Category: Training & Development

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic principles of all training:

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

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

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

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

The Black Belt Art of Training.

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

For more resources about training, see the Training library.