Training Versus Development
Julian Shreeve says:
I observe that language plays as important a part in the way ‘helping interventions’ are described and labelled as it is within the content and methods themselves. There is a world of difference between the methods employed when running a ‘development’ experience’ compared to a ‘training’ one. I have heard many operational managers refer to development experiences as ‘training’ for fifteen years now and it is an inaccurate and misleading label.
I could get technical about this if anyone wants me too, but for the sake of brevity, it might be worth thinking about the traditional Driving Lessons experience as an example of ‘training’: typically it works like this : you get some information verbalised by the instructor; you get shown the equipment - then they demonstrate the technique practically; then they explain it again having shown you, perhaps adding one or two more pieces of information – you get to have a go – they offer real-time feedback and intervention depending on your competence – you stop and they give you further feedback and perhaps more information – you have another go – you then apply your increasing competence in different scenarios – you get feedback – and finally, you get to have a knowledge and skills examination/test. If you pass then you are competent, if you fail, you are not.
Training is very much about this type of process, and real training ends with a formal competence test of some kind. I have run ‘training’ – training people to interview – pass or fail. I have assessed people for NVQ competence levels – they either reach the level or they don’t – so they get the NVQ Award or not. I have taken part in “sales training” too, but guess what? There was no formal competence test at the end...so it was not really training at all – not the ones I was involved with anyway. Perhaps some do.
Everything else I have done must be labelled differently, and the best generic term for this is ‘development’, e.g. team development, management development, personal development etc – and each of these areas has a plethora of content subdivisions. Coaching is development. I would be amazed quite frankly if training in the true sense would ever be something that Exellerate gets involved in.
When speaking with potential customers – I always ensure they are clear about the differences in the meanings, and I often have found that they never meant ‘training’ in the true sense – they actually meant ‘development’ but didn’t have the word for it. I suggest that the word ‘training’ is only ever used when the intervention really is ‘training’ and not anything else, otherwise any marketing and client contact will include a level of inaccuracy which will really not help anyone, and worse, could put customers off.
Peter says:
As always, I agree with Julian. Julian has a lot of experience in development in the corporate environment which we are fortunate to have in the team.
Comparing what we do to the driving test, I would actually see some more connections in that we potential give the sales people some new knowledge e.g. in strategic selling or proposal writing, then we would watch them have a go and give them feedback. Many companies employ sales coaches who go on sales calls and give feedback on explicit examples of the sales person's technique, for example Astra Zeneca and Egg both do this.
Whilst there isn't a sales exam at the end of the year, there is the ultimate test - can they do it? If not, then the ultimate fail - a P45.
My concern with a lot of 'development' in companies is that it is still based on knowledge. When I used to subscribe to a HRD forum, ukhrd.com, There were almost daily requests from corporate trainers asking if anyone had notes for a time management course, or a presentation skills course, or a negotiation skills course, or a sales course, as they were running one internally next week. Their approach was to give the delegates theoretical knowledge and then expect the delegates to translate that into behavioural growth or change.
By behavioural change I don't mean something big and dramatic, but for example a sales person asking "Is now a good time to talk?" rather than not is a specific change in behaviour.
So my problem is not with training or development or whatever else we call it but the mentality that knowledge equals effectiveness, which starts in school and doesn't often change once 'adult learning' takes place. I see people on the short business courses at Warwickshire College who believe that they stopped learning when they left school. Most of the courses the college runs are based on a tutor giving information to the students. Where there is something different going on - something impactful and empowering - it is down to the individual tutor rather than the system. In fact, they stopped being taught when they left school, but some people have continued to use that approach to transferring skills.
I would also add that we may often make distinctions in order to create competetive advantage during a sales process. For example, if a prospect was looking at a proposal from us, and one from Helmsley Fraser, I would be going down the 'training is dead' route in order to create a perceived value difference between us and our competitors. Companies like HF have so much time and cash invested in training that they cannot switch to coaching, even though they know it is a competetive threat. The promise of a development approach that takes the sales person off the road for an hour instead of two days is just too good to miss.
So there are at least two versions of the truth here; what is true, and what is useful to believe if we are to successfully grow this business, outsell our competitors and retire to the sea rich and famous.
I observe that language plays as important a part in the way ‘helping interventions’ are described and labelled as it is within the content and methods themselves. There is a world of difference between the methods employed when running a ‘development’ experience’ compared to a ‘training’ one. I have heard many operational managers refer to development experiences as ‘training’ for fifteen years now and it is an inaccurate and misleading label.
I could get technical about this if anyone wants me too, but for the sake of brevity, it might be worth thinking about the traditional Driving Lessons experience as an example of ‘training’: typically it works like this : you get some information verbalised by the instructor; you get shown the equipment - then they demonstrate the technique practically; then they explain it again having shown you, perhaps adding one or two more pieces of information – you get to have a go – they offer real-time feedback and intervention depending on your competence – you stop and they give you further feedback and perhaps more information – you have another go – you then apply your increasing competence in different scenarios – you get feedback – and finally, you get to have a knowledge and skills examination/test. If you pass then you are competent, if you fail, you are not.
Training is very much about this type of process, and real training ends with a formal competence test of some kind. I have run ‘training’ – training people to interview – pass or fail. I have assessed people for NVQ competence levels – they either reach the level or they don’t – so they get the NVQ Award or not. I have taken part in “sales training” too, but guess what? There was no formal competence test at the end...so it was not really training at all – not the ones I was involved with anyway. Perhaps some do.
Everything else I have done must be labelled differently, and the best generic term for this is ‘development’, e.g. team development, management development, personal development etc – and each of these areas has a plethora of content subdivisions. Coaching is development. I would be amazed quite frankly if training in the true sense would ever be something that Exellerate gets involved in.
When speaking with potential customers – I always ensure they are clear about the differences in the meanings, and I often have found that they never meant ‘training’ in the true sense – they actually meant ‘development’ but didn’t have the word for it. I suggest that the word ‘training’ is only ever used when the intervention really is ‘training’ and not anything else, otherwise any marketing and client contact will include a level of inaccuracy which will really not help anyone, and worse, could put customers off.
Peter says:
As always, I agree with Julian. Julian has a lot of experience in development in the corporate environment which we are fortunate to have in the team.
Comparing what we do to the driving test, I would actually see some more connections in that we potential give the sales people some new knowledge e.g. in strategic selling or proposal writing, then we would watch them have a go and give them feedback. Many companies employ sales coaches who go on sales calls and give feedback on explicit examples of the sales person's technique, for example Astra Zeneca and Egg both do this.
Whilst there isn't a sales exam at the end of the year, there is the ultimate test - can they do it? If not, then the ultimate fail - a P45.
My concern with a lot of 'development' in companies is that it is still based on knowledge. When I used to subscribe to a HRD forum, ukhrd.com, There were almost daily requests from corporate trainers asking if anyone had notes for a time management course, or a presentation skills course, or a negotiation skills course, or a sales course, as they were running one internally next week. Their approach was to give the delegates theoretical knowledge and then expect the delegates to translate that into behavioural growth or change.
By behavioural change I don't mean something big and dramatic, but for example a sales person asking "Is now a good time to talk?" rather than not is a specific change in behaviour.
So my problem is not with training or development or whatever else we call it but the mentality that knowledge equals effectiveness, which starts in school and doesn't often change once 'adult learning' takes place. I see people on the short business courses at Warwickshire College who believe that they stopped learning when they left school. Most of the courses the college runs are based on a tutor giving information to the students. Where there is something different going on - something impactful and empowering - it is down to the individual tutor rather than the system. In fact, they stopped being taught when they left school, but some people have continued to use that approach to transferring skills.
I would also add that we may often make distinctions in order to create competetive advantage during a sales process. For example, if a prospect was looking at a proposal from us, and one from Helmsley Fraser, I would be going down the 'training is dead' route in order to create a perceived value difference between us and our competitors. Companies like HF have so much time and cash invested in training that they cannot switch to coaching, even though they know it is a competetive threat. The promise of a development approach that takes the sales person off the road for an hour instead of two days is just too good to miss.
So there are at least two versions of the truth here; what is true, and what is useful to believe if we are to successfully grow this business, outsell our competitors and retire to the sea rich and famous.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment