Category: Training & Development

It’s definitely who we are on this site: trainers and developers–or should we say development managers or counselors, or guidance counselors, leadership directors? I admit we don’t hear those terms often in business (depending on our business, of course), but we could very easily hear them in another context or organization that has the same training goals as most organizations–to be a successful and productive group of people dedicated to the same vision. I could go on and on with a variety of terms that might define what we do with what is more often known as professional development.

Naturally, I found a good site for a simple definition and more information on the subject. According to the website, development is still training but at a higher level that involves not only an individual’s growth within the company, but personal growth as well. Here’s a bare-bones definition.

Development: Training people to acquire new horizons, technologies, or viewpoints. It enables leaders to guide their organizations onto new expectations by being proactive rather than reactive. It enables workers to create better products, faster services, and more competitive organizations. It is learning for growth of the individual, but not related to a specific present or future job.

Simple training is much more specific and limited.

Training: Learning that is provided in order to improve performance on the present job.

Now the question becomes, which comes first? Sure, training is most basic, but without the whole picture you don’t have anything to aim for. An effective training plan should be a strategic plan, involving a whole person, whole company aspect. The tactical measures we take to achieve certain goals, milestones, or results is the individual training. Do we make the mistake of making a list of skills we think are needed to create the perfect candidate? Or, do we break down the traits and skills we think our ideal candidate already has and try move others to that standard of proficiency?

However, we arrive at the solution doesn’t really matter; it’s a chicken or egg thing. What does matter is that we know what we want first and don’t just go making up courses because they are useful skills to have. We make already have those skills in abundance and can skip the developing and designing specific training. I say it is more useful to focus on the development, deciding what you want and what it takes to get there.

Wikipedia, too, also has its version: In the field of human resource management, training and development is the field concerned with organizational activity aimed at bettering the performance of individuals and groups in organizational settings. It has been known by several names, including employee development, human resource development, and learning and development. Training and development encompasses three main activities: training, education, and development.

The Wikipedia article also reports some experts consider these ideas to be synonymous. However, to practitioners, they encompass three separate, although interrelated, activities:

1. Training: This activity is both focused upon, and evaluated against, the job that an individual currently holds.
2. Education: This activity focuses upon the jobs that an individual may potentially hold in the future, and is evaluated against those jobs.
3. Development: This activity focuses upon the activities that the organization employing the individual, or that the individual is part of, may partake in the future, and is almost impossible to evaluate.

The one you don’t hear very often in American circles is Education. Do we depend too much time considering the merits of specific subject matter studied to earn the Masters of Business Administration? Or, do we accept them blindly because they come from an Ivy League or otherwise prestigious business school? Do our people learn about our specific corporate culture? Obviously not. They learn about corporate culture in general, and about many different types of corporate cultures. Which type are we?

That brings up another training question. Should we examine our corporate culture like we would any part of our organization if we felt it may need an upgrade or new vision? Perhaps that in itself will be a worthwhile endeavor–getting to know ourselves better, or at least begin to see ourselves as others see us. It is only with this knowledge that an individual can move ahead in the company. So part of any professional development education should include the aspects of developing, refining, and evolving a corporate culture to create the corporate organization.

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

That’s just my opinion. What’s yours? Feel free to leave a comment or a question. You can read more of my views here or on a variety of subjects, including communication, training and development, and theatre arts on my website. For a look at the human side of training from my Cave Man perspective, please check out my book, The Cave Man Guide to Training and Development.

In my organization it was decided we had depended on technology and already available computer training too long. The leadership and management had to admit that there were knowledge gaps in our workforce. People with valuable corporate knowledge were leaving or retiring who we couldn’t replace for budget reasons, but we still needed to get the job done.

So what do you do to maintain worker proficiency when resources are slim? The obvious answer is to use what you have in-house and constantly make people aware of the availability of those resources; however, making employees aware doesn’t necessarily motivate them to use those resources. What’s the fun in that? What’s in it for them?

There are some simple solutions to training that you may not even think of as training, but they are nonetheless. These everyday activities can be interesting and even fun. And, many you do right now or can implement with no cost at all. Well, maybe the cost of the donuts.

• Use the company newsletter to write simple articles that motivate or pass on information we may have forgotten–little reminders that can be said in a humorous way will get our attention, hold our interest and remind us of something important. Ask for feedback on the articles; it generates new topics and let’s us know where training may be needed.
• Daily tweets (we call them chirps) through email or even online can be a source of quick facts and figures, as well as best practices and simple procedures. Again, reminders of things we should be aware of takes the place of the refresher training we may need.
• Staff meetings don’t have to be dull, add some donuts or bagels for the coffee, as well as a small dose of information from which everyone can benefit and make it the closing point of the meeting. Give a contact for more information, and the meeting’s done.
• Have some gregarious person host “brown bag lunches” where someone shares information of interest (and necessity). It’s nice to use people who are also entertaining to do the presenting. Or, take this opportunity to use someone to talk about something not work-related that might be of interest. Mix it up. We need to stay interested in our team, which brings us closer together and motivated to work together.
• Finally, while it’s not exactly “mentoring,” asking someone to back the leader up on a project will generate interest in project and motivate the employee to take some self-learning opportunities to get up to speed.

There you have five simple and low cost ways to add training to everyday activities. Every little bit helps. Keeping employees motivated to keep learning and growing is as important as the training itself. Without the proper motivation, the training is lost on them anyway.

Want to add to the list? Be my guest. Add a comment here or contact me directly through my website.

Managers, Trainers, Speakers, Presenters & Educators: Have an Affair to Remember! You know I’m talking about training, teaching, speaking or presenting occasions, right?

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

As stated in my previous two posts, training sessions can be a dreaded activity by many. Despite research that tells us lecture is not learning, it is still the most used delivery method. And with current updates in technology the lecture is often supported with a deck of PowerPoint slides filled with the words being spoken by the presenter often times while reading directly from the screen or his printed copy. It is not surprising that this is the most common method. It is the easiest to develop and control and it is what learners often expect. This may just be why they dread coming to training.

What to Do?

Developing and delivering training sessions that will be pleasant surprises for the participants instead of dreaded events requires a learner-centered approach which is much different than a controlled lecture. I recommended some resources in my previous posts. In addition to those websites, there are a number of books that are also great resources. Sharon Bowman’s The Ten-Minute Trainer 150 Ways to Teach it Quick & Make it Stick is one of my favorites. Dave Meier’s The Accelerated Learning Handbook is another great resource to help you re-design your training. The ideas shared in these resources can be used with any topic, delivered to any group, and within any time frame. They can also be used in e-learning and web-based delivery methods.

Basic Premise

The resources listed focus the development of training on a four phase cycle. The four phases of the cycle include planned activities with a specific purpose of engaging the learner in the experience using multiple senses to explore the new material and connect with others in the learning community. The phases are designed based on what brain research tells us about learning. (See my previous post for more on this). The design methodology using these phases brings the theory into practice with great results.

What to Learn More?

In the next few weeks I will break down each phase with tips and tricks to use in each. I would also welcome you to share your experiences in training in the comments section. What experience can you describe that have been pleasant surprises or training nightmares?

—

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.

Resources

http://www.bowperson.com/

http://www.alcenter.com/

What happens when we stop talking face-to-face? Nothing and everything.

This has been my theme since I wrote a science fiction novel on the subject. When society gets lazy and decides the tough questions about running the world are best answered by a machine–an evolving artificial intelligence, a computer server I call “Makr,” the world is in a lot of deep do-do. No one communicates unless they are approved by a totally objective process that has everyone’s welfare to think of. Well, there are exceptions like the people who don’t have the direct line to contributing to the Perfect Society. Individuals, maybe not team players, have too much influence, and that can affect the way you run your life, which can in turn affect the way others run theirs, and so on.

You see my point: we are influenced by others we come into contact directly. What happens when we don’t allow that influence, and turn the process over to an automated-give-you-the-perfect answer every time. The perfect training solution. Or, is it?

What has this to do with training? Everything and nothing. Everything because training is about transferring information and skills to others. The best way to do it is via face-to-face. Not many would argue that; although much can be said for the variety of interactive methods deployed these days and in the future will be able to still convey the same information. With the same power? The same success rate? We’ll see, I guess.

People need interaction into their real lives beyond the training. You could automate the “what’s in it for me” I suppose, but would it be enough? What about that nagging question you won’t ask because you have to write it down, key it in, push a button? People are funny. They are willing to click to listen to a blog more so than just read it. They will click a video that may be further from their actual question because they are attracted to both the visual and audio stimuli, but they still can’t ask a question. So they stagnate. They stop learning unless they are a technology nut and must keep pushing buttons, clicking on links, and surf.

A person can say, “I know what you’re thinking,” elicit a smile and provide a question you may not have thought of and answer it as well. Now, is that so hard? No, but it costs more in the long run to hire trainers than to build an interactive computer system or use impersonal webinars, or even more primitive conference calls, but at least those are people talking to people.

What happens in my novel? What you would expect. The world rises up to destroy the machines so society can once more think for themselves and teach each other once. The reality is better. Not always perfect, but better. But wait! We started with “perfect.” What happened? The same thing that happens to training programs that stop face-to-face training. The program and managers depend on the “perfect” system to deliver the results and wonder why it doesn’t “in the long run.” Now, when you need a program that works, you have to start over. Not very cost effective, is it?

Thought I’d play a bit and hopefully, stimulate some thinking. As for my novel, I’m not plugging it yet. Obviously there are twists and turns in it, which make it more complicated than I have presented here.

Pretty much like training. We shouldn’t seek the one and only best training solution. Nothing is perfect. A trainer in front of an audience is always better than a machine. Maybe always is too strong. It depends. It always depends.

Remember, shutting down programs completely means you don’t need them anymore. Just one person thinking about the way training can improve what we do is worth it. That person is invaluable when you start the program up–and you will–unless you want to stay the size you are and maximized your output.

The best way to train others is to not seek the perfect training solution, but rather to keep people in the mix. Unless you bring in robots…but they need programming and maintaining. Another novel, perhaps. Before you go off thinking, one last offering: robots are efficient and will do as you tell them, but they do not have a mind of their own. That might be a good thing to some managers, but innovative thinking is what humans do best. Why not keep it flowing?

Keep thinking, trainers. Keep the training solutions coming.

Sometimes we just have to smile, and say with “The Terminator‘s” accent, “I’ll be back.”

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The thought of attending training sessions for many can bring up an array of emotions. With the new technologies that have erupted over the past decade, the immediate assumption of many is that training is just a PowerPoint and a lecture or a PowerPoint turned into webinar and called online learning. But how much learning is actually occurring?

What does the research say about adult learning?

Malcolm Knowles has be coined the “father of adult learning” for his writings on andragogy, the study of adult learning. His work describes the following six assumptions about adult learning:

• Adults are self-directed learners
• Adults use their experiences as a resource for learning
• Adults readiness to learn is tied to their social roles
• Adult learning is tied to immediate application
• Adults have internal motivation to learn
• Adults need to see a need for training.

Additional research on adult learning has found the following:

• Learning involves the mind and the body
• Learning is created, not consumed
• Collaboration helps adult learn
• Experience and practice aid in learning
• Positive emotions aid learning
• Learning transferred visually can be absorbed faster than verbal

What does the research say about workplace learning?

Some research shows that only 5% of classroom room is transferred back on the job. In April’s edition of Chief Learning Magazine, John R. Mattox II discusses a recent study conducted by KnowledgeAdvisors that confirms a very low transfer of learning occurs. According to article, only 9% of training is used by learners with positive results, a key factor is the recurring use of the skills. The article further argues for the need for management involvement before and after training to reinforce application of the learning.
Why do we get it wrong?

There are a number of reasons why training departments get it wrong. Getting it right is more time consuming, it can cost more, it requires a longer roll out period, and quite frankly, it’s harder to plan and implement.

What can you do?

Start by using the research. This research isn’t new; it has been around for decades. More recent research supports it and yet in most organizations we are still using the lecture method. For all of us who have learned something new, we know that lecture is not learning.

There are a number of resources available to help you create better training and help you become a facilitator. Below are a few of my favorite websites. They both have a number of further resources for you to use. Go ahead, take the first step. Start slow and see what a positive reaction you get.

http://www.bowperson.com/

http://www.alcenter.com/

If you are interested in learning more and are in the Cleveland area, check this out.

http://www.ialearn.org/conference.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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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

The company wants to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look for Innovation in Process.

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

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

Identify a Standard of Success.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Assessment.

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

 

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.