Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Why Training doesn't work

    Posted 10-09-1997 12:28
    Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> has asked me to post this for
    him--he's on the road.

    Training "works" some of the time, and some of the time it doesn't. By
    "works" is mean "achieves the purpose or goals for which it is intended."
    In general, training doesn't "work" (i.e., it fails) for either of two basic
    reasons: (1) it is the wrong solution for the problem at hand, or (2) it is
    poorly designed and executed. In other words, it is doomed from the
    beginning, or the job is botched.

    Conversely, training "work" (i.e., it succeeds) because it is a suitable
    solution and it is properly implemented.

    These two questions, then, are fundamental to any examination or evaluation
    of training:

    What are the purposes or uses to which training may be properly put
    (i.e., for what kinds of problems is training a good solution)?

    How does one go about designing, developing, and delivering
    successful training (i.e., training that "works")?

    These two questions have occupied much of my thinking for almost 30 years,
    since the time I joined the staff of the Navy's Instructor Training School
    in San Diego (1969). Over the years, I've dealt with classroom instruction,
    programmed instruction, self-instructional materials, instructional systems
    development, and seminar and workshop design and facilitation. I've also
    been part of training efforts where the emphasis was on experiential
    learning (as in T-Groups and the like). I've seen training that was task
    based and training that was subject matter based. I've seen all variations
    succeed and I've seen all variations fail. Most of the failures I've seen
    are traceable to the trainers. Frequently, it is the case that trainers
    have a very narrow view of training and so are unable to respond effectively
    when management seeks to use training strategically. Similarly, when
    management launches a training initiative that is indeed wrongheaded, far
    too few trainers know how to turn this budding problem into a promising
    opportunity.

    It will occur to some of you reading this to say, "But, as with other
    workers, aren't failures the fault of the system, not the trainers?" True
    enough, but who is to fix it if not the trainers?

    I made my living as a developer of training materials, and as a trainer, for
    many years. Financially speaking, I was quite successful, much of it the
    result of repeat business over an extended period of time (which is a good
    indicator of value perceived by my clients). But training leads off into
    performance and productivity improvement. Eventually, if you're any good at
    the training business, your practice expands and you wind up as a general
    management consultant (at least that's what happened to me and to lots of
    others that I know). Consequently, one of the "structural" reasons so much
    training fails is that it's devilishly difficult to keep first-rate talent
    down on the training farm. Look also, therefore, to the training,
    education, and career pathing of trainers as one of the root causes of so
    much training that doesn't work. Many trainers are taught that training is
    a sometimes useful remedy for performance deficiencies, and a generally
    useful means of developing skills where the skills do not exist. These are
    good uses of training but they are not the only uses of training, and to
    turn out trainers who themselves hold such narrow views of training is to
    make them the victims of those views--and, worse, to consign training to the
    hit-and-miss, sometimes it's useful and sometimes it isn't category of
    organizational interventions.

    In the end, it boils down to your definition of training. Define it too
    narrowly and it winds up in the hands of specialists where it becomes rigid,
    inflexible, and unresponsive. Define it too broadly and anything fits under
    the umbrella, making of training nothing more than another nostrum. Get it
    right, which means to me viewing training as a wide-ranging, flexible form
    of intervention, and you have a powerful tool, prized by management and
    wielded in the service of the enterprise by people who are proud of what
    they do and who are respected throughout the organization.

    As you can see, at heart, I'm still just a trainer... :-)


    Regards,

    Fred Nickols
    nickols@worldnet.att.net


  • 2.  Why Training doesn't work

    Posted 10-09-1997 19:20
    I'm not going to repeat all of the following posting because it is too
    long but mostly I believe it speaks for all of us.

    Congratulations to the author. I hope he doesn't mind if I quote some of
    his words in my new book (for those who responded so vociferously to the
    discussion on copyright, don't worry - I will ask).

    One point though: We have found that the greatest difficulty trainers
    have had is in measuring the effectiveness of their own work. As a
    result we train managers and supervisors to be the ones who assess
    whether or not individuals have the desired level of skills, knowledge
    and capability, and whether or not they are applying them in line with
    the needs of the section/branch/company or industry. This falls within
    the concepts put forward by Kirkpatrick whose levels of evaluation
    strongly pointed at the organisation being responsible for measuring
    training's effectiveness - not the person who provides it.

    We have since added another level to Kirkpatrick's, that of the
    environment or community in which the organisation operates. Look at,
    for example, some of the large chemical or manufacturing plants. The
    quality of the training received by their employees (and the quality of
    their application of this training) is very heavily assessed and
    evaluated by the community. In at least one case (Chernobyl) the quality
    of the application of skills and knowledge of a few employees was
    evaluated by the world - unfortunately - and will probably continue to
    be so for a very long time.

    Makes you wonder if the days of the traditional trainer are over doesn't
    it?

    PHIL R




    Charlie Wankel wrote:
    >
    > Fred Nickols <nickols@worldnet.att.net> has asked me to post this for
    > him--he's on the road.
    >
    > Training "works" some of the time, and some of the time it doesn't. By

    etc etc