Back to ...
Workinfo.com Human Resources Magazine Volume 1 Issue 7, 2007
The difference between training and education has been one long
debated by academics and training specialists in organisations.
The consensus, put simply, is that training is directed to
specific, observable behaviour change and its outcomes are
measurable. The results of education, on the other hand, are
typically less observable and measurable, yet enable the transfer
of learning from one situation to another, the analysis and
application of knowledge and the evaluation of phenomena.
With
the increased focus on the need for improved productivity in
businesses and on hard outcomes in training, education –
particularly for lower level staff – has largely been given the
boot. So we promote productivity through improved technology,
increased skills training and a lot of pain. And still our
productivity is woefully inadequate.
Paradoxically,
the reason for this is something we have known for decades.
Productivity is not a function of technology and skills alone, but
of staff who are committed to applying those skills, unstintingly,
to improving productivity. And herein lies the second paradox. We
have known, too, for decades that sustainable commitment is a
function not of reward or fear, but of understanding the
underlying rationale of why something should be done. We behave
productively because the need for and logic of that productivity
is understood. And real understanding is an outcome of education,
not training.
Research
undertaken by Dr Gillian Godsell, Wits Business School and the NPI
on the impact on 7500 lower level staff who have undergone
business education programmes suggests that once staff understand
the underlying rationale of business (something we assume they
know, but most definitely do not), fundamental changes occur –
in attitude to work, to teams, to other departments, to the
organisation as a whole and to the role they can play in improving
productivity and in the overall success of the enterprise.
Anecdotal evidence from the participating companies strongly
reinforces the research findings. Staff understand why managers
make the decisions they do, and so can relate to them. Staff
understand the logic of working effectively in teams, and so are
eager to do so. Staff understand the rationale behind the need to
manage costs and so find ways to do so. And so on.
Curious, then, that organisation-wide business education is so
seldom on the training agenda. Makes you worry, doesn’t it?
Editor's
note:
See a summary of the research results by Dr
Gillian Godsell, Wits Business School and the NPI.
Andrew
Hofmeyr
(BA,
HDE (PG), BEd. Med, MBA) lectured
in educational theory at the Johannesburg College of Education and
the University of the
Witwatersrand
from 1977 to 1992. During that time he studied research
methodology and educational technology on an international
fellowship at the University of Surrey, UK. He is a founder member
of Business Education Design, whose training programmes are
used by leading corporations and business schools in South
Africa
and the
USA. He can be contacted at andrew@bused.co.za
and at the Business Education Design website www.bused.co.za.
Short description
Training is directed to
specific, observable behaviour change and its outcomes are
measurable. The results of education, on the other hand, are
typically less observable and measurable, yet enable the transfer
of learning from one situation to another, the analysis and
application of knowledge and the evaluation of phenomena.
Keywords and relevant phrases
Business education, education, knowledge application, knowledge management,
knowledge transfer, outcomes, productivity, skills, skills
development, teamwork, training.
Back to ...
Workinfo.com Human Resources Magazine Volume 1 Issue 7, 2007
Back
to ... Why so much training fails … by Andrew Hofmeyr
|
Member
Content 
