We generally analyze training disasters as well as successes. What about all the programs which fall in between?
Of all the programs conducted in organizations , 99% fall in this category.Let’s take few examples.
An organization ‘A’ conducted a workshop on Leadership. The program was focussed on developing leadership competencies. Hence, it was exercise based and focused on the formulation of additional competencies in the competence inventory of participants.
Multiple role plays were conducted. This resulted in perception expansion as well as the realization among participants of the positive impact of practicing such leadership competencies.
After the program, the participant feedback was excellent. The training department was satisfied with the training initiative.
Then, everybody forgot about it.
Can we consider this program to be a success in spite of such excellent participant feedback?
I am afraid NO!
What if the participants just enjoyed themselves during the program? What if it was just a movie to them with the trainer giving a solo performance?
In case that is the outcome, it would be much better to take the participants to see a good film on the subject and do an analysis subsequently. Perhaps the learning would be more and longer lasting.
Since, the objective of a workshop is competence development, the participant feedback after the program is a poor determinant of its success.
An organization “B”, on the basis of its experience developed a belief in “Human Resource Development”. Hence, it deployed “Training Centers for workers”, in all its factories.
Though the objective was laudable, the final end point of this endeavor is summed up in a statement of its executive “This is where, the workers are brainwashed”. The training center was perceived by the management as a medium of communication with the workers. It was deployed as a system of developing and maintaining leadership so that negative influences from among the worker ranks could be countered.
This indicates that the training center was hijacked by the IR department to achieve its objectives of "Worker leadership" and maintenance of "Peace and harmony” at the workplace.
Though these objectives add value, a predominance of these initiatives would result in “brainwashing” allegations and the questioning of the motives of the management.
Such statements are very jarring. This is as if a wolf has been dressed up in sheep’s clothing. It seems as if some clandestine objectives are being achieved through the training center.
These objectives attributed to the training center do indicate an amazing insight into the practice of “IR”. Using the training center as a communication medium is a remarkable practice, conceived and deployed by a competent IR professional.
However, limiting the worker training center to only that, results in a severe distortion of the image of training and the training center.. “The tail is wagging the dog”. The training center needs to be a source of competence development, organization development and systemic innovation. In fact, the training center is a catalyst of change for the better whether it is at individual, departmental or organizational level.
The enaction of the “worker training center” in the context of IR only results in the categorization of the training initiative as “Suspended animation “.
The same training programs such as “work ethics” and “Communication skills” are repeated over and over again until not only the participants but even the trainers are half asleep in the training session.
A similar phenomenon is visible in the field of “Management Education”.
It seems that the courses in management institutes are in suspended animation. I recently had a look at the course content of the MBA Program of one of the universities. There is very little evolution or innovation in the field. Though the content is intellectually stimulating and logically sound, it does not focus on competence development. This seems to be one of the best kept secrets of management education. 75% of it is never applied. In spite of this being common knowledge, I am stumped by the lack of innovation in the field.
Let’s examine, a few more disturbing points that I have come across in the training domain, which I consider to be training flip flops.
An internationally renowned organization realized that Team building was a key training need. The organization was structured around project teams. The training department had heard a lot about the popularity of outbound programs and it also wanted to give the participants a fresh experience. So, OBT was the chosen process. The program was outsourced to a consultancy. An exotic location was found.
Competitive activities were designed. Learning points regarding teams were extracted after the experiences. Everybody had a great time. The program was rated excellent.
On the basis of the excellent feedback, it was extended to all project teams.
After 2 months, when one of the consultants accidentally inquired about the impact on the performance of the Project team, the answer was “No Visible Impact”.
Though this data was available after the OBT was done for the first project team, the OBT program was still extended to all project teams.
Why?
This is a case of a training flip flop. The organization chose to continue with a solution even when they we knew that it is not creating the desired impact.
The training department should have catalyzed the “Redesign of the program” into an intervention, so that in addition to being a great experience, there could also have been an impact on Team performance.
Integrating, a diagnostic component into the intervention design and the resolution of issues that surface would have had a direct and visible impact on team effectiveness.
Rather than that happening, what happened was that after having a great experience, the Project teams went back to the same set of processes and culture as was prevalent earlier.
What a Waste!
Back