June 5, 2012
Posted by
Matt Gardner
An acquaintance of mine, let’s call him Max, was given the task of organizing all employee training for his company. His first assignment was to arrange several sessions on how to perform a new task associated with the office workers, or more specifically, how to use new office software just purchased by the corporation.
Aside from the specific knowledge base related to the new computer program, there were a few things Max did to help secure full participation in the training.
Convinced that workers willingly participate only when training adds to their current or future work effectiveness and contributes to the organization’s success, Max assessed the workers’ strengths and weaknesses before requiring them to attend a single session. He wanted to establish the type of training that would likely be of greatest benefit, and insure every session either covered new ground or addressed an identified need.
Because he believed it to be critical in terms of attitude, participation, and “buy in,” when scheduling workshops, Max kept in mind the employees’ work hours. Assuming that training should save people time—not add to their workload, prevent them from getting their work done or require them to put in long hours without compensation—Max scheduled the sessions accordingly.
He also recognized that scheduling can be crucial to the maintenance of any new skill or knowledge set once instruction is over, with the information learned likely to quickly atrophy if not used shortly thereafter and on a regular basis. With this in mind, he arranged for training immediately prior to the software’s installation.
Whatever training Max might arrange, he wanted to ensure it would result in positive, lasting changes. He therefore scheduled multiple sessions so the employees would be fully prepared and oriented. This also allowed for make-ups for anyone absent during a given session so everyone would have access to the new information, and it eliminated travel costs for staff employed at different locations.
Max felt it was critical that participants see the connection between their jobs and the topic(s) of a given workshop. He therefore directed those conducting the training to focus on skills identified as vital to the business. There was complete alignment between training objectives and business objectives, with the staff learning what would lead directly to the corporation’s realizing a competitive advantage over the competition. The goal was to help the staff gain and retain knowledge they could actually apply, which in this case, was how to use the new software to become more effective on the job.
Max also capitalized on staff expertise by organizing self-directed trainings where groups of workers were encouraged to identify their own needs and come up with appropriate training plans as well as seek additional development opportunities.
So that staff with different learning preferences might access new information in the manner most productive for each, Max investigated different training modalities. Techniques such as role playing, lecture, electronically supported instruction, hands-on application, peer coaching, and blended learning were selected according to whichever best fit the budget, office culture, and session topic. Participants also performed authentic work-related tasks, both during training and while on the job, since action-based learning is usually more effective than instruction centered on theory.
As you can imagine, Max’s training program was a smashing success. He definitely got off on the right foot and now has every intention of continuing to incorporate these and similar “best practices” when organizing future staff development and training.