Discussion: View Thread

On 15 Oct 97 at 9:00, Ray Rasmussen wrote:

> From what I've seen of training, and from what I've done as a younger man
> doing training, there is typically a trainer imposed model of behaviour and
> theoretical perspective and a subtle, if not overt, set of rewards and
> sanctions for being trained up. As in theraputic practice, people who
> object or resist are being defensive or, in training settings, are labelled
> problem participants. Indeed, there's a whole literature on dealing with
> the "problem participant." There is little thinking called for, and
> typically trainees aren't asked to challenge the trainer's models/theories.

Ray, let's distinguish between "good" training and "poor" training,
just as we need to distinguish between "good" education, and poor. If
your last statement is accurate (and it is in some settings), clearly
it is poor. But, the same occurs even in graduate programs, where
learned professors will broach no thought or criticism of their
particular model, or undergraduate programs termed "education".



>
> An example of this for me is the silly model/theory of 'active listening'
> that is part of many training programs. People are trained to use some
> variation of reflective skills and sent back into a chaotic organization
> only to be sunk because what primarily is a Rogerian Theraputic
> model/theory isn't appropriate in the worlds of work and everyday
> relationships. Relationships, work or social, are about give and take, not
> intensive one way listening. Seldom do trainee-participants get to explore
> their inner sense that 'active listening' can't work.

I agree...it's absurd...and it is a result of generally incompetent
trainers, not a problem with training. Shall we talk about the old
management professor who teaches traditional command and control
models to managers, in the guise of education, where EXACTLY the same
conditions apply (as you have described above)?

>

> So, I would bet, but I couldn't prove, that if we examined most university
> instruction in the HR "skills" areas or most management/employee training
> in areas like interpersonal skills, w





Most people would describe what
happens at university as education, not training.
>
> So, why relabel what we're doing with more politically correct terms like
> "education" or as Senge and his group would have it, "learning". And, why
> distinguish between the two, when there isn't much of the learning
> orientation going on anywhere from what I can tell.

I'm not sure I understand your question. Training and education have
specific meaning, and that has been the case for decades (going as
far back as the 40's) We aren't relabeling anything..fads aside.

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 Sept.11, 1997*

>Leon wrote: There is a fundamental error in all this discourse about
>"training";
>viz., you train animals; you educate human beings. Any deviation from
>that dichotomy reduces the human to being equated with domestic animals
>or beasts of burden to whom operant and classical conditioning are being
>applied -- a tragic consequence of the old "scientific management"
>mindset, still strident in the real world of heavy industry, farming,
>and many service and sales occupations. Alas.

>Robert wrote: The word training doesn't refer exclusively to
>"conditioning"...it is
>used primarily to denote learning activites that have as their goals
>very specific skill acquisition and performance. As such training
>does not necessarily prescribe method, although clearly working with
>animals, one is limited. With humans one is not limited to
>conditioning processes because of the symbolization functions we
>have, and our multiple ways of learning. To equate training humans with
>training animals is >hyperbole and doesn't reflect what is the common and
>professional usage of the term
>training. One can build the dichotomy if one wishes between education and
>training, and debate one vs. the other, but it seems to me that in
>our modern world, they are inseparable and complement each other.

Robert and others, I think that there's more to what Leon suggests than
you've allowed. Or maybe my comments will suggest meanings that Leon hadn't
intended.

In my view, this isn't simply an issue of terminology or that one term
applies to one and another to a second context or learning goal.

From what I've seen of training, and from what I've done as a younger man
doing training, there is typically a trainer imposed model of behaviour and
theoretical perspective and a subtle, if not overt, set of rewards and
sanctions for being trained up. As in theraputic practice, people who
object or resist are being defensive or, in training settings, are labelled
problem participants. Indeed, there's a whole literature on dealing with
the "problem participant." There is little thinking called for, and
typically trainees aren't asked to challenge the trainer's models/theories.

An example of this for me is the silly model/theory of 'active listening'
that is part of many training programs. People are trained to use some
variation of reflective skills and sent back into a chaotic organization
only to be sunk because what primarily is a Rogerian Theraputic
model/theory isn't appropriate in the worlds of work and everyday
relationships. Relationships, work or social, are about give and take, not
intensive one way listening. Seldom do trainee-participants get to explore
their inner sense that 'active listening' can't work.

If you want to see the extreme of what won't work, read the interpersonal
communication chapter of one of our field's best pop sellers, Steven
Covey's 7 habits. In it is a transcript of a father using activing
listening with his son, and "presto!", the son suddenly is turned around
into a nice, cooperative young person. That one made me laugh as it would
anyone who has a teener in his/her household.

Or explore the many management texts that still use the even sillier
transcript offered up by Carl Rogers that has a foreman active listening a
subordinate into a new view of his job. The foreman, of course, would be
thoroughly ridiculed over coffee and would soon be disabused of the
practice and get back to what he really wants, namely, to get the
subordinate to do it his way.

So, I would bet, but I couldn't prove, that if we examined most university
instruction in the HR "skills" areas or most management/employee training
in areas like interpersonal skills, we would indeed find mostly
non-thinking, non-introspective animal training going on.

So, why relabel what we're doing with more politically correct terms like
"education" or as Senge and his group would have it, "learning". And, why
distinguish between the two, when there isn't much of the learning
orientation going on anywhere from what I can tell.

Ray



Dr. R.V. (Ray) Rasmussen
Chair, Department of Organizational Analysis
http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rrasmussen/
Director, Environmental Research & Studies Centre
http://www.ualberta.ca/~ersc/

Thanks Ray. You understand and expressed my implications clearly. I am
saddened by your conclusion that all we have in industry now is training.
Is all that feely-touchy, empowerment, etc. stuff just hype? Another
alas.
Leon

I believe there is a role for training and education. The difference may be
contextual but bear with as I give some examples. With my MBA class I try
to educate by getting them to ask questions and to question everything. The
most fun classes I have are those in which they thoroughly disagree with the
text, me or both. The idea is that they reflect enough to be able to apply
whay is useful to them in their organizations after they ahev been educated.

Regarding training: As the Commanding Officer of a ship I made sure that my
crew was well-trained in all ship board emergencies - particularly, fires,
floods and man-overboards. I wanted instant, correct action from everyone
in the ship to achieve a standard of performance that was better in practice
than the fleet standard so that when the real thing happened the response
was correct without thinking, analysing, or otherwise screwing up. Did I
think of my crew as animals? NO - they were well trained and proud of the
standards they achieved. Are my MBAs better because they are educated and my
crews were trained? NO - if my MBAs were the crew of my ship they would be
trained. If the crew of my ship were MBAs they would be educated.

Some thoughts to cogitate on.

Glenn

At 09:00 AM 10/15/97 -0700, you wrote:
>>Leon wrote: There is a fundamental error in all this discourse about
>>"training";
>>viz., you train animals; you educate human beings. Any deviation from
>>that dichotomy reduces the human to being equated with domestic animals
>>or beasts of burden to whom operant and classical conditioning are being
>>applied -- a tragic consequence of the old "scientific management"
>>mindset, still strident in the real world of heavy industry, farming,
>>and many service and sales occupations. Alas.
>
>>Robert wrote: The word training doesn't refer exclusively to
>>"conditioning"...it is
>>used primarily to denote learning activites that have as their goals
>>very specific skill acquisition and performance. As such training
>>does not necessarily prescribe method, although clearly working with
>>animals, one is limited. With humans one is not limited to
>>conditioning processes because of the symbolization functions we
>>have, and our multiple ways of learning. To equate training humans with
>>training animals is >hyperbole and doesn't reflect what is the common and
>>professional usage of the term
>>training. One can build the dichotomy if one wishes between education and
>>training, and debate one vs. the other, but it seems to me that in
>>our modern world, they are inseparable and complement each other.
>
>Robert and others, I think that there's more to what Leon suggests than
>you've allowed. Or maybe my comments will suggest meanings that Leon hadn't
>intended.
>
>In my view, this isn't simply an issue of terminology or that one term
>applies to one and another to a second context or learning goal.
>
>>From what I've seen of training, and from what I've done as a younger man
>doing training, there is typically a trainer imposed model of behaviour and
>theoretical perspective and a subtle, if not overt, set of rewards and
>sanctions for being trained up. As in theraputic practice, people who
>object or resist are being defensive or, in training settings, are labelled
>problem participants. Indeed, there's a whole literature on dealing with
>the "problem participant." There is little thinking called for, and
>typically trainees aren't asked to challenge the trainer's models/theories.
>
>An example of this for me is the silly model/theory of 'active listening'
>that is part of many training programs. People are trained to use some
>variation of reflective skills and sent back into a chaotic organization
>only to be sunk because what primarily is a Rogerian Theraputic
>model/theory isn't appropriate in the worlds of work and everyday
>relationships. Relationships, work or social, are about give and take, not
>intensive one way listening. Seldom do trainee-participants get to explore
>their inner sense that 'active listening' can't work.
>
>If you want to see the extreme of what won't work, read the interpersonal
>communication chapter of one of our field's best pop sellers, Steven
>Covey's 7 habits. In it is a transcript of a father using activing
>listening with his son, and "presto!", the son suddenly is turned around
>into a nice, cooperative young person. That one made me laugh as it would
>anyone who has a teener in his/her household.
>
>Or explore the many management texts that still use the even sillier
>transcript offered up by Carl Rogers that has a foreman active listening a
>subordinate into a new view of his job. The foreman, of course, would be
>thoroughly ridiculed over coffee and would soon be disabused of the
>practice and get back to what he really wants, namely, to get the
>subordinate to do it his way.
>
>So, I would bet, but I couldn't prove, that if we examined most university
>instruction in the HR "skills" areas or most management/employee training
>in areas like interpersonal skills, we would indeed find mostly
>non-thinking, non-introspective animal training going on.
>
>So, why relabel what we're doing with more politically correct terms like
>"education" or as Senge and his group would have it, "learning". And, why
>distinguish between the two, when there isn't much of the learning
>orientation going on anywhere from what I can tell.
>
>Ray
>
>
>
>Dr. R.V. (Ray) Rasmussen
>Chair, Department of Organizational Analysis
>http://www.bus.ualberta.ca/rrasmussen/
>Director, Environmental Research & Studies Centre
>http://www.ualberta.ca/~ersc/
>
>

W. Glenn Rowe, Ph.D.
Director, Centre for Management Development
Faculty of Business Administration
Memorial University of Newfoundland
St. John's, NF, Canada, A1B 3X5
709 737 7977
709 737 7999 (Fax)

Glenn Rowe wrote:
>
> I believe there is a role for training and education. The difference may be
> contextual but bear with as I give some examples. With my MBA class I try
> to educate by getting them to ask questions and to question everything. The
> most fun classes I have are those in which they thoroughly disagree with the
> text, me or both. The idea is that they reflect enough to be able to apply
> whay is useful to them in their organizations after they ahev been educated.
>
> Regarding training: As the Commanding Officer of a ship I made sure that my
> crew was well-trained in all ship board emergencies - particularly, fires,
> floods and man-overboards. I wanted instant, correct action from everyone
> in the ship to achieve a standard of performance that was better in practice
> than the fleet standard so that when the real thing happened the response
> was correct without thinking, analysing, or otherwise screwing up. Did I.....


I'm afraid I can't follow this link any longer without throwing in my
five cents worth...

Someone once said that the easiest way to tell the difference between
education and training was: Which would you prefer your son/daughter to
have - sex education or sex training?

The bottom line in my experience is that you can't have one without the
other. As an Infantry company commander I would, like the above example,
train my men to a point where they would do anything and everything
instinctively should I want them to. But there were very few occasions
when I would have wanted them to do this. I wanted them to think about
what they were doing, why they were doing it, what alternatives would
they have if I was no longer around to tell them what to do, what to do
if I told them to do something they knew (either through experience,
information that I didn't have, or just plain common sense) was wrong,
and whether or not what I asked them to do was in line with the needs of
the greater plan.

The exact same thing happens in the workplace and, I hope, in the
training (or, yes, education) environment. There are things that people
are going to have to take as gospel because they are universal truths -
or no-one has yet come up with a better explanation - and there are
things that must be questioned to ensure that the full story is gained.
But they are both part of the same experience - one cannot be separated
from the other if we are aiming to produce a learner who is more than a
robot, more than someone who learns by rote and acts by rote. I for one
do not want this type of person in my company nor would I expect anyone
else to. This is also not the sort of trainee I would return to anyone's
workplace.

In my role as facilitator or manager of learning I don't have all the
answers, nor do I pretend to - I can only help people to fully
articulate the questions. But what I do know, because I make sure this
is very clear before any education or training activity is carried out,
is what skills and knowledge the individual is looking for, how he/she
intends applying them (whether it be in the classroom for future
learning or in the workplace to be a more productive and useful
employee), and what underpinning knowledge he/she needs to have to
understand all of the ramifications and alternatives in applying the
skills and knowledge wherever he/she may choose to do so.

In my opinion too many trainers get hung up trying to accurately
identify the desired input to the training or education without giving
much thought to the outcome the individual learner is seeking - even
though he/she may not yet know what this is. We seem to look for the
simplest common denominator and those who are streets ahead in their
learning are applauded and left to their own devices - those who are
miles behind are given all the assistance necessary (but sometimes this
falls well short of actually helping them) - while we settle down for a
peaceful ride with the bulk of people who fall around the 'average'
mark.

Just a few thoughts the keep the fires of this debate going.

PHIL RUTHERFORD