Category: Human Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look for Innovation in Process.

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

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

Identify a Standard of Success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment.

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

 

Employees sometimes spend several hours each year in training classes. Many times, these classes get the same reception as the performance review. The two have some similarities. Both are often dreaded experiences that can turn into a pleasant surprise or a nightmare. Most likely each of you can relate to both experiences for both items.

For training, there are number of things that happen that lead to a negative experience. Have any of the following happened to you during a training session?

• The class started late or ran over the time allotted.
• The instructor or facilitator spent hours talking to you in a monotone voice with every word repeated on a PowerPoint slide behind them with lights dimmed in the room.
• The instructor seemed bothered by the interruption of questions about the topic.
• The instructor wasn’t prepared for class requiring you to sit in silence for several minutes.
• The instructor made a consistent point of ensuring that the participants knew their credentials and expertise. Any time someone tried to share an experience with the topic, they were cut off only to have to listen to the instructor tell you how to handle it their way.

There are also several things that lead to positive learning experiences for adult learners.

• An environment where practice and exploration are encouraged and allowed.
• A facilitator who uses the experiences of the participants to connect the material.
• A facilitator who is has prepared the material, the environment, and the delivery to work together to maximize learning.
• A delivery of material that requires action, discussion, and participation.
• A facilitator who is positive about the material and your ability to learn it and practice it.
• Content, handouts and materials that are immediately useful to you in your current role.
• PowerPoint is only used as a visual tool to enhance the material.

One of the key differences between the pleasant surprise and the nightmare for training falls in learner verses facilitator control. For those of us responsible for employee learning, we often spend the majority of the program development time focused on the objectives that we need the employees to learn. We build agendas and timelines then focus on how to get the all the information out within our timeframe. When the focus is on getting information out, how can we focus on the learner taking the information in and actually learning?

Stay tuned for more on this topic.

You can also find more information at www.astd.org and http://www.ialearn.org/index.php

—

For more resources, See the Human Resources library.

—

Sheri Mazurek is a training and human resource professional with over 16 years of management experience, and is skilled in all areas of employee management and human resource functions, with a specialty in learning and development. She is available to help you with your Human Resources and Training needs on a contract basis. For more information send an email to smazurek0615@gmail.com or visit www.sherimazurek.com. Follow me on twitter @Sherimaz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how do you get there?

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

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

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

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

Know your audience, know your subject and know yourself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Communication considerations for trainers.

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

Effective communication couldn’t be more important in training.

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

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

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

The most efficient training is the best communicated training.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

I am not a regular fan of reality television; however, I do really enjoy watching the show where the contestants are fighting to lose weight. You all know the show, right? Well, I love seeing how the contestants are able to lose weight and reduce risks to their health. I also really like that the show provides healthy tips on eating during the sometimes drawn out two hour episodes. But my favorite part of the show may just be the trainers. They are tough, but you really get the sense that they care about helping the contestants achieve their weight loss goals. They push the contestants, they call them out on their bull**** and excuses, and they don’t give up on them.

During the season, the contestants regularly participate in challenges. Sometimes the winners get prizes such as immunity from being sent home for the week and sometimes the losing team or individual suffers disadvantages in the game. In last night’s episode the losing team of one of those challenges was taken away from the campus on which the contestants stay to a house by themselves. They were given a budget and had to decide how to allocate their funds for the week. Their menu of choices included time with their trainer for a cost, spa treatments, gym memberships, food, dinners out and phone calls (a luxury not normally allowed). The team of two chose to have the spa treatments and dinner out, but did not choose any time with their trainer. The reason, they felt that they had learned enough and were ready to make it on their own.

So how do you think they did? Well the team lost the weekly “weigh-in.” As the team who lost the least amount of weight at the end of the week, one of team members had to go home. Their decision to not have a single day with their trainer cost the team greatly.

Another thing happened during last night’s episode that was significant to me. One of the contestants on the other team had recently had to switch trainers. His original trainer focused his training on boxing, something he enjoyed very much. Having workouts that he enjoyed had helped him achieve great success during the first several weeks in competition. The new trainer’s style was a little different and he was a little unhappy. You know what he did, he let the trainer know how he felt and she let him box. She didn’t take it easy on him, but she let him get there in the way that he enjoyed most.

How often do we make the same mistake as the losing team in our work life? More importantly, are the managers and leaders in your organization, good trainers? Are they pushing their teams to succeed? Are they listening to them as individuals to know what they need? Are they building an environment where your employees feel comfortable approaching them and letting them know what they need? If the answer is no, what are doing about it? What can you do right now to take the first step in that direction? No more excuses.

—

For more resources, See the Human Resources library.

—

Sheri Mazurek is a training and human resource professional with over 16 years of management experience, and is skilled in all areas of employee management and human resource functions, with a specialty in learning and development. She is available to help you with your Human Resources and Training needs on a contract basis. For more information send an email to smazurek0615@gmail.com or visit www.sherimazurek.com. Follow me on twitter @Sherimaz.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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.