A good example of ill-conceived {and premature} training approaches is seen in the many calls I get to conduct training programs to help people become better managers. I put my callers through a standard set of questions:
•Did you choose people for managerial roles because they were the type of people who could get their fulfillment and satisfaction out of helping other people shine rather than having the ego-need to shine themselves? {No!}
•Did you select them because they had a prior history of being able to give a critique to someone in such a way that the other person responds: "Wow, that was really helpful, I'm glad you helped me see all that." {No!}
•Do you reward these people for how well their group has done, or do you reward them for their own personal accomplishments in generating business and serving clients? {Both, but with an emphasis on their personal numbers!}
People can detect immediately a lack of alignment between what they are being trained in and how they are being managed. When they do detect it, little of what has been discussed or "trained" ever gets implemented.
"So, let's summarize;' I say. "You've chosen people who don't want to do the job, who haven't demonstrated any prior aptitude
for the job, and you are rewarding them for things other than doing the job?"
Thanks, but I'll pass on the wonderful privilege of training them!
Here's a good test for the timing of training: If the training was entirely optional and elective, and only available in a remote village accessible only by a mule, but your people still came to the training because they were saying to themselves, "I have got to learn this-it's going to be critical for my future; then, and only then, you will know you have timed your training well. Anything less than that, and you are doing the training too soon.
•Did you choose people for managerial roles because they were the type of people who could get their fulfillment and satisfaction out of helping other people shine rather than having the ego-need to shine themselves? {No!}
•Did you select them because they had a prior history of being able to give a critique to someone in such a way that the other person responds: "Wow, that was really helpful, I'm glad you helped me see all that." {No!}
•Do you reward these people for how well their group has done, or do you reward them for their own personal accomplishments in generating business and serving clients? {Both, but with an emphasis on their personal numbers!}
People can detect immediately a lack of alignment between what they are being trained in and how they are being managed. When they do detect it, little of what has been discussed or "trained" ever gets implemented.
"So, let's summarize;' I say. "You've chosen people who don't want to do the job, who haven't demonstrated any prior aptitude
for the job, and you are rewarding them for things other than doing the job?"
Thanks, but I'll pass on the wonderful privilege of training them!
Here's a good test for the timing of training: If the training was entirely optional and elective, and only available in a remote village accessible only by a mule, but your people still came to the training because they were saying to themselves, "I have got to learn this-it's going to be critical for my future; then, and only then, you will know you have timed your training well. Anything less than that, and you are doing the training too soon.
( David H. Maister )
[ Strategy and the Fat Smoker; ]
www.QuoteSweet.com