on Sat, 11 Oct 1997, "Donald P. Austin" wrote
Re: Training Effectiveness
>I think you create more of an atmosphere of "attack" when you say the
>above, Jack. The point is to have a dialogue, and that is personal. Being
>aware of the content of what we say is what is most helpful, not trying to
>artificially be "unaware" of who we are talking to/about.
Interesting point. How many of the 600 plus recipients remembered who
authored the original message, do you think? I think the majority paid
attention to what was said, not the way it was said. If the style alarmed
you, that was not my intent. Besides, the original author responded two
days ago that he did not feel attacked.
Ever hear of the guy who suffered from Reverse Paranoia? All day he felt
like he was following someone but did not know who it was.
--snip --
>There are plenty of areas that we can help people with
>(I don't know that "training" is always the best word) which are not
>measurable, for example how much empathy they try to have for someone else.
If you can't measure it how do you know you are helping them? Maybe you
mean well but are really just helping yourself.
I have empathy for "trainers" because I know that such measurement is very
difficult but I do not agree that "trainers" can just leave it at that.
One way to measure whether clients got benefit from "training" is to notice
Voluntary Repeat Business. Another is to notice what % of expense budget
the enterprise allocates for training. Most companies I have seen allocate
way more for product development than they do for staff development. I
happen to think this is insane -- they are developing the wrong product.
Maybe this situation prevails because the product development folks have
learned to speak in measureable results.
Jack Ring
Innovation Management
32712 N. 70th St.
Scottsdale, AZ 85262-7143
602-488-4615