies where this kind of program has made a difference and give him its statistics. If he or she craves love of his or her people demonstrate how this plan will make everyone one big happy family. Obviously if the boss is a very ordered kind of person he or she will love this plan. I think you get the idea.
As for marketing this for company support, make sure you have done your homework, i.e., products and services will benefit how? How much? By when? What this plan going to cost? In the long term? What about outsourcing trainers? I don’t like that idea. Where is the money going to come from? Not my budget! Be ready to anticipate and answer all the questions. Be ready to adjust. Most of the officers will want to make adjustments. Just keep your customers in mind, cost for value received, establish roles and responsibilities, (you don’t want people pointing fingers in a time of crisis so plan early), and give your training plan a slogan–something related to the company vision; it’ll help keep everyone on the same page. And with any luck, you’ll have an up and running plan that works.
Talent and performance can be enhanced by luck, attitude and determination.
Truly commentary. In a recent comment, I promised that my next blog would focus on talent and performance. Some see talent as something you have or you don’t. I don’t see it quite so black and white. I believe someone can have inherent talent (or a natural ability) and others have to work hard at “feeling” it. For some it comes easy–for others not without dedication and much education and training. Which “talent” is better to have? Not so fast. Either can be great. It depends on luck, attitude and determination. The same would go for consistent performance.
Both topics (talent and performance) seem natural for someone like me with experience in worlds that may seem totally different and yet when I’m through re-visiting these definitions, I think you’ll agree talent and performance used as they are used this mysterious other world can offer insight in the business world. While I have a masters in performance criticism that was intended for live theatrical performance, I examine organizational performance in much the same way. Believe it or not, those worlds aren’t that far apart.
When we say someone in the theatre is talented we mean they present us with evidence immediately that they should be able to do a professional job for us, whether it is through a resume, a past or recent experience (a performance) we have seen. No matter if the talent is acting, directing, dancing, singing, etc. As the late, great actor, Robert Shaw might say as he did in The Sting, “Ya follow me?”
So it goes. Talent is immediately demonstrable in some way. And that goes for business as well. “Right, boyo.” In theatre, one performance is done, that one is over. If your error was horrific enough to cast bad light on the rest of the show, you could be be fired and an understudy or new actor steps in. Sound familiar in business? It happens all the time. In both worlds.
In business or other organizations what may bother the “cast” is unknown, unnoticed or unimportant to onlookers. Unfortunately, some employers will take that opportunity to make sure that the employee who errs stays put (with a scowl and fear of losing his or her job) or ensures that one mistake or misstep affects this employee’s potential for future promotion in favor of someone who has not had a “bad day.”
I think a bad day is worth learning from, don’t you? If anything, standing behind your employee at a time like this without malice will have a positive effect. Or you have the two scenarios mentioned above.
While talent is immediate and meant as a badge of credibility, performance is another matter entirely. One can have the talent and have a bad day, and leaders could wonder about the talent human resources saw at first, but usually both good bosses and HR will attribute it to a bad day. At least I hope they do. No one is perfect or consistent all the time. In theatre, no one show is exactly as the last especially to the cast. The audience rarely notices.
If anything, standing behind your employee on his or her “bad” day will most likely have a positive effect.
There is another instance: he or she may not have displayed a certain talent before but suddenly found the inspiration and unique situation that brought it to the surface (now) during the performance of regular duties. The employee is not displaying the talent he or she was hired for, but more than he or she was hired for, too. This complicates things, too, for employers with a less than positive leadership style. The employer can ignore, make sure it doesn’t happen again. Obviously this employer wants to keep this person at this level. The excuse is that “this person is needed at this level; after all, someone has to do the work.” What it really means is that the employer doesn’t want to do the work to promote, reassign and re-hire.
In the government ranks, I found this practice deplorable and a detriment to morale. It certainly had nothing to do with leading by example, but everything to do with power and the worse kind of character traits I can imagine. I was once ordered not to give my assistant work that would allow her the ability to show on her resume she was doing more than she was hired to do because we might have to promote her then. As a supervisor myself at another time, I was notorious for promoting people out of my office often to my own disadvantage, but those people deserved it. Even though I had fewer people to do my job, my employees were loyal and hard-working without asking.
Now, what does this mean to trainers? We add still another element to the party. Knowledge, and sometimes skills, if what we are training is skill-based. What category do we put it in? Talent or performance? Hopefully, the added knowledge will help both. With added skills, we are mostly likely to see improvement in performance.
A lot can be said as to the benefits of good company morale and loyalty; the lack of high morale and loyalty can make a potentially great company a mediocre one.
So it goes. Talent is essentially immediate demonstrable talent, performance is one positive such demonstration, and extra knowledge plus training skills enhances both when applied appropriately. However, behind all of this the employer and employee relationship affects it all. In fact, that relationship can destroy, not only good employees, but poison others’ morale and loyalty. A lot can be said for company morale and loyalty; I doubt I’m the first to say the lack of high morale and loyalty can make a potentially great company a mediocre one.
My basic philosophy: growth in all areas of our life is important. We all don’t need promotions when we demonstrate new talents. In life, all we need is affirmation. On the job, sometimes it’s the same. Just remember it is a part of our lives and so positive reinforcement and encouragement when we have a bad day makes work harder than fearing for our jobs. Let’s not forget (and I say this with head bowed) those employees who have gone “postal” so much so it is a part of our vernacular. Perhaps we don’t have all the talent needed for a promotion, or maybe we would rather be a specialist. Maybe recognition and encouragement here and now is enough.
My point here is simply pay attention and actively encourage supervisors to observe and reward positive behavior while ignoring the occasional misstep. I have never found that observation to be solely the job of human resources (it literally can’t be in most cases), but also of company and organizational leaders in general. By encouraging the creative growth of your employees, you encourage the creative growth of your company. You inspire free thinking and enthusiastic support. All of these factors singly and together affect the talents and abilities the individual believes he or she has and performance he or she is capable.
As a trainer, by making your presentation, however canned a part of it may be, by keeping it personal to the trainees, by understanding their needs, you aid in their performance. Isn’t that what we’re there for?
What is that exactly? Where do trainers come from? Are they born or made, as I like to ask my University students of “speakers.” Trainers are a little different. Trainers are made of parts, like the human body, and have many interacting functions or working parts. Without some parts they die. With others, they thrive.
Following the basic tenets of leadership, trainers, it seems, are:
designated or assigned
assumed as a matter of position
discovered as they emerge over time with the company
discovered as they emerge during a serious situation or crisis
educated to be trainers
Like leaders, trainers can be designated or assigned the task and have to learn the material or are a subject matter expert (SME) already. You could hold a high position that includes the training aspect and therefore it is assumed you are responsible–essentially, no training needed for you (not really), or after the company gets to know you and has seen you communicate and present material in a variety of ways perceives you to be a person who has qualities that may be deemed worthy of an in-house trainer. This would be an emergent leader. In your case, an emergent trainer. There is the leadership that emerges during a specific experience for example, a high-stress, extremely important problem-solving situation where your leadership/training abilities are noticed. That is known as situational leadership and let’s say trainer. Perhaps, you are too young for a leadership position, but training is a good place to start. There is another that might be compared to a company bringing in an outside executive. You just finished a graduate program in human resources and training. So, you are educated for the task.
It is nice to be put in the same league with leaders and in some ways I think just as important. Many decisions are made at that level that are not training issues that can be discovered before undertaking extensive measures to train staffs of managers and lower level employees. However, we run the gamut of the business, corporation, and non-profit world.
We are at all levels–entry-level to senior staff. Where we are in the organization depends a lot on where we came from–how we got to where we are. Some of us were so dedicated we learned all we could from books, courses, and other trainers. Some of us had a training plan all made out for us by our predecessors. Is that wrong? I’m not here to judge your work ethic; I’m just trying to provide some enlightening views. There are probably a lot more of comparisons I can make with leaders, but I won’t go into that now. I want to clear the air. Our goals are the same wherever we are placed in the company or organizational chart. Sometimes we have a chance to move mountains, sometimes not. I know what it’s like to be stuck. That’s one of the reasons why I write.
My interest in people is two-fold: how do people perform under pressure and what makes people act the way they do in a group.
Joy Blatherwick and Jack Shaw in PLAY ON! — photo by David Gold, HPP
After publishing almost 200 training and development blog articles, about a 100 theatre critiques and articles on performance, four books, including a novel, it is about time I introduced myself again and why I write about training as way I do–not as an expert on training with a lifetime of training experience, but more as an observer. If you’ve read my blog before you know my background as a communicator. As well as having done professional acting on stage, film and commercials, I teach at a couple of Universities when I have an opportunity as a visiting professor.
I am retired from the Federal government where I was “discovered” and made a trainer after the training officer saw that I had skills. It had taken a long time to emerge as a trainer over time. Human Resources is always slow in government. So why bother? I wanted to do something different. The signs were obvious it seemed to me; I was a public affairs officer with years of experience. Before that Federal job, as Air Force officer, I was selected to teach at the U.S. Air Force Academy and ran the Summer Survival Training Camp. I was recruited out of Officer Training School to give presentations about the Air Force around the country–later to talk and lead people through the inside of Cheyenne Mountain. My education is unique: an interdisciplinary dual Masters in English and Speech/Theatre and another Masters in Social Psychology. The interdisciplinary degree is in performance criticism.
I hope you can see why my focus is people-based. I don’t knock the use of technology, but I want to make sure it is getting through, that it is not part of the frustration of taking the training itself. If it is, I try to report it and offer ways to fix it. I know “learning theory.” I’ve had those classes. Maybe not couched the same way as in “Training Programs,” but, in fact, it was a very strong interest of mine, why I love teach as well my personal interest in classroom teaching. It may sound egotistical, but I’m good at it. I can talk. I was an actor and a director, a professional speaker, as well as a speech coach for executives. Would you expect anything less? I have to assure my University speech students this my speech classes are not performance classes, that their classes also have to do with organization.
As a trainer as well, in whatever kind of training I’m doing, I treat my trainees as individuals; they are not the company some people put on their resume. The company name does not go on my resume because I do custom work and that is confidential. That doesn’t mean it can’t or shouldn’t be on other resumes. It’s just me.
No one trainer can do it all.
I don’t feel classroom training is in lieu of any other kind of training. Not all training has to be done in the classroom. Some can be done on a handout–if you trust your staff to read and sign that they did, or a CD or DVD for them to see, or computer-based or a combination, etc. All this training depends on the type of business, company or organization we are talking about. Needs aren’t always the same.
I turn down work as often as I accept it; maybe, that’s the beauty of retirement, or a wife who is a working professional. If you are an in-house trainer, advise your boss on what you think is needed, but in the end, it is he or she who makes that decision. Again, it will depend where you are in the hierarchy.
To me, there is no one training product or system that does it all. No one trainer that does it all. I know some trainers and vendors will hate me for this: no long term contracts. I know there are in-house trainers who are so insecure they always buy off-the-shelf products or hire out-of-house services. All I can say at this point, is be careful. Try whatever someone is trying to sell in the short term, check references, and look for articles that may talk about the programs they use in an unbiased way. Obviously, not the vendor’s website.
As for me, the buzz word is customize. Customize with your own creativity. Create in the classroom. Problem-solve in small groups. Use products you know personally that work. Test products of which you’re pretty sure of the result.
A final reminder: I do have a website where you can find other items I have written, including coupons for my best selling, The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development and my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality! You might even get them for free. Happy Training.
My Cave Man Guide to Training and Development is a “fuzzy” approach, closer to the humanities than the sciences. But I don’t apologize for it. It is from the humanities that we see creativity affecting human behavior directly and therefore human performance in literature, in art, in theatre, in dance, etc. Why not performance at work?
Psychology and the study of social behavior has always straddled the line between the humanities and sciences. Psychology has roots in philosophy and biology–so much so that even today psychology departments are hard to locate in the larger scheme, and psychology departments themselves are divided into areas from physiological to social psychology areas. That is not to say training is not a science, it can be treated as such; however, for me, since training deals with people, I see more of an application for the humanities.
Not everyone agrees, I know, and that is why there are so many different approaches to selling training. I’m here to comment, and you can,too. I’m always looking for guest writers. All we ask is that you stay generic in your approach. We’ll give you full credit and link to your site.
Chris Winters, of advanceassist.com, publishes a page very different from mine where he showcases some similar points of view, some very different from mine; however, his approach seems to have more of a scientific approach–or I should say, a scientific looking approach. Please correct me if I’m wrong, Chris. I say this with much respect; I would think his goes over well in the boardroom. It puts training on par with other business plans.
However, essentially what trainers do is related to what teachers do with students, which is provide information that stays with our client’s people and works to make the organization stronger. Chris’s point of view often spells out how that will be done, appearing quite scientific:
“The Training & Development (T&D) and Instructional Design (ISD) profession modifies and refines production practices over time in concert with technology and cognitive research. Resources available here have expertise and deep experience to enable T&D/ISD if non-existent and if it exists offer effective remote support for ISD… (Planning), Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, Evaluation (P)-ADDIE.”
I never thought of training as a “warm and fuzzy,” but I get it now. When I taught English, speech and theatre at the U.S. Air Force Academy, I taught those “warm and fuzzy” subjects to future pilots, astronauts and other officers who would leave the Academy with the equivalent of an engineering degree no matter what their major. There was no English major by the way; although we did have a film club, a speech forensics club and a drama club. So there was interest in those “fuzzy” subjects even if they did seem off point to the cadet career goals; some actually liked them, but wouldn’t admit it for fear of being uncool.
Steve Martin with his two characters, Picasso and Einstein, in his play, PICASSO at the LAPIN AGILE
The best reason for looking at training in the the humanities area is the same reason the humanities are called the humanities. We deal with the subject of human beings. Humanities looks at who we are. Through the humanities, we look into the souls of the human race to see what motivates us to live, thrive and die for causes, and for such mysterious characteristics totally human-made as loyalty and love. It’s not that science is inhuman either; it’s just our perspective is that it is so numbers driven, it leaves people out, and people are an integral part of what we do.
I believe it was my job as a teacher of “fuzzy” subjects, as now, to take those “warm and fuzzy” subjects and demonstrate their relevance in the real world. When you’re a teenager, even a smart one, you still see the world in black and white. I probably won’t surprise you that I delighted in getting them to see the gray areas and venture out in the colorful creative world. In this case the world of work. I believe I owe a duty to both the employee and the employer. Maybe I lose a few return visits; but, just maybe, I earn some respect from the work force, and when it all plays out the employer knows where it came from. We all have skills and we use them accordingly. Mine are humanistic and communicative. My science is psychology, which you can’t deny is a very human science. Some employers won’t give me the time of day; however, the business scientists, that’s another story. Do me a favor. Remember the people and I’ll remember the science.
Funny thing. We admire those heroes who think outside the organization protocols; if what they do benefit us, we are happy. Those are the leaders who generally think outside the box. They very often are humanists if you ask them, but company loyalists to the bone. Steve Martin’s wonderful play, PICASSO at the LAPIN AGILE tells us both scientists and artists can come up with equal amounts of genius but it just takes a different form in the result.
Since we as trainers are looking at people who invariably are human beings, we need to look at them humanistically, in tune with their needs and desires, perhaps closer to Maslov than Human Resources, which is more black-and-white, and see how that works. Use the science, the statistics, the charts, and training plans to instill faith in the business end of training, but leave the actual training to a humanistic approach. Not all employees are created equal. Otherwise, we’d have good reason to believe in automaton society, or one run by corporations. Granted, this is not a democracy, but is filled with people who believe their efforts are of value, perhaps more than they get paid. They believe they themselves are of value. Respect that. Self-worth versus hope. Hope in the company? Company loyalty?
A final reminder: I do have a website where you can find other items I have written, including coupons to get my best selling, The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development and my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality for free! Happy Training.
A happy desirable work force if we stopped to look…
Not being hired in today’s market…Is it even about degrees, training, or lack of experience?
It’s unfortunate, but when you need a job sometimes you need both the education degree, training certificate, and the experience just to get in the door. It’s frustrating seeing others without your work experience, walk in and take the job for which you may even be more qualified.
Today, of course, many newly graduated students are going back to the same old jobs because they can’t find a job they just trained for or spent a fortune on education. Not only that, but many more are constantly changing majors hoping to hit the one that’ll nail a good paying job by the time they graduate. I can remember when the computer programmers were going to make the big bucks, before that it was the MBAs, and I think before that it was miniaturizing electronics–making your radio and TV more portable. Now, your smart phone, tablet, game platforms, graphics design are the new “plastic” from Mrs. Robinson’s day. (The film, The Graduate, in case you missed the reference.)
Not an architect, an engineer, an MBA? The degree doesn’t match the job.
In some cases, you have to have a degree to go beyond a certain level in your job. I have a super smart sister who made straight “A”s and could have named her ticket to any major university. She chose instead to work. She enjoyed her work, but she became stuck at one level and watched several people who were not nearly as smart or as good at their jobs as she was get promoted because she didn’t have a degree. At the time she began working, the degree hadn’t seemed that important. For some people, it just doesn’t fit in their immediate plans for a variety of reasons, including financial.
It’s not a perfect system. However, combine some degrees with practical experience and use the knowledge (not in a book way) but in a way that makes sense, and you suddenly seem very qualified. So you don’t fit the mold exactly. Do what you love. Excel at it and you’ll find your niche, or it’ll find you. For example, say you have an interdisciplinary dual Masters in English/Speech and Dramatic Arts (emphasis in performance criticism) and a Masters in Social Psychology. Does that make a trainer? It can.
After spending 30 plus years in the military and government service, I trained in the corporate world and coached corporate speakers. Today, I teach and write. Not an architect, an engineer, an MBA? The degree doesn’t match the job. Another example: colleges and universities love to hire PhDs and would rather have one over a Masters degree–even if the candidate has a Master’s degree with tons of applied experience. Or, even several Masters’ degrees in related areas. Colleges and universities are competing for credibility and the more PhDs, the more respect. Logical. Not at all. Well, it is to whomsoever is doing the hiring.
…just to go beyond a certain level in your job you have to have a degree.
So, what’s the big difference between education and training? An education is more general and training is specific to a job. What you need to learn depends on the task. But education is general and has to be applied to life itself. What it does show an employer is the ability to start something and see it through to the end. Training Certification is a little different since it is more a validation of specific knowledge. These days the hiring process has little to do with education or training. Most applicants are over-qualified.
There’s more going on than choosing the most qualified applicant.
Let’s talk about when we are the ones looking for a job. We don’t realize, especially when it affects us personally, just how many people out there are looking for work. For employers, it means they can pick from a great many qualified people and eliminate for reasons other than qualifications unless they are U.S. state or federal government. In those cases, it’s fairly easy to get around those restrictions or must hire cases by changing being very specific on the job description or on what pool you are allowing to apply. That way, the government employer gets exactly who they want to appear high enough on the list to hire. It’s hardly a perfect system no matter how many rules or laws you attach to it.
Some people are very qualified in either experience or education, or both. If employers wants someone younger, they go with education. If they want maturity, they look for the experienced person. With both–an applicant can win. If it’s all about qualifications, but it usually isn’t just… You know that, right? At least sometimes. All right. Most times. Companies in today’s economy can pick from thousands of applicants. I think when we are looking for a job personally we do think in terms of education and experience. Some of us may go as far to get some training in interviewing and resume creation. We don’t realize, especially when it affects us personally, just how many people are out there are looking for work, and with that situation how man people are in the employee search assistance business. Some us think we are very qualified either in experience or education. With both–we win. At least sometimes–we think… Not so fast.
Remember college athletic scholarships? Choosing average to above average students who can play a sport extremely well makes fiscal sense to someone. Sports rankings increase the university’s or college’s status and provides income; some of that income does go for education. Fact. The student may have gone on to make millions or at least earned a college degree he or she might not have without the scholarship. Balanced? I don’t know. Choosing a friend or relative for work who can’t play so well with others doesn’t make sense to anyone but those who are a part of the relationship. As stupid as it sounds, the college made a better choice all around. It may be a matter of perspective; however, the other decision is made in business every day.
We can’t help it that our years of experience may automatically tell someone how old we are. Employers aren’t supposed to discriminate at all (and this would be age discrimination), but it is all about getting the employee they want–not necessarily the best qualified. You don’t have to be a different race to be discriminated against. How about not getting it because you didn’t go to a particular school or because you were a blond, or short, or fat? That happens, too. As simple as a state, preferring to hire lawyers who attended a particular law school in their state. It’s much easier to be hired in the state where you received your degree(s).
Also, there have been studies. Tall, fit, youthful, attractive men are more likely to get most jobs. There are some exceptions that an attractive women is key–especially those that want to limit the glass ceiling to women and still provide higher positions to men. In those cases, you’ll find the women in very visible positions like marketing or pubic relations; however, these roles usually top out in middle management with no direct line to upper management.
Yes, women are still paid less and the glass ceiling still exists even though more women are getting degrees than men. 60/40. Nevertheless, the more general fact remains that attractive people, especially women, are most likely to get some jobs, usually those interfacing with men. Charming people sometimes get the job if the company values charm, but mostly it’s handsome or pretty–unless dumpy is in. It rarely is–unless employees are not seen. Image plays a part, like it or not. And when people need to eliminate people from the pool, anything is game unofficially.
Despite education and experience, getting the interview is important, and there is at least one factor that you, the applicant, has some measure of control.
You can control your attitude, which does makes a difference. I don’t care how good you are at your job, a bad attitude will make a company want to sacrifice your experience and know-how to train someone who’s enthusiastic about the company and wants to learn the the “company” way not t0 have to deal with a potential “attitude” issue. It’s most likely an American phenomenon in terms of race, but, other countries have their own cultural biases. Whatever the potential bias–even if you feel it on the company end–if it’s going to be a problem for you, ignore the feeling, or excuse yourself from the interview. To get the get the job may take the art of diplomacy. That’s where charm and professionalism comes in as well as sensibility.
The basic question now of education versus experience. It depends on the job. On the person. On the situation. On so many factors that it is ridiculous so we can’t really argue which is better. Fitting in is is better. Every situation, every job, and everyone has their reasons for not hiring. We can’t assume that it is a lack of the proper education or experience that disqualified us from the job. Regardless of what they say, it may be something else that they can’t say publicly. Maybe they just didn’t like us; there was no chemistry. It’s all about fitting in. We all want to fit in, but we don’t always. Personally I’d rather have that job where I fit in and the hiring folks agree.
…getting the interview is important, but attitude makes a difference.
The years of experience we can’t help, but automatically tells someone how old we are; they aren’t supposed to discriminate at all (and this would be age discrimination), but it is all about getting the employee they want–not necessarily the best qualified. You don’t have to be a different race to be discriminated against. How about not getting it because you didn’t go to a particular school or because you were a blond, or short, or fat. Or not handsome or pretty.
However, getting the interview is important, but attitude makes a difference, too. I don’t care how good you are at your job, a bad attitude will make someone want to sacrifice your experience and know how to train someone who’s enthusiastic and wants to do it the way they want them to do it. If you’ve passed all the other hurdles.
Today, being able to listen well and communicate are the most important abilities to demonstrate besides a friendly, non-antagonistic attitude. Employers don’t owe you anything. Not at this point anyway. Best advice. Bullying your way in won’t make you or your employer happy.
Well, that’s all for me. I hope this blog was a little different. I do try to be different and I hope that sometimes I make sense.
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.
We talk about being the fly on the wall or the mouse in the wall that can hear every thing going on everywhere. This is more than water cooler buzz. Employees want to know what their bosses really think of them and bosses want to know what employees think about them, about the company, etc. Training is often sought out as the reason when something doesn’t feel right in the company anymore. Sometimes it is a training problem. Often it’s not. The solution, however, can be found by the mouse in the wall.
I believe Anonymous(e) Training (its sophisticated name) is coming back. I just made up that term, but I think it’ll make sense to you in a minute. You’ve seen Undercover Bosses or some other reality show like it. There is another related reality show–where someone comes in from outside and discovers what’s really wrong your failing business. Now is the time for Anonymous(e). The mouse in the wall can determine what, if any training, needs the company has, and idenify the other general needs that training can’t fix.
Now, I’m not saying it’s because of Generation Y that we need to do this, but they are our youngest workers. We need to start there anyway.
With more free time and easy access to electronic devices, the new generation entertains themselves clandestinely rather than work. Talk about productivity taking a dive and the only person who seems to care is you. Any time they are bored, out come the electronic devices; they can do both: the minimum standard at work and play games, surf the Net, watch videos, or listen to outrageous. What does it matter? They’re getting the job done. You may say, “It’s not true.” It is. The minimum standard can kill productivity, but you knew that already.
I’ve heard it from my own students’ mouths–that is from those who work. They do it in class, too. They are truly multi-tasking. Don’t think they won’t do it in a meeting. They can turn off the sound and still use their smart phone or tablet a hundred different ways and still look like they are paying attention. They can’t really help it if their brains operate faster than the information they are handed. Attitudes worsen usually when they are given something in a form that is foreign to them–in paper. It’s not a giant leap backwards, but it does feel a bit awkward. When was the last time, you used an actual typewriter?
Consider this, the newest generation of college grads rarely take notebooks to class–at least not paper ones. Some of the students may have gone to a high school that had all their books online. In fact, it’s rare that my college students have to buy books. They are quick to say their minds are so used to flying faster than they used to the second they become bored they turn to electronic games or the social network. And they are addicted to their use as well.
Getting them to go “cold turkey” in the office is easy. Buy a couple of devices that make getting a signal impossible. Now you may find more people taking smoke breaks, but you can manage that as well. That’s the Y generation, I think…just one group of workers.
X and the rest of us come next.
Most of us have adapted, except poor, old Betty in the corner there. She’ll sit there until she dies; she even take a downgrade rather than learn something. But we have adjusted, and we find that some of us are just as addicted as the Y generation. That’s not the worst of it. We are looking at our job differently. We are sure we are doing the job as we used to only it doesn’t seem good enough. We used to get awards. Office politics, boss’s pet, etc. Anyone to blame but ourselves.
Here’s where Anonymous(e) Training comes in. The mouse has to be a real “people” person to ask random employees to give him or her a run-down of the office. If the office is big enough, the mouse will be practically invisible; however, in a smaller office, the manager may have to announce a new person in the office just hired (not high enough up, low enough to be non-threatening) and the mouse will be going around getting “acquainted.” How it functions. Who’s the boss’s pet? Who’s the biggest slacker or slackers. Believe me, the mouse will get different takes from each person, except on those things that really matter. That’s what we want to collect.
Some bosses object to having a stranger lurking about the office and having his or her employees “airing the bad laundry” “telling all the dirty little secrets” “telling where the bodies are buried”–whatever cliché you want, but that’s not what we are looking for as trainers.
I realize that corporate consultants can do the same thing and that they usually perform their analysis from higher up. They could do this if they were young enough to fit in, while trainers are looking to see if there is a training solution at area closest to where productivity actually happens. It’s not meant to be a situation where the trainer is going to inform on the employee for saying something negative about the boss personally either, but rather form generalities that management can fix on its own or discover what is truly a training issue.
Now, we just need the owner, CEO, board chairman, president of the company or whoever makes those decisions to let the mice in.
Well, that’s all for me. I hope this blog was a little different. I do try to be different and I hope that sometimes I make sense.
A final reminder: I do have a website where you can find other items I have written, including coupons to get my best selling, The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development and my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality for free! Happy Training.
Funny thing about sharks. They don’t really go after minnows; they are too small. But they will go after each other once blood is drawn. That usually involves a bite on the back by one shark, and others wanting keep their place join in the frenzy until only a few edible fragments sink to the bottom for the bottom feeders to consume.
In the government, I was sickened by the efforts made at all levels to make someone look good, rather than do a good job and give credit to all. They weren’t just covering their butts. In a world where selfless acts should be the norm–the idea of being selfless was merely given lip service, while the reality was that you lived in a world of sharks and minnows–and baby sharks.
Rarely would a minnow morph into a shark, but occasionally a special project, a bone thrown its way that was overlooked by the sharks, became visible to the killer whale high above. That minnow became a shark, at first a baby shark, but as it became more entrenched in the project, guarding knowledge, making sure only it had control of the subject matter experts, the bigger it became. The longer it did this; the stronger and bigger the shark became. Now all the other sharks waited for an opportunity to make this shark fall victim to the killer whale, who wanted a piece of it, or the unassuming porpoise, who accidentally gave away all the secrets. When that happened, their place in the hierarchy was safe. For now, but they needed to be diligent, always on the defensive.
Where did that behavior come from? Certainly we didn’t train the sharks that behavior. It evolved in the government culture, state or federal, I don’t think it matters. It may not appear in every agency, but more than I think we’d like to think. Even so that behavior has become a cliché in the movies. The power-hungry government types–sharks, and the meek civil servants trying to eek out a living, doing a patriotic duty–the minnows. It doesn’t stop there.
The behavior follows into the corporate world as well with corporate giants whose CEOs are making millions, while the working man or woman has to beg to get a raise to get just a little bit ahead. We even have TV shows dedicated to bringing the crooked corporations to their knees, hanging the sharks by their once crushing, now harmless jaws and we love it. If we love it so much, why do we let it happen?
It’s not us? It’s the stockholders? What are they? Sharks or minnows? Could be the CEO, Chairman, or President of the Board be the killer whale and has all is his sharks in check. Soon there will be a bloody frenzy because his or her board is most likely made up of sharks out for blood rather than harmless, insignificant minnows.
It is us. In a way we are responsible. We brought it. We tried calling it hierarchal leadership or management training. Or team building. We called out different kinds of leaders, and those hungry for power found a way to be seen as an emergent, implied or designated leader. They joined any committee they could get their teeth into, while the minnows sat back and made no waves. And nothing got done except those who played fair generally lost footing and fell into deep water unless they were willing to be a dead-eyed shark. That is the thing about sharks. They appear emotionless; a pure killing machine. A perfect metaphor for power.
Don’t be so depressed. We haven’t lost them all. There are satisfied customers. Not all were failures, but we can do better.
We can warn of no tolerance for this kind of behavior and put them on notice by the big boss. That could work.
We can concentrate our leadership training on everyone in the organization or company, assuring them that everyone has a right to speak, and make sure management is aware of it.
We can talk about the game. The games people play. The backstabbing. Suggest a person who would be the go-to person in the company the boss has to listen to.
Most of all, we try to instill no fear in the minnows, raise their status and prestige. Let them know in no uncertain terms that they are as important to the organization as anyone else and they have an equal vote.
We may not kick every shark in the chops, but we may make it harder for them to operate.
That’s all for me now. A reminder: I do have a website where you can find other tidbits I have written, and click on the links for my best selling, The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development and my fringe science fiction novel, Harry’s Reality. Another look at the future that seems right at the time… Happy Training.
One of my first jobs after coming back from the United States Marines Corps was an inside sales job, downtown in a family-owned men’s clothing store.
I had no preconceived notions. In fact, I didn’t know what to expect. I wanted to earn money and I was determined to do my best. However, it did not go well. After spending four years in the Marines in the Vietnam era and coming out a sergeant, I could take orders well. I was polite.
I said, “Sir.” What I wasn’t ready for was having multiple bosses, aged 16 to 60. I figured the oldest was the big boss and the youngest, but I had the least say since I was not family. Imagine “the few, the proud, the chosen” sweeping the walk and hanging up clothes in the back and being ordered about by a 16-year-old. I didn’t last long, but then again family-own jobs are not only the hardest to work for, they are the hardest to run. And, of course, our main question here: are they hard to train?
The communication and leadership dynamics are all different. In a regular business, bosses are selected based on a different criteria, albeit sometimes not the best if they are just the money man, but more often as not because they are good at what they do managing others and leading a business or company. In the military, setting the example and inspiring others, takes precedence or leadership over management skills. In fact, management is often delegated to the executive officer. In government, politics has a hand at the top promoting the Administration’s agenda, while civil servants get the job done; most of us would agree that this system is probably not the most efficient, but in some ways it offers a satisfaction other than financial. For non-profits, yet the system offers another dynamic of working with volunteers; however, family businesses run the gamut depending on individual wishes, love of the work and fear of disappointing loved ones–just to name a few.
According to Family Business USA, “Being in a family business is hard as it requires the balancing of the unconditional love and support as a family member with the operational and profit requirements of a business. It is no wonder that over 65% of family businesses across the USA do not survive to the next generation.”
You might not know it, but this, too, is a family-owned business.
So what can you do if you if you a part of a family business, and you find you hate going to work. You would love to leave and find your own niche, but you’ve worked hard here. However, there is no promotion because there are older siblings ahead of you–the family dynamic–who may not be as qualified as you. Naturally this where it gets sticky.
The best way to keep from having the family issues come up is to treat the family business as though it is a business without the family.
Hanna Hasl-Kelchner of AllBusiness.com has the right idea. She says for any business, and it is goes for a family business here as well, to thrive it needs to be:
Using communication channels wisely, such as using a letter instead of a Twitter-style text message to accurately convey subtle or complex thoughts;
Keeping communications respectful, constructive, and professional;
Sticking to business and keeping sensitive information confidential; and
Always striving for clarity and accuracy to avoid misunderstandings that can escalate into disputes.
Jobacle.com which says it offers unique career advice with an edge, gives us five tips for working for the family business that goes more into the family dynamic and is less black. In my mind, I’d say both views are right, you have to maintain perspective and boundaries at all times. I always say I offer advice from a variety of perspectives so you can see what works best for you.
I have seen some family businesses that seem to have so much fun working together that it seems such a neat idea, then I remember the times my wife and I have been home at the same time. I work at home, and I realized how little I accomplished. So, family can distract you from the job at hand. Also, being frustrated to get the job done can make family members feel the job comes first, when it should be family first. It’s true. You cover for family who are also colleagues; you probably wouldn’t do that anywhere else.
Sometimes the stress takes a toll on personalities, making the head honcho a tyrant, mom usually the concilitator getting in between her husband and everyone else; naturally the eldest brother and sister or aunt and uncle are in the middle. In-laws added to the mix make it more complicated. Have a problem with your sister-in-law, you can’t go to your brother. Or, if the problem is with your brother, you can’t have him fired, can you? “It can bring out the best in you and your relatives–and also the worst in your working relationships.”
Here are 5 tips, according to Jobacle.com to ensure that your family working environment remains as positive and healthy as possible.
1. Blood Is Thicker Than Water
Always remember that and speak to one another that way with respect and love.
2. Decide Who is Boss
The biggest issue is to decide the leadership. The usual default is to the patriarch of the family, but give this a lot of thought. This the person who will move the business forward and make final decisions–no questions asked. Don’t be fooled by loud and aggressive. There are different kinds of leadership styles. Make sure it is one that fits your family.
3. Set Boundaries
Work is work. Home is home. Keep the boundaries clear. We see a lot family cut-ups on TV–more than we should. Talk about work at work and personal issues at home. Simple as that.
4. Don’t Bottle it Up
This more important than it seems. Don’t keep things in when they are bursting to get out. One day you will slip and say what you are really thinking. Don’t be cast out of the family and your job. Bring the issues out in the open in the appropriate forum.
5. Talk Like Family
Be open with one another as you always are, but communication is important. Again in the appropriate place. Talking about family like at work stresses the work environment and vice versa.
As trainers, I caution you anytime you are asked to work with a family business–not that it is the mafia or anything like it, but the emotions are volitile and there is no easy fix. You aren’t just dealing with the CEO here but an entire family with a range of emotions so do your research well.
That’s all for me now. A reminder: I do have a website where you can find other items I have written including coupons for my best selling, The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development and my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality. Happy Training.
I saw an interesting article, the Best Kept Secrets of Successful Business People, but found many of its ideas fit anyone who seeks success. And there is a purely selfish reason they are kept secret.
However, the question for trainers is: Can you train someone to be successful? I have to answer: Not really. I know it’s silly. After all there are a lot of people, experts in their fields, successful business people, successful speakers and trainers selling their secrets of success. How can they be secrets if they are selling them all the time? They are selling them because there are so many of them and calling them secret is the only way to make them proprietary.
I think, and this may be naive of me, the only way to sell success is to sell a forum of successful ideas, a philosophy of success. Surely, someone has put that out there. The only problem I see (as an English and speech professor) is one of attribution–that is giving credit where it is due. Now, we, trainers, do train employees to be successful, to make the company successful if we can, to have employees equipped with the traits the company believes will make ideal employees. I have performed leadership and management training as I’m sure you all have, too. Mostly we concentrate on leadership theory and we break it down into useful tools we can use in the company. The “how” isn’t so much as important as the result and ultimately that is what we do.
Here’s an idea. Think back to when you had a philosophy class, if you did one, or psychology class, or even a literature class–actually any class where you might have differing or diverging views. Just as I have my students take multiple sources–a little bit of this, a little bit of that–all the while immersing themselves in the knowledge contained within the whole, and coming up with an original idea. Isn’t that what students do all along? So many years in school and then we find they are still not ready for the world of work? Part of that comes from basic assimilation of the mass of ideas received plus the college experiences and being flung into the adult world. Two years, the experts say is about right–especially for the private less mainstream institutions–and that includes our military academies.
Some of these secrets of success may propel them from school directly to the business world, but it’s still two years after graduation before any schooling really makes sense to students in the real world. So, employers feel cheated. I guess the young are really an android (a robot not the phone and tablet system) devoid of human thought and creative abilities of their own until we push them in the right direction.
We like the ideas of mentors in business. We like interns. In Medicine, we like interns and rotation of positions, but not all of us are set up that way. That seems to be the way we are dealing with the android syndrome. We force application down many paths so employees see as much of the big picture as possible. And our most successful candidates in those programs go on to be successes. Yes? So we must be on the right track.
How about we send them looking for as many secrets of success as they can find…
So, now we want to tell business success stories. We can’t really train them. We can only tell them and hope they take. Maybe a motivator can do a better job of inspiring, but what are the odds of success? Do we send them to one of these secret success builders? Why? They only get one side there.
How about we send them looking for as many secrets of success as they can find through research in libraries, on the net, and put them in a room and let them discuss the practicalities of these notions? Add in a few moderators to keep it civil and focused, maybe focused on the company or government entity? Identify each individual proclivity and you have found the place where this person can succeed beyond your wildest dreams.
This may all be a dream. Sometimes I just do this. I let an idea percolate for a while–sometimes a long while until I think I can put it into words. Create a plan? Well, that’s a job and I’d need to get paid for that. But I hope I have piqued your attention and given you something to think about. As I continue to teach University students and work with creative people in both theatre and writing, I feel more alive than when I was doing the same thing in training everyday. We didn’t have the luxury of time in trying something new. I hope that if I start with an idea, a trainer like one of us somewhere, can finish it with a program or product.
That’s all for me now. A reminder: I do have a website where you can find other items I have written including coupons for my best selling, The Cave Man Guide To Training and Development and my novel about the near future, Harry’s Reality. Happy Training.
We Value Your Privacy We use cookies to better serve our customers through site functionality and user personalization.
We and our partners store and/or access information on a device, such as cookies and process personal data. This includes unique identifiers and standard information sent by a device for personalized ads and content, ad and content measurement, and audience insights.
With your permission, we and our partners may use precise geolocation data and identification through device scanning. You may click to consent to our processing as described above. Alternatively, you may click to refuse to consent or access more detailed information. You may also change your preferences before consenting.
Please note that some processing of your personal data may not require your consent, but you have a right to object to such processing. Your preferences will apply to this website only. You can change your preferences at any time by returning to this site or by visiting our privacy policy.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
I’m okay with functional and analytical cookies for website functionality. I agree to the use of cookies under these circumstances:
Will be used if you visit Managementhelp.org
Are necessary for the proper functioning of the website
Enable you to use the site securely
Do not collect personal information that’s not needed for personalization
Help us detect any bugs and improve our website
Collect anonymous information about your visits to our website
Are never used for remarketing
I’m okay with the functional and analytical cookies for marketing purposes and not for website functionality.
Are used to monitor the performance of marketing campaigns
Enable us to compare performance across our marketing campaigns
Are used for individual targeting
Can be used for retargeting on other partner platforms
Enable a more personalized experience
