When carrying out a Training Needs Detection (DNC), we must determine the competence gaps of a person regarding their functions and job position. However, we must be careful of the methodology with which it is intended to close that gap, or considering current practice: those who are sent to train…
A recent data, which appears as a result of a dissertation carried out at a Hospital in Santiago de Chile, 2011, and in which I had the honor of participating as a specialist advisor, indicates that we must consider the participants' personality structure as a relevant variable when designing training activities, as it affects the successful implementation of practical activities and the transfer to the job.
The study measured the impact of projects that have been implemented by the Hospital during the last three years. These projects are also theses of a diploma paid by the hospital for officials who fulfill the leadership role.
The members of each team that developed the project were consulted about the level of implementation of the project (measured in%, with a rubric and request for evidence), as well as their headquarters (Sponsors). It was also consulted for the reasons of the level of implementation in those cases where the percentages were less than 75%.
The group of 15 projects (dissertations) was divided into two categories, HIGH impact and LOW impact, defined as the percentage perceived and evidenced of its progress and implementation, averaged between the opinions of the team participants and the management.
The DISC test was applied to all the professionals who implemented the projects to verify if there are differences in the personality structure between both groups (HIGH impact and LOW impact), data that could be influencing the result of the implementation.
In general, the results indicate that people who form HIGH impact teams tend to be more perfectionist, methodical, analytical and sensible, while LOW teams tend to be inactive, serene, relaxed, predictable and compliant.
Under stress, HIGH impact team members tend to be more predictable, teamwork, and more patient. Furthermore, they become more persevering, conceited, sensible and analytical, while in the same circumstances, members of teams with LOW impact become more demanding, outgoing and dissatisfied, as well as insecure and dependent.
With this study it was concluded that although there may be variables that influence the result of these implementations, it is clear that the personality structure plays a relevant role in the success of project implementation in the workplace, which could be extrapolated to the transfer of learning to the job.
This would explain, among other variables, of course, part of the “why” of the low impact of training courses or projects in organizations, especially those that require the motivation and commitment of people for their successful implementation.
In addition, the costs of a course or diploma that does not generate the expected results are tremendous, reaching, according to the results of this thesis, to consider estimated losses of 40% of the investment made in the three years.
This conclusion supposes, among others, the challenge of characterizing the participants of the training programs, in terms of certain psychological variables (personality, learning, self-esteem or others) in order to implement the appropriate methodology to the case. Answering the title question, YES we must train them all, but NOT in the same way.
