Discussion: View Thread

On 7 Aug 97 at 14:40, Bob Gately wrote:

> Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:
>
> >>... Bob says that the educational
> and work place settings are quite
> different...<<
>
> Education should be concerned with students' acquiring new knowledge
> while on-the-job training should be concerned with changing/improving
> behaviors, whether it is using new software, new products or managing
> people.

I'm not sure what is gained by making these kinds of distinctions in
our current world. While the distinction between education and
training (or OJT) made some sense when many jobs involved very little
brain involvement, these kinds of jobs that require "training"
without education are much rarer.

Broader based knowledge and education is more necessary now than ever
for job success....while specific skill development is a particularly
important component of education (eg. doctors, teachers, etc).

Can someone explain why people persist in making a separation of the
two when it seem fairly clear that they are really inextricably
linked?



Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On June 24, 1997*

Isn't there an interesting overlap between Drucker's comments about when
trainees should evaluate training, and the fact that we do the same "stupid"
thing when we have students evaluate classes and profs during the end of
the semester? Of course, doing it after they've left the scene is a little
difficult, but we're guilty of much the same thing!
Carol Steinhaus, IPFW

Many programs also do retrieval of alum comments, as well as
immediately after the fact/student comments. Indeed, in our
faculty handbook, our legal document, we have identified 9
different evaluative criteria. Frances

Carol Steinhaus <steinhau@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU> wrote:

>>... we do the same "stupid" thing when we have
students evaluate classes and profs during the end
of the semester?...<<

The educational setting and the work place are quite different
and the instructors are trying to accomplish two different tasks.

Students should be learning new information and acquiring new technical
skills, whereas in the work place the employees, especially managers
and supervisors, need to change their behaviors as well as acquire
new knowledge and skills.

It is the future change of work place behavior that makes "end of
seminar" critiques less than useful in the work place. If behaviors
don't change it doesn't matter what the employees think immediately
after the seminar.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

The conversation around evaluations is provoking a lot of thought for
me. Bob says that the educational and work place settings are quite
different. I infer from this that he also feels that they should not be
compared (I apologize if I have reached an incorrect conclusion).

I am wondering about the appropriateness of evaluations in either
setting. As a professor how can I determine what may be of importance
to any one student. Also, the student can be reacting to anything from
the tone of my voice to the temperature in the room. All impacting his
ability to learn. I may be teaching material that he has taken in
another class, so I offer him nothing new. I may be teaching at a level
he has not been exposed to. The list is endless. So what exactly is
being evaluated at the end of a class. I have most often seen
evaluations that look at the "glow" factors of an instructor.

As an employer I can train an employee (the concept of training an
employee is problematic itself). But there is no assurance that what he
has been trained on is supported at his work site, either by peers or
supervisors. Also, learning theory has shown that in times of stress
people revert back to ways of doing things that they have been doing the
longest or learned the earliest (witness Mike Tysons attempt to change
boxing styles). Now the question is did what was taught have value? By
what definition?

Teaching or training are part of overall systems. The evaluation of
either can not take place outside of the context outcomes and support of
the larger system.
>----------
>From: Bob Gately[SMTP:gately@COMPUSERVE.COM]
>Sent: Thursday, August 07, 1997 11:28 AM
>To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU
>Subject: training evals/teaching evals
>
>Carol Steinhaus <steinhau@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU> wrote:
>
>>>... we do the same "stupid" thing when we have
>students evaluate classes and profs during the end
>of the semester?...<<
>
>The educational setting and the work place are quite different
>and the instructors are trying to accomplish two different tasks.
>
>Students should be learning new information and acquiring new technical
>skills, whereas in the work place the employees, especially managers
>and supervisors, need to change their behaviors as well as acquire
>new knowledge and skills.
>
>It is the future change of work place behavior that makes "end of
>seminar" critiques less than useful in the work place. If behaviors
>don't change it doesn't matter what the employees think immediately
>after the seminar.
>
>Bob
>
>+---------------------------+------------------------+
>| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
>+---------------------------+------------------------+
>| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
>| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
>| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
>| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
>+----------------------------------------------------+
>

Miles Davis <miles.davis@EXSE01.EDS.COM> wrote:

>>... Bob says that the educational
and work place settings are quite
different...<<

Education should be concerned with students' acquiring new knowledge
while on-the-job training should be concerned with changing/improving
behaviors, whether it is using new software, new products or managing
people.

>>... I am wondering about the
appropriateness of evaluations
in either setting...<<

In the classroom I would expect student evaluations are important since
they are the customer and user of the service.

>>... So what exactly is being evaluated
at the end of a class...<<

Quite often it is whether we like you or not. Our OB professor was,
IMO, an excellent professor but enough of my Executive MBA classmates
trashed him in our end of course review--he was bounced from the
program the next year. Sometimes I think adult students are just
too sensitive.

>>... As an employer I can train an employee...
But there is no assurance that what he has
been trained on is supported at his work
site, either by peers or supervisors...<<

Yes, I have seen it reported that 87% of the training dollar
is wasted if not followed by on-the-job coaching.

>>... in times of stress people revert
back to ways of doing things that...<<

Since I show employers who to effectively and quickly uncover those
hidden traits I agree completely. Employees don't complain too often
about how most managers treat them when the manager is in a good mood,
the problem occurs when the manager is not in a good mood. Many of these
moody managers ought not be managers.

Teaching effectiveness may be assessed through testing what the students
know, whereas training effectiveness may need to be assessed through
on-the-job observations.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

I concur with Carol's comment - but find that colleagues often don't. At
our school, a document on evaluation of faculty was recently prepared by a
committee of faculty. The evaluation of teaching was to be confined to
student evaluations ONLY, except for Dept. Head's input based on
evaluation of written stuff only - syllabi, exams, other handouts. When I
pushed for including peer evaluation I found that my colleagues ALL were
afraid of what their colleagues might say. I can understand their fear of
the administration, but fear of colleagues??

Tim Edlund

> Isn't there an interesting overlap between Drucker's comments about when
> trainees should evaluate training, and the fact that we do the same "stupid"
> thing when we have students evaluate classes and profs during the end of
> the semester? Of course, doing it after they've left the scene is a little
> difficult, but we're guilty of much the same thing!
> Carol Steinhaus, IPFW
>

Bob Gately wrote:
>
> Carol Steinhaus <steinhau@CVAX.IPFW.INDIANA.EDU> wrote:
>
> >>... we do the same "stupid" thing when we have
> students evaluate classes and profs during the end
> of the semester?...<<
>
> The educational setting and the work place are quite different
> and the instructors are trying to accomplish two different tasks.
>
> Students should be learning new information and acquiring new technical
> skills, whereas in the work place the employees, especially managers
> and supervisors, need to change their behaviors as well as acquire
> new knowledge and skills.
>
> It is the future change of work place behavior that makes "end of
> seminar" critiques less than useful in the work place. If behaviors
> don't change it doesn't matter what the employees think immediately
> after the seminar.
>
> Bob

Bob,

I think the evaluations done in academic settings have scant value. They
do little to shape courses in many institutions and frankly the students
are not in a great position to judge content issues. What they do
provide is a quick take on whether the professor satisfied the
customers. That isn't easy given the circumstances. Time will tell
whether learning ocurred but it would be hard for it to take place if
the students all find the instructor overbearing, hard to understand,
ill-prepared. These kinds of judgements are still useful (IMHO) whether
in a work seminar or an academic setting.

All the best,
>

--
T.J. Elliott
Cavanaugh Leahy
http://idt.net/~tjell
914 366-7499

On 8 Aug 97 at 12:18, Tim Edlund wrote:

> IMHO, if formal education does not also obtain behavioral change, the
> student and the institution have wasted their time & money. At least in
> professional and pre-professional programs such the business programs most
> of us teach in, the student must learn to analyze situations, doing enough
> analysis to judge what the real issues (opportunities/problems) are, and
> to evaluate various proposed solutions for their cost, liklihood of
> success, etc. This is behavioral, based upon knowledge attained from both
> formal and informal sources (the classroom and experience). This is why
> experiential learning of various kinds is so valuable.


This seems fairly self-evident, and I am not sure why Bob G. feels
that this is not so. Perhaps he is applying an older and more
historic, narrow definition, equating education with a "liberal
education". Having taught adult ed. courses as
training, and in colleges and universities, and designed same, I can
tell you that the same approach to design and instruction applies.

Perhaps Bob hasn't had that opportunity.

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On June 24, 1997*

T.J. Elliott <tjell@IDT.NET> wrote:

(Hello T.J.)

>>... frankly the students are not in a
great position to judge content issues...<<

I agree, it is presumptuous of most students to comment on content.

(An undergraduate engineering classmate of mine asked the professors
over and over again if this or that was relevant to him becoming a
civil engineer--and this was during our first year.)

>>... What they do provide is a quick take
on whether the professor satisfied the customers...<<

Well, since the customer pays to attend I think that is OK
but not all opinions are equal.

>>... Time will tell whether learning
occurred but it would be hard for it
to take place if the students all
find the instructor overbearing...<<

Not a very good excuse for adult students to use.

>>... hard to understand, ill-prepared...<<

These are good reasons.

>>... These kinds of judgements are still
useful (IMHO) whether in a work seminar or
an academic setting...<<

True, but training for employees makes sense only if on-the-job
behavior following training is what the employer expects.
The same cannot be said for education.

Getting an education is about acquiring knowledge and skills,
while on-the-job training also includes acquiring behaviors. It is
the required behavioral change after training that makes on-the-job
training different than in the classroom education.

As far as I can tell, college students pay to attend and will not
be told to leave unless they fail to maintain a minimal GPA. At-will
employees, however, can be fired for whatever reason strikes management's
fancy. The difference between being a student and employee is huge
and should not be overlooked by educators or trainers.

In college I can study and learn statistics and then not use it, but if
I am being trained to use statistics for my job I may have no choice
but to use statistics even if I HATE doing it. Students all study
subjects they find uninteresting and boring, yet manage to get passing
grades. (I received A's in structural engineering but found it so
boring I changed to environmental engineering.)

We all can study a subject and learn the knowledge we need to pass
the course but putting that knowledge to use day after day, week after
week, month after month, etc., is a different story. Our personality
and interest level will control whether or not we do it, do it for a
long time, and enjoy doing it.

Some educators, employers and trainers seem not to understand the role
that personality and interests play in on-the-job success. We provide
technology that measures personality and interests and it always
surprises our new clients that their top performers have similar
personality traits and interests plus mental abilities. Their most
troublesome employees quite often look alike as well. This explains
why training so often fails to produce the desired behavioral change.
For some employees who are not well matched to the demands of the job,
education and training may well be a waste of time and resources.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Robert Bacal <rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:

>>... Can someone explain why people
persist in making a separation of the
two when it seem fairly clear that
they are really inextricably linked?..<<

I will try once, and once only:

Students pay for their degrees whereas employees get paid for their time.

If you do not understand the difference, so be it.


Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On 8 Aug 97 at 14:09, Bob Gately wrote:

> >>... IMHO, if formal education does not
> also obtain behavioral change, the student
> and the institution have wasted their time & money...<<
>
> If you mean by change in behavior the ability to use the acquired knowledge
> to solve a problem then I agree, however, I find that definition of a
> behavior change trivial.

Could you explain, perhaps how an engineer who solves stress
equations and problems, applying his knowledge of principles and his
field to building a bridge or an aircraft, is exhibiting behaviour
change (from before he completed his education) that is TRIVIAL?

Can you explain how a doctor who applies knowledge in an applied
diagnostic setting to save your life has exhibited trivial behaviour
change?

Education is no less about behaviour change...it seems foolish to
think it creates trivial behaviour change, simply because we consider
education a longer term process, and the behaviour changes occur over
a longer time. If you don't look for them, then you won't find them,
Bob.

> I wonder how many employees hire college graduates and then say they can do
> the technical stuff but they are miscast in the job--we need more than just
> technical competence. My point is that technical competence of a job or
> career is the part that educators impact the most and that they may be
> powerless to impact the other--Attitudes and Interests, etc.

As a matter of fact, part of many professional programs (educational
i nature) have integrated into them an inculcation to the
profession's values and ethics. Doctors are a good example...

I would love to see Bob G. address these issues directly, rather than
to continue to trumpet the business he is in. Go to it, Bob




Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On June 24, 1997*

On Fri, 8 Aug 1997, Bob Gately wrote: [in part]

> True, but training for employees makes sense only if on-the-job
> behavior following training is what the employer expects.
> The same cannot be said for education.
>
> Getting an education is about acquiring knowledge and skills,
> while on-the-job training also includes acquiring behaviors. It is
> the required behavioral change after training that makes on-the-job
> training different than in the classroom education.
>

IMHO, if formal education does not also obtain behavioral change, the
student and the institution have wasted their time & money. At least in
professional and pre-professional programs such the business programs most
of us teach in, the student must learn to analyze situations, doing enough
analysis to judge what the real issues (opportunities/problems) are, and
to evaluate various proposed solutions for their cost, liklihood of
success, etc. This is behavioral, based upon knowledge attained from both
formal and informal sources (the classroom and experience). This is why
experiential learning of various kinds is so valuable.

Tim Edlund, Morgan State U.

Tim Edlund <tedlund@MORGAN.EDU> wrote:

(Hello Tim)

>>... IMHO, if formal education does not
also obtain behavioral change, the student
and the institution have wasted their time & money...<<

If you mean by change in behavior the ability to use the acquired knowledge
to solve a problem then I agree, however, I find that definition of a
behavior change trivial.

I wonder how many employees hire college graduates and then say they can do
the technical stuff but they are miscast in the job--we need more than just
technical competence. My point is that technical competence of a job or
career is the part that educators impact the most and that they may be
powerless to impact the other--Attitudes and Interests, etc.

>>... At least in professional and
pre-professional programs such the
business programs...evaluate various
proposed solutions for their cost,
likelihood of success, etc...<<

Colleges do a good job at preparing their students to perform these tasks,
but technical competence is only part of the job success issue.

If learning to be an effective manager could be obtained from books and
classrooms wouldn't most of the MBAs be effective managers of people?


Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On 8 Aug 97 at 21:51, Bob Gately wrote:

> Robert Bacal <rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:
>
> >>... Could you explain, perhaps how an
> engineer who solves...is exhibiting
> behaviour change (from before he
> completed his education) that is TRIVIAL?...<<
>
> Since I am an engineer, I understand it all too well.
>
> I will type this real s l o w: Engineers acquire a vast body of knowledge
> including physics, calculus, chemistry, differential equations and much
> much more yet at no time--I repeat--at no time do we have to change our
> behavior.

This is nonsense (try Mavis Beacon). Nobody HAS to change their
behavior period. The issue is not whether one HAS to, but whether one
does. If you think that your behaviour related to engineering was the
same prior to your education, as compared to after your education,
you aren't building me a bridge! Of course, the reason why you can't
BE an engineer without the appropriate education is because your
behaviour would be incompetent, because you would lack the requisite
knowledge.

Kind of like an engineer attempting to behave as a psychologist or
expert on learning.


There was not then and there is not now a requirement that
> engineering graduates must change their behavior as a result of their
> engineering education. This may come as a surprise to some experts but it
> is true. Maybe trainers have a code of ethics that require a behavioral
> change?

There is no requirement that anyone change their behaviour anywhere
provided they are willing to take on the consequences. You have tried
to shift the issue to HAVE to (which is clearly incorrect), rather
than on whether behaviour changes. Behaviour change can occur equally
with "education" or with training...the consequences may be different
in terms of time span, but they are no different. An badly behaved
engineer will lose his job and be liable if the bridge falls down...a
badly behaved typist (trained to type) will lose his job if he
doesn't alter his typing behaviour to be effective.


>
> LET ME BE BLUNT: Education is not a behavior changer for most all people.

As a matter of fact it is..it's just that you seem not to be able
to understand that education occurs over a longer time than more
focused specific skills training...so it is harder to observe the
links. Clearly, because you cannot see the results the day after,
they must not exist. People with doctorates have behavioural
capabilities that are different than those without...doctors behave
differently as a result of their educations than before..

Do you go to doctors that lack an education? Why not? Since clearly,
according to you, that education is irrelevant to their behaviour.
Why not go to any old person who says they have medical knowledge?

> Maybe age and wisdom and life's experiences, but more than likely it is a
> trauma, a personal or business crisis or an awakening of some sort but it
> is not tied to education.

It is unfortunate that you seem to believe yourself an expert in
psychology, education and personal development. Tell you what...I
won't tell you how to engineer (woo...woo) if you don't preach to me
about psychology..



If this were not true why do we have so many
> highly educated managers, engineers, accountants, doctors lawyers, etc.,
> who become miserable managers and employers? What good did their education
> do them as far as changing their poor behaviors?

Because (and I will use terms from logic here), education is not a
sufficient condition for performance. No one variable controls
performance...why you would think so is beyond me.


> >>... Can you explain how a doctor who
> applies knowledge in an applied diagnostic
> setting to save your life has exhibited
> trivial behaviour change?...<<
>
> Computers probably can diagnose as well as a doctor, but they don't have an
> acceptable bedside manner, yet.

It figures...you didn't answer the question. Try again..it seems a
straightforward one. You said it was trivial change...have the
courage to admit you are wrong, or provide an attempt to justify your
position that the doctor is exhibiting trivial change.


> >>... Education is no less about behaviour change...<<
>
> Let me see, I have gone through elementary school, high school,
> undergraduate school, graduate school and then graduate school again (about
> 20 years worth) and in all those years in school not one grade, not one
> course, not one teacher required a change in my behavior other than to
> demonstrated that I acquired the knowledge and could demonstrate that I
> understood how to use it. Maybe other people have had a different
> experience?

It doesn't surprise me. Perhaps you had a poor education..that's not
my experience. I was expected to alter my behaviour in numerous
significant ways during my education...my writing behaviour, my group
behaviour, my behaviour with clients and others, my analysis of data
in statistics, etc.



>
> >>... it seems foolish to think it creates
> trivial behaviour change, simply because we
> consider education a longer term process...<<
>
> No, it is trivial because EVERYONE who goes through the same education must
> demonstrate the SAME behavior change. Boy, if only psychologists and
> psychiatrists knew that the answer to changing behavior is education.

Again, a logical fallacy. THE answer is not education..there is no
ONE answer, which, probably due to a lack of understanding of my
field, psychology, is hard for you to understand. It doesn't help
that you take a point to absurdity..it simply shows a lack of
understanding of human behaviour.

But since you seem to claim that job fit issues are THE answer to
everything, it isn't surprising that you try to apply the same logic
to other things.



> We ought not to let this sneak out into the main stream press, since many
> jobs could be lost, but then again, trainers and schools would have more
> students--I guess its a wash.
>
> >>... As a matter of fact, part of many
> professional programs (educational
> in nature) have integrated into
> them an inculcation to the
> profession's values and
> ethics. Doctors are a
> good example...<<
>
> I see, doctors have appropriate behaviors because they have ethics? Tell
> that to their staffs and Medicare. Lawyers have appropriate behaviors
> because they have a code of ethics? Tell that to their staffs as well as
> the judge.

You are knocking down a straw man. Doctors are taught ethical
behaviour. It is their choice to exercise that..to change their
behaviour or not, equipped from their education to do so.

The function of education or training is to provide options to
people, not dictate exactly what they do. They are identical in this
respect.

> For a guy who sells himself for money, we all do, I find your comment a
> little childish. I never tell my clients not to hire trainers or not to
> send their employees to training, but I do, by god, show them how reduce
> costly turnover and lower their training costs by helping them identifying
> which job applicants are more likely to use the training in the manner
> required by the employer. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to add that.

I know, Bob...in fact, we all know...since you seem not to waste an
opportunity to trumpet it on many lists such as this. Paul Simon had
a song called one-trick pony...when all one has is a hammer,
everything looks like a nail.

I think job fit is an important concept. What is sad is that clearly
you lack the psychological and educational knowledge to modify YOUR
behaviour regarding this discourse. Might I suggest a degree in
psychology?

Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On June 24, 1997*

Robert Bacal <rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:

>>... Could you explain, perhaps how an
engineer who solves...is exhibiting
behaviour change (from before he
completed his education) that is TRIVIAL?...<<

Since I am an engineer, I understand it all too well.

I will type this real s l o w: Engineers acquire a vast body of knowledge
including physics, calculus, chemistry, differential equations and much
much more yet at no time--I repeat--at no time do we have to change our
behavior. There was not then and there is not now a requirement that
engineering graduates must change their behavior as a result of their
engineering education. This may come as a surprise to some experts but it
is true. Maybe trainers have a code of ethics that require a behavioral
change?

LET ME BE BLUNT: Education is not a behavior changer for most all people.
Maybe age and wisdom and life's experiences, but more than likely it is a
trauma, a personal or business crisis or an awakening of some sort but it
is not tied to education. If this were not true why do we have so many
highly educated managers, engineers, accountants, doctors lawyers, etc.,
who become miserable managers and employers? What good did their education
do them as far as changing their poor behaviors?

Becoming a manager REQUIRES a behavioral change for almost all new managers
and that is why most new managers are in over their heads--they cannot make
the behavior changes necessary to become effective especially without
coaching. What do employers do? They send these poor souls to seminars and
to advanced degrees and back for more expensive training and the employers
keep wondering why their managers still don't get it right.

>>... Can you explain how a doctor who
applies knowledge in an applied diagnostic
setting to save your life has exhibited
trivial behaviour change?...<<

Computers probably can diagnose as well as a doctor, but they don't have an
acceptable bedside manner, yet.

The most common reason for medical malpractice law suits is a lack of an
appropriate bedside manner by the doctor. How can a doctor make it through
undergraduate school, medical school and residency and still not have the
appropriate bedside behavior? The answer is simple--education is not a
behavior changer.

>>... Education is no less about behaviour change...<<

Let me see, I have gone through elementary school, high school,
undergraduate school, graduate school and then graduate school again (about
20 years worth) and in all those years in school not one grade, not one
course, not one teacher required a change in my behavior other than to
demonstrated that I acquired the knowledge and could demonstrate that I
understood how to use it. Maybe other people have had a different
experience?

>>... it seems foolish to think it creates
trivial behaviour change, simply because we
consider education a longer term process...<<

No, it is trivial because EVERYONE who goes through the same education must
demonstrate the SAME behavior change. Boy, if only psychologists and
psychiatrists knew that the answer to changing behavior is education.
We ought not to let this sneak out into the main stream press, since many
jobs could be lost, but then again, trainers and schools would have more
students--I guess its a wash.

>>... As a matter of fact, part of many
professional programs (educational
in nature) have integrated into
them an inculcation to the
profession's values and
ethics. Doctors are a
good example...<<

I see, doctors have appropriate behaviors because they have ethics? Tell
that to their staffs and Medicare. Lawyers have appropriate behaviors
because they have a code of ethics? Tell that to their staffs as well as
the judge.

I think I disagree with what it means to have a code of ethics. I do not
know of any professional code of ethics that prescribes how its members
must behave in the work place as managers, employees or coworkers.

>>... I would love to see Bob G. address these
issues directly, rather than to continue to
trumpet the business he is in. Go to it, Bob...<<

For a guy who sells himself for money, we all do, I find your comment a
little childish. I never tell my clients not to hire trainers or not to
send their employees to training, but I do, by god, show them how reduce
costly turnover and lower their training costs by helping them identifying
which job applicants are more likely to use the training in the manner
required by the employer. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to add that.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Bob Gately wrote:
{Bob was continuing a thread which included my response}
<snip>
> Getting an education is about acquiring knowledge and skills,
> while on-the-job training also includes acquiring behaviors. It is
> the required behavioral change after training that makes on-the-job
> training different than in the classroom education.
>

I agree. Once the course is done, the student may or may not do
something with the knowledge, the learning. In the case of training
there is an expectation (however ill-founded) that it will result in a
different performance.

> As far as I can tell, college students pay to attend and will not
> be told to leave unless they fail to maintain a minimal GPA. At-will
> employees, however, can be fired for whatever reason strikes management's
> fancy. The difference between being a student and employee is huge
> and should not be overlooked by educators or trainers.
>
I also agree here. In fact, the design of training should be IMHO very
much the domain of the participants. Most of the time they know exactly
what they need and they can under the right circumstances come up with
the solutions. (Obviously technical topics form exceptions but even
there the application, the transfer of learning, is in the hands of the
participant.)
> In college I can study and learn statistics and then not use it, but if
> I am being trained to use statistics for my job I may have no choice
> but to use statistics even if I HATE doing it. Students all study
> subjects they find uninteresting and boring, yet manage to get passing
> grades. (I received A's in structural engineering but found it so
> boring I changed to environmental engineering.)
>
> We all can study a subject and learn the knowledge we need to pass
> the course but putting that knowledge to use day after day, week after
> week, month after month, etc., is a different story. Our personality
> and interest level will control whether or not we do it, do it for a
> long time, and enjoy doing it.
>
> Some educators, employers and trainers seem not to understand the role
> that personality and interests play in on-the-job success. We provide
> technology that measures personality and interests and it always
> surprises our new clients that their top performers have similar
> personality traits and interests plus mental abilities. Their most
> troublesome employees quite often look alike as well. This explains
> why training so often fails to produce the desired behavioral change.
> For some employees who are not well matched to the demands of the job,
> education and training may well be a waste of time and resources.
>
This is an important point. There is a rational, linear expectation in
much organizational learning that if you add up the needed content with
a good instructional design then everything will turn out fine.
Attitude, the way in which we interpret reality, plays an enormous role.
There is an interesting article related to this point, "Fair Process:
Managing in the Knowledge Economy", in the latest issue of Harvard
Business Review (7/8 1997) by Kim and Mauborgne. Quick quote: "Unlike
the traditional factors of production - land, labor, and capital -
knowledge is a resource locked in the human mind. Creating and sharing
knowledge are intangible activities that can neither be supervised nor
forced out of people." Bob's point above about training failing is
connected, I think.

Thanks, Bob.

--
T.J. Elliott
Cavanaugh Leahy
http://idt.net/~tjell
914 366-7499

T.J. Elliott" <tjell@IDT.NET> wrote:

>>... Once the course is done, the student may or
may not do something with the knowledge, the learning...<<

During my Executive MBA program I found that behavioral lessons learned one
week were often ignored the next week by many students.

The professors were effective, IMO, at demonstrating the importance of
exhibiting the behavior of an effective manager, yet students ignored the
behavioral aspect of management. Comments were made such as: "If you don't
have it by now, its too late" and "We all have our own behavior so why try
to change it?"

Students did not ignore the lessons learned in Accounting, Finance,
Marketing, etc, but many seemed to be willing to pick and choose the
lessons they wanted from Organizational Behavior (OB). I was struck at how
willing students were to substitute their own opinions for the lessons
learned in OB. Could it be that changing our behaviors goes to very heart
of who we are?

>>... In the case of training there is an
expectation (however ill-founded) that it
will result in a different performance...<<

Yes, but why is that the case? Could it be that employers hear from the HR
community, the press, higher education, trainers, consultants, management
gurus, etc., that the answer to performance problems is more knowledge and
skills, training, systems reengineering, business reengineering, etc.?

Look what happened after "Reengineering the Corporation" took the business
world by storm--one author had to write another book--"Reengineering
Management"--because the authors forgot to include people, i.e., middle
managers, in their headlong run to "Reengineering the Corporation".

Employers send employees to training to change their behavior because that
is what must be done with employees who are not performing as expected. My
concern is that training is oversold as the cure for non-performance. I
don't tell my clients that they don't have to train their employees, new or
old, but I do tell them that if they hire employees using less effective
selection criteria they are more likely to waste many times the cost of an
effective screening system. If more employers were to make better hiring
and selection decisions thus reduce their turnover and training costs I
wonder if trainers...

As we can tell by the reaction to my messages some trainers are incapable
of admitting that employees' behaviors that took a life time to develop are
not easily changed by some expert in the front of a classroom talking for
hours on end and, yes, even doing exciting exercises. When there is a
captive audience, such as employees, we can never be sure if their reviews
and comments are not driven by their need for job security. That is one
reason why I recommend external degree programs for managers who want to
become better managers.

Why do employers expect behavioral changes? Could it be that the hiring
managers, HR, and the executive team have no other solution to the problem
of poorly performing employees? Also, are trainers completely honest with
their employers and/or clients that training is unlikely to fix an
employee's attitude or behavior if the behavior is unrelated to the
employee's skill level or knowledge?

>>... In fact, the design of training should be
IMHO very much the domain of the participants...<<

I do believe that the people who know the most about business problems are
the ones who are closest to the problem.

>>... There is a rational, linear expectation in
much organizational learning that if you add up
the needed content with a good instructional
design then everything will turn out fine...<<

Yes, because it avoids the dreaded four letter word--TALK.

If managers and supervisors spent sufficient time talking with their people
they would learn, I hope, who their people are, what their interests are
and what is likely to motivate them.

>>... Attitude, the way in which we
interpret reality, plays an enormous role...<<

Yes, and how many times have we heard managers and trainers say "anyone can
do this job" or "with the right training everyone can be successful"?

These are statements borne out of a desire, a feeling, a need to believe
that all people are equal--which they are not.

>>... Creating and sharing knowledge are intangible
activities that can neither be supervised nor forced
out of people."...<<

I had a discussion once with my boss, a professional engineer and senior
vice president and member of the board of directors. He told me that we
were going to have the first ever meeting (the company was 77 years old)
between the board and the Associates (Associates were the level of
employees from which the directors were selected). When I asked him why we
were having this meeting he said "To find out what the Associates think."
Of course, each of the 7 directors could have just asked their Associates.
Anyway, I asked him why he thought we would be honest and tell him what we
really think he replied "We'll just tell everyone to speak their mind." The
meetings were a disaster since the board couldn't force teh Associates to
be open and honest. One current director, who was an associate at the time,
told me he didn't trust the directors to accept honest feedback without
repercussions--he was right.

>>... Bob's point above about training
failing is connected, I think...<<

Thanks.

I wonder why some trainers and educators need to believe that they are
responsible for anything other than the non-trivial behavioral changes in
their students?

Just another word on "trivial behaviors."

If ALL people in a job classification--civil engineer for example--in all
industries and in all companies exhibit the same behavior, i.e., solve the
same engineering problem the same way, i.e., corectly, that is a trivial
behavior and not what is meant by employers when they say "We need
employees who have the right behavior".

Most manager know when an employee has a fit for the job but they cannot
identify which applicants will have job fit once hired so they hire the
best and the brightest and hope for the best. This hiring practice more
often than not ensures that they don't hire the best employees. A strange
twist but knowledge and skills alone do not determine job fit.


Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

On 11 Aug 97 at 13:10, Bob Gately wrote:

> The writer has inadvertently, I think, stumbled onto the answer to the
> question: Does education change behavior? No, not unless other necessary
> conditions exist. In fact, education, i.e., in the classroom, is not only
> not sufficient it isn't even necessary because people change their
> behaviors without the benefit of classroom training.

Bob, you haven't addressed the questions I have asked: about doctors,
engineers,etc and why we use the services of those that have been
"educated". You haven't explained why we have legal requirements that
are education based for accounting, education, medicine, engineering,
etc.

Your original contention was that education does not change
behaviour. You didn't indicate that by itself, there are limitations,
that it may not be sufficient on it's own. You haven't addressed that
no ONE way of training and educating is guaranteed to produce
behaviour change..in fact you haven't addressed that nothing on this
planet cannot guarantee behaviour change. That doesn't mean that
nothing can cause changes in behaviour, clearly.

Since this list is titled the management education list, perhaps you
can suggest exactly how managers should be educated (or trained) to
function more effectively?

As to your questions, I may willing to address them (although I think
that the answers are in the psychological literature for you to
pursue), AFTER you respond directly to the questions I have posed to
you over the last week.


Robert Bacal, Inst.For Cooperative Communication, rbacal@escape.ca
Visit our Resource Centre for articles on mgmt.,training,communication, and defusing hostility
at http://www.escape.ca/~rbacal (204) 888-9290
*Site Last Updated On June 24, 1997*

>>...education is not a sufficient
condition for performance...<<

So true, that is why I keep offering the same advice over and over again:
There is more to on-the-job success than an employee's level of knowledge.
Since we finally agree, what are the other necessary conditions for job
performance? What are the necessary conditions for people to change their
behaviors?

>>... No one variable controls performance...
why you would think so is beyond me...<<

I don't, but I do suggest that job performance depends on having a
*minimal* level of knowledge and skills and the appropriate combination of
Mental Abilities, we look at 4, Interests, we look at 3, and the
personality characteristics, we look at 24, that allow the employee to find
success in the job.

It seems to me that our approach is more robust, more dependable and
downright more useful than looking at only education, training and skills.
Our 20,000+ corporate users agree, but I suppose some on this list will
argue that the 20,000+ corporate users don't really know what they are
doing, but it is shear foolishness and arrogance to try and make that point
without knowing the 20,000+ track records.

The writer has inadvertently, I think, stumbled onto the answer to the
question: Does education change behavior? No, not unless other necessary
conditions exist. In fact, education, i.e., in the classroom, is not only
not sufficient it isn't even necessary because people change their
behaviors without the benefit of classroom training.

What are the NECESSARY conditions for change?

Education is not limited to formal education and can be obtained by many
non-classroom activities such as reading, listening, observing and the
exchange of ideas.

Thank you for supporting my point. Now that you admit it, explain how an
instructor makes the necessary conditions for change exist for the student?


Since this is the "Management Education and Development Discussion" list I
presume that when we discuss behaviors we are discussing the behaviors
necessary to be an effective manager. I hope we are not talking about the
trivial definition of behavior--solving math problems correctly.


Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+

Robert Bacal <<rbacal@escape.ca> wrote:

>>... you haven't addressed the questions
I have asked: about doctors, engineers, etc.,
and why we use the services of those that
have been "educated"...<<

I did, but since you seem to be fixated on the notion that training can
resolve all employee performance problems you fail to consider the other
reasons why employees are not successful.

Registration laws help determine if someone has the minimun competencies to
practice their profession and laws do little to help employers determine if
the license holders will become good employees.

>>... You haven't explained why we have
legal requirements that are education
based for accounting, education, medicine,
engineering, etc...<<

One reason is protection of income for the professionals who are alrady
registered. By the way, I do agree with the registration laws for engineers
and other professionals. In fact, I had my local state rep. file a bill
that would have required all applicants for registration as professional
engineers to pass the 8 hour exam. About 10 people per year were being
registered without an engineering degree or passing the written 8 hour
exam. The board of registration objected to the law since it would have
reduced their powers to confer registrations.

As a graduate engineer and a licensed professional engineer I know that a
degree in engineering and/or a license to practice engineering are only
minimal indications of competence. Neither the degree nor the license
should be relied upon to indicate that applicants who have one or both are
well-suited for an engineering position. As I keep writing--there is more
to success as an employee than skills and knowledge.

>>... Your original contention was
that education does not change behaviour...<<

Yes, in relationship to the purpose of this list and in regards to what
employers mean when they complain about poorly behaving employees.
Employers don't mean technical competence when referring to an employee's
poor behavior. Employers do a fairly good job of screening out the
technical incompetents but they do a poor job of screening in the
applicants with the best behavior. The reason is simple--employers rely too
heavily on degrees and past experience and too little on past behaviors
sine they don't have a method to look at past behaviors.

>>... You didn't indicate that by itself,
there are limitations, that it may not be
sufficient on it's own...<<

Why agree with the obvious? In fact, formal education and training are
neither necessary nor sufficient.

>>... You haven't addressed that no ONE
way of training and educating is guaranteed...<<

There are no guarantees. I am suggesting that students and employers ought
to be informed by management schools and professors that college degrees
and training certificates do not confer on the holder any special behaviors
that the employer may deem necessary. Degrees and licenses only indicate a
minimal level of knowledge and expertise. The behaviors employers are most
concerned with are not the trivial behavior of specific job related tasks,
but rather related to personality characteristics for instance.

>>... in fact you haven't addressed
that nothing on this planet cannot (?)
guarantee behaviour change...<<

If you meant to write "can" rather than "cannot" I agree, and it goes
without saying that trainers have little to offer in the way of changing
their students behaviors.

>>... That doesn't mean that
nothing can cause changes
in behaviour, clearly...<<

What causes people to change their behaviors is something that occurs
internally and not imposed from without such as managers and trainers.

>>... Since this list is titled the
management education list, perhaps you
can suggest exactly how managers should
be educated (or trained) to function
more effectively?..<<

I'll repeat a previous post since I already made my suggestions.

---------------- start -----------------

Robert DeFillippi <rdefilli@ACAD.SUFFOLK.EDU> wrote:

>>... What can management educators learn
in the way of delivery methods and content
from management development trainers?...<<

As a fairly recent Executive MBA graduate
(NU, 1992) my suggestions are as follows:

- help students learn about themselves
- help students understand their own behavior
- help students to realize how hard it is to change their behaviors
- help students to know that changing other people's behaviors is much
harder than changing their own behaviors.

My suggestions for improving the image of management education are:
- be clear to students and employers that degrees do not make the
holder an effective employee, just qualified to be hired, maybe.
- be clear to students and business owners and managers that the
responsibility for hiring good employees rests squarely on the
shoulders of the employers who are the only ones who can know
if applicants will be successful.

---------------- stop ------------------

And I should add, training will not turn a bad hiring decision into a good
hiring decision but it deos keep the trainers busy.

Bob

+---------------------------+------------------------+
| Robert F. Gately, PE, MBA | gately@compuserve.com |
+---------------------------+------------------------+
| GATELY CONSULTING (508) 473-0955 |
| 115 Dutcher Street Fax (508) 634-0670 |
| Hopedale, MA 01747-1006 Toll Free (800) 478-8117 |
| http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/gately/ |
+----------------------------------------------------+