Back
to ... Workinfo.com Human Resources Magazine Volume 1 Issue 7,
2007
Most
managers in SA are disappointed in the limited extent of real,
value-adding impact from training – particularly at lower levels
in the organisation. Indeed, if we really believed that investment
in training was justified, government would have no reason to try
to bludgeon us into it. So why are the returns just not there?
At
a major SA corporation with which I work and that will remain
nameless, training is colloquially called “slaapies” – sleep
time. It’s a break from the tedium of work, you get free lunch
and a chance to grab 40 or more winks. That’s the view of the
trainees. Sadly, it’s also the view of their trainers, and of
their managers, who have become resigned to training being rather
like sick leave – a costly, inevitable evil. The tragedy is that
at the level of policy, this company is highly committed to
training – two days a month for every employee. What this means
in effect, though, is that for some 10% of their work time, the
staff are asleep. While the example may be a little extreme,
it’s not unrepresentative. Most training is not delivering
adequate returns for the investment made.
What’s
gone wrong? Why, in a country in such desperate need of a widened
and improved skills base, is training so poorly regarded? The
answer lies in two simple and related areas – perceived
relevance and methodology. By perceived relevance I mean relevance
as seen by the participants, not their managers. Unless we see
something as relevant to ourselves, it makes a lot more sense to
have a kip than to pay earnest attention to what the trainer is
going on about. And herein lies the first challenge – how do we
get our staff to see the relevance of the training we provide?
Neither endless entreaties, nor dire threats, will work. You
can’t beat relevance into people.
The
challenge is that, to see the relevance of training, one needs a
clear perspective from which to appreciate that relevance. And the
relevance of training lies in the logic of business itself. If
training is not directly linked to profitability we shouldn’t be
doing it anyway. We train so that we can become more productive,
so that we can increase revenues and reduce costs, so that we can
become more profitable, so that the business can grow, so that
shareholders, customers, and staff themselves can benefit from
this growth. That, in a nutshell, is the relevance of training.
And without their clearly understanding this flow of logic, one
can hardly blame staff for taking a kip, rather than listening to
the trainer.
So, what should we do? Train all staff in business
theory? The short answer is, yes. The investment is well worth the
return – not just in getting staff to see the relevance of all
training, but from a range of other, and proven, perspectives (see
later). Of course when one tries to convince managers of the need
for business training, one common response is that staff could not
learn business theory – they’re “just not up to it”. And
this brings us to the question of methodology.
Training
methodology – indeed training design in toto - in SA tends to be
seen fairly narrowly – if it is addressed at all. The vast
majority of training programmes use traditional, “talk and
chalk” methodologies and programme design appears to consist of
little more than throwing together handouts and transparencies from
other programmes. Given the people development and learning
challenges we face, this neglect is little short of criminal. In a
context where most of our formal education has been inadequate, we
need innovative and appropriate methodologies to ensure that
learning actually occurs. We need to ensure that we get the
biggest bang for our training buck.
Sadly,
appropriate methodology is hardly ever considered when training is
bought by HR or line in this country. Perhaps it is a function of
the cynicism of training buyers that they simply couldn’t be
bothered with worrying whether anyone will actually learn form the
training being bought. Buying training has become commoditised –
like buying toilet paper (especially ‘soft’ training). So,
training tends to be bought purely on the basis of price, or the
attractiveness of the vendor, or ‘what we‘ve always done’.
There is an alternative. Staff at the lowest levels can be taught
business theory, develop a passion for business, see the relevance
of their training, and implement training’s outcomes in a
value-adding way.
Editor's
note:
See
a summary of the research results by Dr
Gillian Godsell, Wits Business School and the NPI.
Also read
by Andrew Hofmeyr.
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
Most training is not delivering
adequate returns for the investment made, because of misconceptions
in perceived relevance and training methodology.
Keywords and relevant phrases
Business theory, development, investment, learning
challenges, methodology, perceived relevance, skills, talent,
training, training policy.
Back
to ... Workinfo.com Human Resources Magazine Volume 1 Issue 7,
2007
|
Member
Content 
