Back to [ Paul's Corner ]

Most human resource managers (and training managers) will tell you that in the current economic situation, training budgets are one of the first to be slashed or completely shelved (at least for the time being). Other cost effective measures would be to reduce certain allowances and/or benefits.

Why is it that employers are quick to reduce training budgets, sometimes at the expense of quality, and (quite often) affecting the career development of the employee?

When the going is good there is a flurry of training activities; companies want to recover the cost of training through reimbursement from the Human Resources Development Fund (HRDF). In some situations, companies proceed to source out training programmes without even undertaking a training needs analysis (TNA). Others prefer not to train, as it is too much of a hassle to claim the reimbursement from the HRDF. Yet others take pride that they have engaged certain prestigious Trainer/Company to conduct well known programmes from foreign training companies.

In the absence of a TNA any company which requests for a training programme is perhaps either utilising the funds in the HRDF or taking chances that the programme would benefit its employees or both. Setting aside this puerile thinking/attitude of certain companies, what is the effectiveness of training programmes? More important, are training programmes really effective in these economic turbulent times?

To answer this basic question, a company should determine whether, in the first instance, the training that has been identified is of benefit, first to the organisation as a whole, and secondly to the individual employee. Simply put, would investing in training produce tangible results?

Training, unlike other disciplines in human resource management, is a match between the organisation, trainer and trainee; all three jointly have one objective to achieve organisational goals. But does this match set out to achieve organisational goals through training?

Let us examine this match, who individually have their separate objectives.
 

THE ORGANISATION

Aside from the fact that contributing companies to HRDF may claim reimbursement for training programmes, what other objectives does a company have apart from making profits. From the numerous programmes that the writer has conducted for various companies, quite a few companies are not even clear on the objectives of training their staff. Some companies are of the opinion that training is an incentive for the employee, and it is one way of reducing employee turnover. Others are of the opinion that training changes attitudes and behaviour patterns. And yet a few believe that so long as they train their employees, irrespective whether the training is related to the employees’ job or not, it would bring the desired results (whatever they are) at a later date.

How many companies actually take the initiative to examine training programmes that will bring the desired results? Or what sort of training programmes are effective, and more important at what level should training start?

At a recent training programme a participant commented: "This programme is fantastic, but please make sure the managers attend the programmes, because they are not going to accept (from me) that these are the procedures to discipline staff".

The writer recalls many years ago that when he was requested to start the Training Department, the first question that was raised at a Board meeting was, who were the participants for the first training programme (in labour legislation). It was unanimously agreed that Managers would be the first participants. Why Managers? The Board wanted the managers to set the example, that they (Managers) were not only prepared to participate in the training programme but were willing to accept that they too needed to be trained in areas which they lacked knowledge or skills.

Are managements clear on the type of programmes they ACTUALLY need? Perhaps the following questions could help management to determine the programmes needed.
 

i)	Is your organisation innovative, prepared to consider a training programme as the process of change?
ii)	Do you conduct TNA as a routine exercise or only if the need arises?
iii)	Have you empowered your employees to bring about change?
iv)	What do your employees expect from a training programme? Knowledge? Skills? Career advancement? Greater job satisfaction?
v)	Do you have a policy whereby your employees can effect what they have learnt from a training programme?
vi)	Do you use training programmes as an area of continuous performance assessment of employees?

If you have not considered the above questions, why send them for training? Surely, training your employees is to bring about change with competencies and skills to achieve a company’s overall objectives. A paradigm shift whether within the organisation or amongst employees must come with the preparedness that there is going to be a change for the better.
 
 

THE TRAINER

The writer has heard of many cases of trainers conducting programmes where they have minimal or no industrial experience in the subject they are training. Take for example disciplinary procedures or domestic inquiry. Trainers have conducted these programmes, without so much as issuing a warning letter or conducting a domestic inquiry! On the other hand you have trainers who merely repeat what a text book states. Is this training?

Several years ago the General Manager of a training company told me that he saw no difference between training and lecturing; to him training was lecturing and lecturing was training. What is training then?

Training is not only competency oriented, it is also skills oriented. A trainer must be able to present a training programme, scans notes, transparencies, OHP, etc. and still be able to hold his participants attention. Can most trainers do that?

A trainer is not just a teacher of competency and skills, but is also a demonstrator of those competencies and skills. If management disciplines are considered living subjects, because we use such competencies and skills in every day work, surely then a trainer is also a practitioner of such competencies and skills.

For the sake of participants, how many organisations actually test a would be trainer by asking him/her to do a presentation of a particular programme without the use of notes, transparencies and other visual aids; try this experiment and assess the effectiveness of the trainer!

But here again, it is not just the trainer, but it also depends on the participants.
 
 

THE TRAINEE

After conducting training programmes over the past few years, one wonders how companies actually select participants for a training programme. The general impression one gets is that a company has to utilise its contribution to the HRDF, therefore anyone who can be released from his job MUST go. Or, a manager has identified that one of his staff needs to be trained in a particular skill (say, Interpersonal Skills), and the company wants to conduct a programme on this subject, but there are insufficient participants to make up the numbers; the company sends anyone that is available.

What then is the end result of such a programme?

First, the trainer gets a poor rating: most of the participants are not interested in the programme or fail to find it useful. Secondly, knowing that the skills acquired at the programme is not going to be appreciated by the participants’ superiors the participants are negative not only to the programmes but to the trainer. Thirdly (and probably the worst), participants treat the programme as paid leave; what with buffet lunches, coffee/tea breaks, and the option whether to come late, to attend or not!

Do companies have a strict criteria for the selection of participants for training programmes? Stated more positively, are there clear guidelines for career development and the assessing of future potential of employees in the organisation? And if there is, are employees aware of it?

Most trainers and training consulting companies will inevitably ask the standard question of whether a TNA has identified the training programmes needed by a client. What they may fail to ask is whether the client company has actually identified the career development for employees. Experience has shown that where employees are clear of their own career path within the organisation (or elsewhere) they have the motivation to attend programmes which are going to enhance their careers now or later. However, where the company is unable to identify a career development for the employee, it is also most unlikely that the employee would be interested in any training programme that is not related to the individual’s work.

A certain company embarked on an examination oriented management development programme for its supervisors and executives, and later the company’s operators were also required to attend a similar, but simplified programme to develop them for higher positions. What was amazing was that the operators were so enthusiastic about their training programme, that not only did they comply with the discipline of the training programme, but also wanted to sit for examinations, although this was not a requirement.
 

What does this scenario tell us?

 Participants will (voluntarily) attend a training programme if:
 
 

Naturally, for any company to benefit from planned training programmes, employees must first benefit from the programme. More often than not, a company places its own priorities first (presumably initiated by managers), rather than employees expectations and/or the tangible effects of the programme.

Considering there are three parties involved in the training of employees, can there be a satisfactory match to achieve organisational goals, which is the common objective of each party?
 
 

THE MATCH

 Companies lay considerable emphasis on conducting a TNA to determine their training needs. But how many companies actually conduct an employee attitude/climate survey to ascertain attitudes towards bosses and the organisation, needs and expectations?

To achieve the objectives of a training programme the writer proposes the following:
 

(1).  FOR THE ORGANISATION

 A TNA should not be undertaken in isolation; in fact it should be preceeded by a climate survey -
 

(a)	Based on the results of a climate survey, then determine whether a TNA is necessary; sometimes a TNA would not be necessary.
(b)	Compare your climate survey with management performance. Examine the individual performance of staff; does this compare favourably with your performance management?
(c)	Ensure that your trainer is capable of capturing the attention of your participants. The only way you can do this is to attend a pilot programme conducted by the trainer. A trainer who can hold your attention without visual aids definitely knows what he is talking about!
(d)	Does the course content match your requirements? A training programme must be customised; it would be in your interest to make sure the trainer knows how your organisation operates and understands production/employee (including supervisory/management) problems.
(e)	Training is an on going activity. One training programme once a year for an employee is insufficient to sustain his/her interest in training. Two or three training programmes, especially if they are related, provides enthusiasm to acquire more knowledge and skills.
(f)	If you consider that training is essential to your employees, make sure they are not to be disturbed by their bosses when a training session is on; it interferes with the train of thought of both participants and trainers, disruption of training session, and discourages the trainer.

 

(2).  FOR THE TRAINER
 

(a)	Training is serious business! It is also a business that moves with the times. Participants regard the trainer as the expert in that area; make sure you are the expert.
(b)	Give participants more than they require; it helps in the long run for the participant to understand the subject he/she is being trained in.
(c)	Write your own notes, it makes more interesting reading than text books, especially if there are practical examples for participants to follow.
(d)	Obtain deals of participants; it helps to focus on the level of understanding and participation by participants.
(e)	Assess the competency and skills of participants prior to the commencement of the training session; it provides the key to their level of understanding of the subject.
(f)	Where role play and discussion are necessary, get all participants to take part in the role play and in the discussions; participants appreciate this concern.
(g)	If possible discuss with management staff current problems that need to be addressed; the training becomes far more effective than you would anticipate.
(h)	After a training session, test the effectiveness of your training; is there continued application of the acquired competency and skills by participants?

 

(3).  FOR THE PARTICIPANT
 

(a)	Unless you are being forced to attend a programme, attend those programmes which you feel would benefit you in terms of knowledge and skills for the present and the future.
(b)	There is a tendency for participants to take copious notes while the trainer is talking. Listening, rather than writing is more important. However, when examples are used, it would benefit you to take note.
(c)	Be an active participant, ask as many questions as you want, even if you think the question may be stupid or silly. By asking questions it helps the trainer to focus on areas that would be of interest to other participants, and it encourages and motivates the trainer at the same time. A silent audience is demotivating to any trainer!
(d)	Maintain the discipline of a training programme; it is annoying and discourteous to come late or not keep the time schedule or coffee/tea breaks.
(e)	Help your colleagues when it comes to exercises, case studies, etc. or inform the trainer that your colleague is unable to follow. It encourages others to actively take part in the programme and the trainer feels encouraged to use his/her skills and knowledge for the benefit of the participants.
(f)	Remember that what you will get out of a training programme is what you are prepared to put in!

If there is to be a perfect match between the organisation, trainer and trainee, TNA should be undertaken on a regular basis in line with the changing business strategies of the organisation. Training should be considered as an "outcrop" of business strategy, and therefore training cannot be static; it has to move in tandem with changes that are taking place in the local, international and global markets.

Many organisations fail to realise that when they provide training for their employees, training becomes a "moral agent" to meet future challenges of the organisation and the individual. More important, training meets individuals’ needs and aspirations, not only in good times, but in the current economic turbulence.
 
  

Back to [ Paul's Corner ]