Why doesn’t training work?
Grace Judson
Musing on the intersection of leadership, life, and individuality | trainer, speaker, consultant, author | erstwhile fastest knitter in the U.S. | cat enthusiast
Why doesn’t training work?
You did the training, but you didn’t get the results.
It was a good program, people enjoyed it, they reported having “aha” moments, and seemed excited to come back to their desks and use the tools and concepts they’d learned.
But nothing changed. The problems you were hoping to solve were still very much in evidence.
This is one of the objections I, and other trainers, hear all the time: “We tried training, but it didn’t change anything.”
There are three main reasons.
One: Training may not have been the right answer
Here’s something else I (and other trainers) often see: there’s a problem of some sort, and “let’s get some training in here” is the knee-jerk default response.
Training may not be the answer. Maybe you need to get some coaching for one or two people. Maybe there’s a broken process or system. Maybe there’s a technology problem – a tool that’s not working right. And so on.
Don’t assume that training is the solution for the problem you’re experiencing. Dig a little deeper, find the underlying root cause.
Two: You didn’t adequately define the results you wanted – or they may not be possible
Wait, what? The results aren’t possible?
Yes. If you’ve haven’t diagnosed the problem, and it turns out training isn’t actually the solution, then your results aren’t going to be possible because the training won’t address the real problem. And that problem will still be in effect, even after the training is complete.
But let’s say you did diagnose the problem, and training really was the answer. Even so, if you didn’t define the measurable outcomes in behavior – whether the training is technical (how to use a software tool, for instance) or interpersonal (such as leadership skills), you’re going to get fuzzy results.
What are the expected behaviors after the training is complete? How will you measure the change? Even so-called “soft” skills (a.k.a. essential interpersonal skills!) can be measured. And your trainers, whether in-house or outsourced, should support that measurement process, from defining the measures to how you collect and evaluate them.
Three: The training uses outdated methods
This one is going to get me in trouble, but I’m taking a stand.
Classroom training, where someone goes to sit for hours and days and be lectured at, isn’t effective for adult learning. (I could make an argument that it’s not effective for kids, either, but that’s a whole different article.)
It’s not effective for skills development.
There’s a very useful principle called the 70-20-10 rule, which says that just ten percent of learning happens in the classroom, twenty percent from observation, and seventy percent from practice.
Programs that dump a ton of concepts and information on students, who are then expected to Go Forth and Do The Thing, don’t work well. We’ve all had the experience of going to a workshop, a training, even a conference, and coming back excited about what we learned, but then … hmm… How does this actually work in real life?
Let’s not do that any more.
领英推荐
What’s the alternative?
Bite-sized, relevant learning, in community, integrated into the ongoing work, and with follow-on support.
I’ll break that down.
Bite-sized
I’m not a fan of app-based learning. Just for starters, it’s isolating; the learner is there alone with their phone, and there’s often little, if any, follow-on support.
But learning does need to be in small increments that someone can then take and apply – that’s the 70-percent-practice part.
Relevant
What are the immediate challenges someone is facing? And yes, this can be generalized up to a point, if you’re working with a cohort instead of one individual. The point is this: if the students can’t see a direct relevance to what they’re doing and what they need, they won’t – bluntly – be paying all that much attention.
In community
People learn best when they can discuss what they’re learning with peers, help each other understand the material, and normalize their experiences of failure and struggle. Because when we’re learning something new, it’s always confusing and awkward, and there will always be mistakes – and knowing that others are having similar challenges is important to staying persistent and keeping on.
Integrated into the ongoing work
This is similar to, but not the same as, the question of relevance. When we integrate the learning into what’s currently happening in the students’ lives, then they have the opportunity to practice, and from practice comes true understanding and ability to extrapolate and use the learning in different situations. Simulations in the classroom just don’t translate into real-world, hands-on experience at “game speed.”
With follow-on support
As valuable as it is, the community of peers can only go so far. Learners need someone they can ask questions of, someone who can observe what they’re doing and offer suggestions. I’ve said it many times: training without follow-on support is edutainment, and it won’t get the results you want in time frame you’d like.
Isn’t this awfully complicated?
It really isn’t complicated, though it may seem that way if you’ve not done this type of process before.
It is a process, and it's a process that’s easily replicated for different situations and needs.
And it’s far more likely to get you the results you want than the old traditional approach to training.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What's next?
Global Leadership, Change and Organizational Development Consultant l Coach l Speaker l Educator l Facilitator l Writer l Baked-Superhero
2 年Go Grace!
The Service Culture Guide | Keynote Speaker
2 年It's a great list, Grace. One note about classes: Many classes are not training at all. They're merely themed activities. What's the difference? Training is the process of helping someone develop the knowledge, skills, and abilities they need to do their job. None of this actually occurs in many classes I've observed, or at least the trainer never verifies it. For example, a trainer might pair people up for a role play activity. But did the trainer, or anyone else, evaluate whether participants correctly demonstrated the skill being taught? And, if someone did not demonstrate the skill, were they given extra coaching and more opportunities to practice? The answer is often no. Without learning, a class is really just a series of themed activities.
No Magic. No BS. Just Know-How. I partner with executives who want to stop worrying about their company's bottom line.
2 年Once again Grace Judson you hit the nail on the head. To your list of why training fails, I would add one more item— The folks who went to training are not allowed to use their new skills.
For funded start-ups to mid-sized company executives, I quickly turn stalled or declining revenue into steady, profitable growth.
2 年We all learn differently so expecting that we'll all uniformly understand, and retain, and operationalize traditional learning is a big, expensive assumption.