Bridging the Gap
“There is nothing training cannot do. Nothing is above its reach. It can turn bad morals to good; it can destroy bad principles and recreate good ones; it can lift men to angelship.” – Mark Twain.
Having said that, let us look at how! Organizations who need trainings first…
To be effective, a training program should have imbibed certain strengths or influencing factors from the organization: I would list down a few points which I think are of universal relevance no matter what sort of training we consider.
The Management should take sufficient interest and stake in identifying training needs and program development. This is not seen often enough. One way is to make senior members with technical delivery experience responsible for handling training needs. They can be given short-term responsibilities to take stock of the organization’s training needs, and rotated at their jobs.
They are the best judge of what is really needed from a training – have the technical and delivery background to appreciate a team’s needs – and can negotiate directly and most effectively with internal teams and external trainers in identifying such needs and defining the training program, and cut down delays in taking decisions.
There should be awareness that training has a short term goal – imbibing certain skill sets; and a long term goal – changing behavioral patterns, and continuous improvement. Organizations should look at training providers who can work with them in achieving and sustaining both the short and long term goals.
Trainers with adequate industry background in working with and leading technical teams, and on the technologies they profess to train, would have the insight needed to offer training solutions that can blend with the company’s overall strategic vision, and deliver lasting value. Progressive organizations have realized that training their employees on a continuous basis is the only real way to stay ahead of the competition.
Clear setting of expectations, on either side, prior to the training, is a must. A lot of trainings fail on this ground. To give an example – let’s say that a company has a team of techies who need a transition course from one version to another of a product, and at the same time, they don’t need training from scratch. In such a case, a clear negotiation on which subject matters should be covered in depth, which touched upon, and which skipped altogether, between the trainer and the technical team is a must to set expectations right on either side. Unfortunately, while the trainer may ask for such a discussion, unless someone in the organization champions this, it is more often unlikely to happen or be pushed behind immediate exigencies to be met.
Training is not an expense but an investment – a point we have already covered in some detail in the first installment of the blog. Still, let me say again - no organization would want to make a bad investment. Nevertheless, most companies do not support effective training programs; they operate within a budget and opt for training only if budgetary funds are available. If the company is making sufficient profit, then a training need may get approved; whereas, if a company is doing poorly, timely and relatively small investments in effective training can lead to better prospects for the future. Yet, most companies do not budget sufficient funds for training programs, or lack mechanisms to allow for a training need if it comes up but has not been budgeted for.
Training should be considered as part of one’s job. A trainee should not have to face the daunting prospect of a week’s work piled up on her desk once she goes back from the training. Such jobs should be distributed to others to the extent possible.
It does not help if a training need is conveyed in terms of the number of days the team can take out from their busy work schedule, and the trainer is asked to somehow wrap her training, covering all the topics specified, within that period. Effective training needs a certain number of hours of theory, and lots of interactive sessions. It is a strenuous job for the trainer, and impossible for trainees to have unwavering attention over 8-10 hours every day. Thus, the minimum number of days needed for a particular training to be effective should always be allowed for.
Quality has its own price – indeed, quality comes before price. Evaluating a proposal primarily in the light of its price and internal budgetary restrictions is the wrong path to take. It does not ensure quality, and sells the primary aim of the training short. A company has the right to expect the highest standard of training for its workforce, and such standards most often come at a premium.
Moreover, such a trainer, or an organization capable of offering such a training solution, is rightly to be considered as a strategic partner and not just one out of many. A trainer who stands out in terms of knowledge and delivery from a crowd, has an illustrious career behind her, and puts her experience and passion into training, is offering a valuable service as a partner, and not peddling a commodity. After all, you forget the price soon, but you remember the quality.
These are some of the aspects that organizations should consider when they plan for trainings; take an enlightened view of training today, and reap the benefits in the short term as well as in the future.
Next installment we look at how an organization offering training should approach their work. Be back one week from now!
