I was recently invited to discuss the concept of best practice in training: what it looks like, how it works, the measurement of effectiveness and so on. One of the aims of the meeting was to identify parameters through which the organization and design of training could be securely improved and rationalization carried out.
Between us we had a great deal of experience in the area of Learning and Development and all were keen to engage in the discussion. What became apparent was the elusive nature of the answers to the questions raised. For example: “What would you consider to be modern best practice in training?” Quickly we realized that different training requires different practices.
Training which equips others with a technical skill (banking, IT, insurance, engineering, etc.) requires the transfer of knowledge from the trainer to the delegate, and the subsequent application of that knowledge to a problem or process – simple cause and effect. For example, compliance training involves the transfer of knowledge about compliance to the delegate, who then applies this knowledge to their area of the business.
Management skills and disciplines also require knowledge (most managers have this) and the application of that knowledge in the workplace. The difference is, that knowledge is applied directly to the people we manage, rather than to the systems, products or services under our control.
People react and respond dynamically and in complex ways – they are a more unpredictable variable than almost anything else in business. The training of managers demands a learning environment which can create understanding of people and how they behave in the workplace – not simply a transfer of knowledge.
What managers learn must then be practiced in the workplace, where they can grow their understanding through their own experience. Courses should be designed to facilitate this. Straightaway it is clear that knowledge transfer is not up to the task. Just as we can’t learn to swim from a book, so developing a manager’s understanding of how he/she can be more effective requires more active engagement than simply listening to a talk or reading an article.
In addition, consider the range of factors managers deal with:
- relationships in 4 directions (up to a boss, down to staff, sideways to peers and clients)
- the execution of corporate strategy
- the management of resources
- rapid shifts in external influences – customers, markets, money, people, competitors
all of which will defy the application of simple knowledge and yet can be resolved by broad understanding and good management.
As the conversation turned to leadership the game was raised another level. Here there was no doubt that understanding and effectiveness were the critical goals. To create learning that delivers this level of effectiveness requires 4 elements:
Robust content that stimulates questioning, curiosity and deep understanding
Training based on output, not input – leaders and managers learn through their own experience and need training that causes a change in thinking, understanding and practice
A structure that promotes learning transfer – Short, intense and demanding seminars followed by a period where learning can be realized
Expert facilitation – not facilitation by experts - What’s the difference? Leaders learn from their own experience, not that of others. Leadership learning occurs when people work on their own approach, not when trying to adopt that of others.
All Mitchell Phoenix programs are built on these 4 principles.