Discussion: View Thread

  • 1.  Problems with traditional management training

    Posted 03-05-1998 12:54
    "Why is a new approach to management training necessary?
    Dear list members,
    I recently came across this list of ten problems associated with
    traditional management training. Could list members please reply to each
    of these problems and suggest ways that we as trainers can overcome the
    problems. Replies appreciated.

    Because existing programs don�t solve the following problems:
    1. Transference of skills to the job is poor or non-existent. Using the
    formula: <V = C% U> (Value Equals Cost times Percent Utility), existing
    programs are of low value. The base worth of a program is its cost
    times the fraction of its use. If 10 % is applied, a $50,000.00 program
    is worth $5,000.00.
    2. The majority of training dollars do not go for participant
    instruction but rather to facilities, trainer�s salaries, travel,
    trainer certification and down-time off the job.
    3. Learning is not �just-in-time.� Access to training is not at
    learner�s convenience.
    4. There is little flexibility in delivery methods and media used. This
    is inconvenient and it prevents optimum learning conditions.
    5. Training is not targeted toward individual�s job competencies,
    making much training irrelevant and wasteful.
    6. Training is event-oriented not process-oriented. Approaches are
    short-term and are not based on set career development tracks.
    7. Programs are not comprehensive; they don�t cover all
    leader-development needs.
    8. Curricula do not clearly support strategic corporate goals.
    9. Learner�s supervisors are not effectively used to reinforce learning
    on the job.
    10. Learning doses are too big to assimilate and violate adult learning
    principles."
    Joe Cox
    diaplan@gte.net


  • 2.  Problems with traditional management training

    Posted 03-06-1998 02:40
    Just to pipe in briefly before running out to work, the 'problems' you list
    do not seem like problems (that need solving) - they are simply statements
    of bad practice. Why are they being allowed to happen?

    Jess Levant
    www.management.org.uk/Users/JessLevant

    -----Original Message-----
    From: Joseph D. Cox <diaplan@GTE.NET>
    To: MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU <MG-ED-DV@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU>
    Date: 05 March 1998 22:46
    Subject: Re: [MG-ED-DV] Problems with traditional management training


    >"Why is a new approach to management training necessary?
    >Dear list members,
    >I recently came across this list of ten problems associated with
    >traditional management training. Could list members please reply to each
    >of these problems and suggest ways that we as trainers can overcome the
    >problems. Replies appreciated.
    >
    >Because existing programs don�t solve the following problems:
    >1. Transference of skills to the job is poor or non-existent. Using the
    >formula: <V = C% U> (Value Equals Cost times Percent Utility), existing
    >programs are of low value. The base worth of a program is its cost
    >times the fraction of its use. If 10 % is applied, a $50,000.00 program
    >is worth $5,000.00.
    >2. The majority of training dollars do not go for participant
    >instruction but rather to facilities, trainer�s salaries, travel,
    >trainer certification and down-time off the job.
    >3. Learning is not �just-in-time.� Access to training is not at
    >learner�s convenience.
    >4. There is little flexibility in delivery methods and media used. This
    >is inconvenient and it prevents optimum learning conditions.
    >5. Training is not targeted toward individual�s job competencies,
    >making much training irrelevant and wasteful.
    >6. Training is event-oriented not process-oriented. Approaches are
    >short-term and are not based on set career development tracks.
    >7. Programs are not comprehensive; they don�t cover all
    >leader-development needs.
    >8. Curricula do not clearly support strategic corporate goals.
    >9. Learner�s supervisors are not effectively used to reinforce learning
    >on the job.
    >10. Learning doses are too big to assimilate and violate adult learning
    >principles."
    >Joe Cox
    >diaplan@gte.net
    >


  • 3.  Problems with traditional management training

    Posted 03-13-1998 11:04
    Joe Cox wrote:
    >diaplan@gte.net
    >
    >1. Transference of skills to the job is poor or non-existent. Using the
    >formula: <V = C% U> (Value Equals Cost times Percent Utility), existing
    >programs are of low value. The base worth of a program is its cost
    >times the fraction of its use. If 10 % is applied, a $50,000.00 program
    >is worth $5,000.00.

    I am not convinced that this is the right formula.
    It sounds like: Buy camera for $1000. 1st picture cost $1000, when 2
    picture have been made, they cost $500 each. After 2000 pictures,
    each cost 1/2$. (Simplified, cost of film etc. not included.)
    Get the point? The mentioned formula seems to be associated with a
    quick fix approach. Great acceptance today - great forgetance tomorrow.
    The formula may be better suited to evaluating software, though even there
    you tend to get lots of "features" which will remain unused. The percentage

    night be even lower. Try getting a rebate from Bill for unused features ...


    Emil Zahner
    Innovation coach
    Morphological Institute Canada
    http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/canmor/index19.htm


  • 4.  Problems with traditional management training

    Posted 03-15-1998 13:10
    The first question one must ask is: Learning to what end? How is the
    training and development going to help the people and the organization? This
    can be answered through a process of first being clear about strategic goals
    and then developing a set of core competencies to support these goals. More
    than 4-5 competencies is probably too many. This helps by ensuring that
    training dollars are spent enhancing competencies the organization needs, and
    sending the message about the expected behavior set people need to have to
    succeed.

    You can also do focus groups and ask people a) what skills are needed to
    perform at a certain level, and b) what skills are needed to move up to the
    next level. I have also used a process called DACUM - Designing a Curriculum,
    a focus-group driven process which maps organizational level to competencies,
    and rank orders skills regarding importance. It's an easy tool where in a
    series of 4-5 sessions you generate the comptencies needed at organization
    levels. Then it's relatively easy to develop curriculum to address these
    competencies.

    You can also, as we have done, create a 360 assessment and feedback process
    based upon these core comptencies. The assessment is followed up with both
    coaching and training that supports individual development needs, which in
    turn supports organization development.

    So, you are answering the question "What competencies are we trying to develop
    in people to help them and this organization move forward." Next, think about
    the form in which the training is offered.

    To address questions of transference and JIT nature - don't just offer
    "training" classes. Get intact work teams to work on real projects where you
    can fold in training that focuses on both personal and organization
    development. Or at least offer training where real-live issues are the basis
    of any small group work or practice. Essentially, how this works is a third
    of your class would be didactic, the rest what we call action-learning:
    participants apply the content to their actual project. Thus work is JIT, on
    issues that matter, and transference is inherent as they will continue to work
    on their project. In fact, we ususally spread learning over 2-3 sessions of
    2-3 days each. This way participants have time to work on their project,
    assimilate learning, and it's more in line with adult learning principles.
    (See Congur's book "Learning to Lead" for educational best practices).

    If you have intact teams working on real issues, it also becomes easier and
    vital to involve the supervisors. Supervisors have an important role
    beginning with chartering the groups around scope/boundaries, contracting for
    role clarity, and continuing with support throughout the life of the project
    (shouldn't be more than 90-120 days).

    Regarding access to the training - put it online, make CD's available, hand
    out job aides during class, make the HR/Trainers phone/Email numbers available
    so people can call. We often have a coach available to help the team during
    the intersession time to assist with both process and content issues.
    Ultimately, you are creating a nexus of learning that enhances individual
    competencies, develops organizational capacity, gets real work done, and it's
    all aligned with strategic direction.

    Ciao for now,
    David Hannegan
    Destra Consulting
    Boulder, CO


  • 5.  Problems with traditional management training

    Posted 03-16-1998 08:07
    David,
    Your concept looks terrific. It's what we've been teaching organisations to do for several years now. I do have a couple of questions about your model though:

    The first question one must ask is: Learning to what end? How is the
    training and development going to help the people and the organization? This can be answered through a process of first being clear about strategic goals and then developing a set of core competencies to support these goals.

    Core competencies are okay (and I assume your talking about such core competencies as literacy and numeracy, customer relations, interpersonal relationships etc), but what about the skills and knowledge required by each person - at each level of the organisation - to perform the functions that are crucial to the achievement of the strategic goals (whether these functions are actually within the organisation now or not)? Do you also develop them or leave individual requirements up to the traditional job description or duty statement?

    More than 4-5 competencies is probably too many.

    Why? Why only 4-5 competencies? Surely there should be as many competencies as are needed to achieve the strategic goals?

    This helps by ensuring that training dollars are spent enhancing competencies the organization needs, and sending the message about the expected behavior set people need to have to succeed.

    Hear hear. Too many organisations (sorry, not the organisation, bad managers) judge their staff on competencies they haven't yet gotten around to sharing with them.

    You can also do focus groups and ask people a) what skills are needed to
    perform at a certain level, and b) what skills are needed to move up to the
    next level. I have also used a process called DACUM - Designing a Curriculum, a focus-group driven process which maps organizational level to competencies, and rank orders skills regarding importance. It's an easy tool where in a series of 4-5 sessions you generate the comptencies needed at organization levels. Then it's relatively easy to develop curriculum to address these competencies.

    We actually recommend against using the DACUM because of the point you raise - it is mostly used to develop curriculum, not competencies. Core and functional competencies (whether you call them core competencies, skills standards or competency standards) are best developed using a functional analysis. It is light years quicker, a zillion times more accurate (even on the first pass), focusses on present and future needs, and comes up with an outcome that is central to organisational needs, not curriculum needs. Besides, we've found it next to impossible to assess the competencies of anyone against a curriculum - that is if the curriculum is written correctly.

    In countries where core competencies are developed as part of a national approach (even in the US), the use of DACUM (and Delphi et al) is discouraged unless the purpose is to develop a curriculum. If the purpose is competencies then functional analysis is the go.

    Thoughts?

    You can also, as we have done, create a 360 assessment and feedback process based upon these core comptencies. The assessment is followed up with both coaching and training that supports individual development needs, which in turn supports organization development.

    Competencies or curriculum?

    So, you are answering the question "What competencies are we trying to develop in people to help them and this organization move forward." Next, think about the form in which the training is offered.

    Have you also considered the competencies as being the core on which to build strategies for recruitment,succession planning, education, self-development, workplace and enterprise bargaining, special projects and assignments, organisational development, team development, flow-down appraisals, reacting to market trends (including those of competitors, customers and suppliers), and enhancing the competitive market advantage of the organisation? I always think it is a shame to develop something for an organisation but overlook the need to consider all of the organisation in doing so.

    PHIL RUTHERFORD
    P D Rutherford & Associates Pty Ltd
    Competency-based systems specialists
    0011 61 2 6230 4823
    robnphil@ozemail.com.au