Naturally, the training and continuous development of managers with specific purpose, full success and satisfactory results are often orchestrated in large companies, for the benefit of collective effectiveness; but on other occasions and not without foundation, it would seem that it is already positive, enriching, to send young managers to a training program from time to time, almost whatever the content or method. You may even choose this one (room, outdoor, individual or group coaching, e-learning…) at the same time, if not earlier, than the content. As for the content, it can be diverse although it seems to typically bet on the term "leadership". Let's talk, if the reader consents, of objectives, content and methods in the training of managers.
What is really pursued with the courses and other training actions that are orchestrated? What is meant by "development" of managers?… Lifelong learning and development seems inexcusable, but is there a return on investment, or at least of expectation? More questions fit: what is the role of the Human Resources areas in this matter? And that of the individuals? Is there a market for all the consultants in the sector? Do the companies move (as some providers have said)? Big companies for price, and not for quality, when hiring training? Why do providers seem to associate almost more by methods (e-learning, coaching…) than by content? Why do managers say they are dissatisfied with the training? they receive from their companies?…
With my perspective as a teacher, I would say that companies, in general, aim to:
- Meet the technical and functional training needs of people. Contribute to the professional development of managers and workers. Make hierarchical relationships more effective. Accelerate the personal maturity of future managers. Disseminate messages from Management, for strategic alignment. Introduce functional changes or Operational. Cultivate beliefs and values related to the culture of the organization. Implement specific programs (continuous improvement, innovation…).
But throughout the world it is recognized that sometimes, with full legitimacy, it is pursued:
- Facilitate dialogue and the exchange of experiences between people. Generate a healthy and stimulating change of scenery for a few days. Improve the internal and external image of the company. Consume the available budget. Reward, motivate or satisfy the selected participants.
As for the continuous training sector for managers (the training consultancies), one could perhaps speak of a fight going on for the money put into circulation, including the millions of euros that large companies put on the market (I read, years ago, that Telefónica invested up to 10 million, only in e-learning). We should think that companies choose a method and a provider thinking about the effectiveness of training, as Kirkpatrick understands it, but we already know, in effect, that this - the training of managers - has also been used as a reward, as an occasion for establish relationships, and even to consume the money allocated. This writer, in his visible malice, also thinks of course that, at the start of e-learning around the year 2000,There could be more haste to be among the first large companies to incorporate it, than satisfaction produced by users.
In these years I have read points of view in the training consulting sector that have surprised me: “The contents have been magnified during these past three or four years, without the reason being well understood… Who more and who less he has been forced to acquire complex knowledge with precarious means. Let us remember the university, with the available textbooks or photocopies of the notes of the most studious of the class: more precarious content, impossible, ”said José Ignacio Díez, today managing partner of the consulting firm Élogos, in 2003 in a book on the e-learning best practices. Díez ended his introduction by recommending that companies measure their investment effort in content well.
In the same book edited by Aedipe, Carlos Pelegrín, Director of Development and Training at Telefónica said: "The best results can be achieved with medium quality content, while excellent content does not guarantee absolutely anything, it can even lead to failure." So that one could speak of a certain relativization of the importance of content in training (in this case, online) in recent years, while other players in the sector did seem to bet on good content.
I also learned of a survey among e-learning users, carried out by Santillana Formación, which revealed dissatisfaction with the available content. And I also learned (2004) from a study by Accenture, according to which only 14% of Spanish managers considered that the training programs (without separating the methods in this case) met the proposed objectives. It seems that this percentage was not much higher in countries like the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom or Australia.
We asked ourselves paragraphs back why there was dissatisfaction regarding the training, and each case would have to be analyzed; But it may also be necessary, for the sake and in the pursuit of satisfaction, to better tune into the profiles that the new economy seems to demand of managers and workers. For example, if we bet on the profile of the new knowledge worker that Peter Drucker drew for us, can we really insist on the leader-follower models as a relational framework? New models of leadership frequently appear (this is the noun to which we add the most different adjectives in the management literature: have they noticed?), Which leaves the knowledge worker in a situation of follower, if not in that of collaborator or subordinate. Does this fit properly into the figure of the skilled worker, lifelong learner, loyal to his profession,Who works autonomously and enjoys innovating? Does the doctor have to be a “follower” of the director of the health center? Does the chef have to be a follower, or collaborator, or subordinate of the hotel manager, and ask about the New Year's Eve menu? All this is more complex, but I want to provoke your reflection because there are many readings of leadership in the company:
Position at the head of the company, a department, etc.
Task of the chief executive, typically in a process of change.
System, method or style of managing people.
Role of managers, complementary to that of management.
Family of interpersonal skills of the best managers.
Specific ability to guide and energize others after common goals.
Virtual position of the leader, recognized by his followers.
Enthusiastic, contagious and inclusive attitude after a collective achievement.
I am afraid that when we talk about managers, we also do it about leadership but understanding each one differently. I would stay with the systemic conception of it: there is no leader if as such his supposed followers do not see him; nor are there creative individuals if they are not seen by the most experts in each field…
Of the methods we will speak slowly if they continue reading, but let us admit that they can be satisfactory and advantageous as such (outdoor, coaching, e-learning…) but in themselves they do not generate learning: you learn by the formative content of the process and I do not know why What do I say this truism. It can be fun, of course, an outdoor game, but what is important is its contribution to learning (from something we need to learn); E-learning can be advantageous because it avoids spatio-temporal constraints, but what is important is what I learn… Of course, we can accept that for a given purpose, there are more suitable methods than others, and it seems appropriate to take a look, as we will do next, at the different methods in competition.
Development and training
Let us now dwell on the idea of "development". Referred to the organization -organizational development-, the development seems to suppose a continuous improvement of the collective effectiveness, without multiplying for it the individually dedicated efforts, nor to remove from the limits the tension and the physical and mental fatigue, that is to say, with satisfaction of the persons. It requires improvement and innovation in all the functional aspects of the company, seen this as a living system (attention to the "system" and "living"). It requires an approximation of the "we" and the "they", and the commitment of all. It demands defense of the collective interest, and, perhaps for this reason, it may conflict with private interests. In principle, all organizations pursue their development, growth and prosperity, although there could be exceptions:Some "changes" seem to have consisted of "raising the house", closing factories, and amazing staff reductions.
Organizational development also requires, of course, permanent learning and development of people, at all levels. Now referring to our concept of people and specifically the development of managers, development seems to suppose -but remember that I am encouraging your reflection, contribution or dissent- a broadening of the horizon (wide angle) and a greater scope of vision (telephoto); it involves the detection (and corresponding neutralization) of what is missing and surplus in the professional profile; it involves alignment with the organization's admissible liturgies and doctrines; it supposes the emergence of an energizing and negentropic self-leadership that guides action; It involves personal and professional maturation, at the service of the community.Developmental psychologists precisely point this orientation to the common or collective good.
Are companies interested in accelerating the development of their people? It is possible to think that yes, but probably not of all of them: perhaps only of some well selected. There are -or were- seminars or workshops for almost everyone (sometimes replaced by less successful online courses); But there are only transfers to other countries, or to headquarters, or participation in master's degrees, or professional coaching, or shadowing, for a few: what is necessary to ensure generational replacements. It would seem that there is assurance of the relay, but that there is not enough development of the people, or that it is too slow. Does the reader see it that way?
I fear that development is often confused - or at least merged - with training, but remember that manager training aims on the one hand at knowledge and hard skills, and on the other at strengths and soft skills; all this, except peripheral objectives, pursuing effectiveness. I would almost miss training aimed at a better quality of life at work, because in the end the effectiveness and satisfaction are synergistic, and nurture the desirable virtuous circle against the vicious of mental fatigue, stress and low performance.
Learning
Surely we all like this word more: learning; in principle because it places the individual as an active and not a passive subject, but there is more. Probably each of us would define learning in their own way. Making an etymological interpretation, we would say that learning comes to mean "perfecting yourself following a path." And this, in its journey towards the future, seems applicable to both individuals and organizations. The conquest of this future, or more simply the prosperity of the organization, demands frequent and rapid structural, technical, cultural changes…; but it also demands changes in people. More than the evolution or development of people, sometimes we would have to think about a certain reengineering of ourselves.
It seems that "learning" is valid for knowledge as well as for skills, strengths, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors, maturity… It is convenient to carry out the competency display carefully, because from here derive the most desirable and common (generic) learning objectives for all managers, without actually excluding the most expert professionals or, as appropriate, the rest of the workers. In addition to acquiring new knowledge, as an alternative or complement to that already accumulated, we should guide learning to:
Self-knowledge, and the cultivation and use of personal strengths.
The best exploitation of the cognitive faculties and other resources of human beings.
Improving interpersonal skills, to generate functional synergies.
Self-questioning, and the revision of mental values, beliefs and models.
The proper management of our attitudes and behaviors, for the collective benefit.
We have to be aware of our strengths and weaknesses, to exploit them and neutralize them; we must become more aware of our faculties as human beings, without forgetting, of course, the use of intention, attention and intuition; we have to relate more effectively to others (and even to ourselves); we have to review our mental schemas, for the benefit of the perception of simple and complex (systemic) realities, and we also have to assume the leading role of ourselves and properly manage ourselves. Note that these things cannot be left to others: we must star in our learning. We will learn nothing in these areas if we do not want to,no matter how much they stimulate us with credit systems or points redeemable for gifts (I also read about these practices deployed by some training departments of large companies).
Methods
I will start with autodidactism, which is an always open option, and then I will submit to the consideration of the reader my own vision of each of the most common methods, except only those that I forget. Note by the way that if, in today's economy, we are preaching self-directed lifelong learning, the relative weight of the academic degree we obtained in youth, it could lose significance… I think, although perhaps especially because I am quite self-taught, that what matters is what you know, and not so much the diplomas you have achieved: apparently there are degrees that can be bought…
Autodidactismo
The permanent desire to learn and the ideal attitude for it are always necessary; but when they reach a sufficient level, they make self-learning possible. Although the company has arrived with its accreditations, the self-taught (say self-taught, if you prefer) not only takes advantage of any opportunity, but generates them. It makes learning an autotelic activity; he does not learn to pass any exam, nor to show off his knowledge: he learns by learning himself: that is his reward. His work thanks him because he accuses him. Although more than a method it is an alternative, I have started with self-study because I think it is the method that best demonstrates that learning is possible. It is a virtue, but, colloquially, I would sometimes speak of the "vice" of learning. There is no one to stop the self-taught and this, curiously,It can lead to problems if you work in an environment of militant mediocrity.
He is typically very selective: he knows well what he wants to learn and why. Before, the self-taught person looked for opportunities in the “public” offer of the company, and read books and magazines; now he also has a magnificent new tool, the Internet, which has made him develop a new skill: serendipity. The self-taught person is also a great observer, even of himself. Of course, as new goals open up for him, he needs help sooner or later; but he is usually aware of it and looks for it. He finds it or not, but ends up looking for it.
It must be said that self-learning has very particular characteristics: it does not generate business for providers, it does not inflate the budgets of the training area, it does not need great help, it does not decorate the curricula, it does not receive credits or points from those who grant the areas of Human Resources, the subject is seen as an oddball, there is no one who can attribute the development of the self-taught… If you are self-taught, persevere but hide: you are going against the establishment. Despite the above, I believe that the method will grow in the company, at the dawn of the knowledge era, and at the mercy of the dissatisfaction that e-learning was generating as a self-driving method.
Internet
It is used by the self-taught and the non-self-taught (everyone who can), and is more a means (even a remedy) than a method; but I am referring here to the search for documentation of interest, to improve our hard or soft profile. I do it very often, I experience valuable discoveries, and I have my second source of learning on the Internet. It does not surprise me that there is talk of the googlelization of e-learning, because the content offered by it seems to be, in general, not very rigorous and deep (we are always referring to the so-called "executive training"); instead, one can find expert articles, reports and diverse documentation, on topics very specific to managers: leadership, strategy, project management, customer relations, the competition movement, marketing,intelligent conversation, feedback, innovation, quality of life at work, knowledge management, emotional intelligence, the digestion of successes and failures, self-knowledge, globalization, personal mastery, systemic thinking, change cultural… All these themes are ubiquitous: they appear in all organizations and cultures.
I dare to compare the documents (in general of free access) of the Internet with the online courses offered, because, in the indicated subjects, these courses are usually very short (one or two hours), as a "pills", and they don't seem to satisfy users. Instead, there are many portals that offer valuable and up-to-date texts for managers. I know of works that, recently published, record more than 1,000 readings each of the first days. Obviously, this very low-cost procedure has limits; but, well orchestrated, it would constitute a comfortable propedeutic phase in many cases. And it is also obvious that each manager, or knowledge worker, must have an individual learning plan, which guides their efforts.
In other words, if a company allocates 4, 8 or 10 million euros to its e-learning supply, it should be sure that it would not have a better return with less expense, by freely connecting its people to the Network. It surely is if you spend it, but the fact is that e-learning has not always satisfied its users, and the Internet, if you search for it, is more satisfying every day. It may be time to develop our information fluency: knowing how to find, evaluate, contrast, analyze, synthesize, learn, integrate and apply what you have learned…
E-learning
At this point of the article I have become very heavy with e-learning (it is because I started designing courses off line in the 80s, then online around the year 2000, and it always seemed very sad to me that they had to be designed, when less in my environment, like churros, with very little design time for teachers: I may be wrong, but that's how I saw it), but I will add something. I do not know if, still in the end-of-century scenario, or already in the neosecular, suppliers seemed to see a great business opportunity, and they even partnered (2001) to spread the possibilities of the method and to better defend their interests (Aefol in Barcelona and APeL, in Madrid). At that time, large companies were starting to launch their platforms and there was a demand for content.
I remember that in a presentation in 2002, Raúl González, director of FYCSA (now Élogos), perhaps aware of the dropouts that the method generated, identified the success of e-learning with an end rate of over 75%, without going into the analysis of learning effectiveness. In other words, if the students did not drop out, that was already a success in the e-learning programs. I also remember that, so that the students did not drop out, credit systems and points redeemable for gifts were orchestrated, as I mentioned before.
The fact is that, in 2004, the majority of e-learning users stated (perhaps they would have stated earlier if they had been asked in a timely manner) that it was contributing little, if anything, to performance improvement. Not all e-learning would be frustrating, but it does not seem to have served learning enough, and today this method is not talked about as much. A pity because, doing things well, it is something unquestionable: we have to continually learn, and ICTs are an invaluable help.
It would be possible to identify e-learning with the online, multimedia and interactive version of that teaching programmed decades ago; but also, and among other possibilities, e-learning now seems to be sometimes identified with traditional distance learning, enriched with tutelary follow-up by e-mail. Opinion for yourselves, but I am left, as a definition of the concept, with interactive e-learning and multimedia, even if the case logically prefers a linear printed text, if its content is more satisfactory.
I insist: I believe that this method must be "educated" in the quality and service to the expectations of the users, making an ideal, and not trivial, use of interactivity and multimedia presence. It will become corrupted when it grows up, but let's make it grow whole and pure, geez, or let's bury it as we did with that programmed printed teaching. For greater entropy, leading suppliers have been publicly blaming the failures on their clients: "These managers do not allow themselves to be advised by the consultants they hire, and in the end what happens happens…", said the vice president of APeL in 2004.
Distance training
Traditional distance learning continues, and is even strengthened by the advancement of communications. You read or study the printed material, do the corresponding exercises, consult your tutor, and you can even take advantage of Internet technology to communicate with other students and with the tutor. As I have already suggested, there will be no lack of who calls this e-learning, but I am committed to clearly distinguishing whether the study is carried out on the PC screen itself, with multimedia display and programmed user-system dialogue, or if the study is carried out on linear printed material.
Many managers follow master's degrees remotely and are satisfied with the experience, but shorter courses are also followed remotely. It seems natural that for the communication with the tutor, and with other students, the asynchronous method of e-mail is preferred, and there may even be a virtual campus for synchronous and asynchronous debates; but the study is done on printed material, in general of good didactic quality, fruit of the teaching experience. Distance learning (orchestrated from within the organization or from outside it) is not a bad option for managers, if it is successful with the content and service expectations; and I wouldn't be surprised if some e-learning providers dropped the interactive design "fast food", and went to distance or mixed training,supported on the Internet.
Classroom, alone or combined
Call it what you want because you already know what I mean: seminars or workshops held in a room for around 10-15 participants, whether or not in a residential regime, but typically in full days. It seems to me that this has been the king method in good times, although perhaps more than visibly contributing to the learning of managerial skills, it has contributed to the other purposes already mentioned (relationships, curricula…). So if we wanted to increase its effectiveness (still thinking about Kirkpatrick), something would have to be done with classroom training.
My impression is that, often, the solution that the participant finds in the classroom has little to do with the need that he transmitted, if he transmitted any. I also think that sometimes a problem is passed to the supplier that had to be solved internally in the company. All of this is very complex and does not fit in this article, but in general, classroom training must also better tune with the expectations, if not the needs, of the attendees. I have never been in favor of turning classrooms into adult daycare, and now less. I think we should go from festive nursery workshops to high-density workshops or mayeutic workshops; that is, to a participation… different.
Regarding method competence, I have observed how some providers who have labeled themselves with e-learning have moved their image to that of “training consultants”, perhaps to offer blended solutions that combine the latter with training in classroom. Perhaps the reader thinks, like me, that classroom training - both to reduce its duration and cost, and to ensure its effect - can be accompanied by readings and exercises facilitated by the Internet or intranets; But this could be seen as blended, or as mere classroom training with various supports and accessories. It is the contents - I believe - that determine the suitability of each method and its combinations.
Referring to blended, the Director of Development and Training at Telefónica de España, Carlos Pelegrín, maintained that providers who were good at e-learning were not so good at face-to-face training, and vice versa, so one would go directly to training in the classroom, with supports, online or offline, convenient. Considering also the rejection generated by e-learning in not a few users, I would think of combining the classroom with supports such as coaching (better if genuine), interesting readings, feedback from a good source, individual or shared reflection, etc.
Certainly and going back to the classroom, it is not convenient to leave classroom training actions isolated because their effects could be diluted. Companies are well aware of this, and tend to assign senior managers (don't panic: the Academy recommends this) to guard the learning of the youngest (juniors; yes, yes: juniors). It is not that things always work well, but the fact is that the learning or development of young people must be continuous and undergo some kind of supervisory monitoring; To be more precise, it should be programmed from an initial stage of multidimensional self-knowledge to a final stage of verification of progress and its consequences, referring to each competency profile cycle. It is easier than it seems, and it does not subtract, but even adds, attention and efficiency to daily work.
Coaching
Everything is more complex, but I would say that this is the "pull" method par excellence, and that traditionally training in the company has been typically "push". There are things that only a good coach's mayeutics can achieve, which links this method with a certain degree of learning-development already achieved, that is, with executive personnel. However, now that we are witnessing a certain exoterization of the esoteric, Confucian or Socratic dialogue can be applied at lower levels. I was talking about mayeutic workshops, to refer to a variant of group coaching, which would just contribute to the dissemination of the method among young managers.
What business is there around coaching? Well, we should almost start by talking about the training itself in its techniques, and soon we would have to separate segments. When a tag becomes a buzzword, it attracts nearby (and not so close) activities: it would be better to know what we are talking about when we use the term. As a coach, I would see more of a consultant than a psychologist, but it would rather be a tutor who would help us generate our own answers to nuclear questions that we had not even asked ourselves. Without further ado, let's think of the great Chinese and Greek masters of antiquity.
I think that all training consultants would have to approach the coach's profile; But we should not repeat the follies of e-learning: you have to be expert maneutics, and also experts in the personal needs and concerns of managers (not necessarily about business management). From the outset and for example, the coach has a lot to do on issues such as values, mental models, self-leadership, personal effectiveness and quality of life. If the maneutic ability is developed and the self-management of managers and personal fulfillment are deepened, coaching, also improved its affordability, seems to have almost as much future as past.
Of course, since we are determined that the manager, even intermediate, must be a leader (it can be seen as an anagram of "fold"), and that the leader is a kind of flying superman, there are also those (for example, the prestigious thinker Spanish Javier Fernández Aguado, whom I nonetheless read with pleasure) suggests that leadership and coaching are practically synonymous. (My prevention against leadership is becoming very noticeable to me, and the reader will say that I am full of cordial hatreds: e-learning, leadership… However, believe me I am, for example, extremely affectionate with my cat, Kitty).
Mentoring
It presents mentoring similarities with coaching, but also notable differences; here the tutor or mentor is a person from the organization, typically at a higher level, who advises and helps the pupil in her professional career. Just as coaching focuses on the individual herself to build her fullness, mentoring is guided by the references of the organization. The mentor takes advantage of her power of influence in the company so that, when the time comes, the development of the pupil is harnessed in a position of greater relevance.
In 1997, they published an article about mentoring in which I said that "it is about putting the pleasure of teaching and the satisfaction of learning at the service of the organization", and that "sometimes this arises spontaneously between a senior and a junior with related profiles ”. It also said, however, that it is preferable to practice it "in a manner recognized and sponsored by the organization, with specific objectives and methodology…". But you surely already know the differences between mentoring and coaching, and it only serves my intention to point out that the first is an internal resource and the second not so much. In other words, there may be good mentors in the company, but it is not so frequent that there are good coaches (it would be necessary to dedicate effort to train them).
I did not say so in 1997, when I spoke of Telemachus and Mentor in a periodic bulletin, but this method produces some reservations for me. You see it with or without them, but I suggest that it be practiced under norms, and that it not exclude other possibilities of development. I have not included it in the list so much because it is a method in competition with others, but just because it should coexist with others.
Rotation
It was a method widely used in the 90s, or it seemed to me. I remember that I discussed (slightly, that some prudence I was beginning to have at that time) with a senior manager of a large company, on whether the rotation was a means or an end (what deep reflections we were still doing in that boom). I suppose that we will all accept that it contributes to the development of the manager, all the more the more different and distant the positions occupied are. This formula, which may seem effective and economical, can also be very expensive: it all depends. Think that the manager in development is going to learn a lot, but, meanwhile, he is going to be occupying positions for which he may not be sufficiently prepared, and knowing that he is just passing through. Anyway, I see some possible conflict…
Rotation is healthy for everyone, developed and developing, but perhaps "consuming the legislature" in every position. They may not fully agree with this statement of mine, but they certainly know what I mean and they do not feel very far from this concern. Human Resources professionals know well how to make rotations, but logically circumstances prevail when they command. Again, we must take care that this method, of unquestionable contribution to learning, does not make others of parallel evolution forget.
Other methods
The article aims to draw attention to the most practiced methods, but there are some more that are of interest to users, and which should also be considered. On the other hand, I could be misinformed about which ones are practiced the most, and I also tend to think of young managers and middle managers, and not so much of top managers (who can, however, also learn things).
Outdoor is, without a doubt, of interest, as is incentive tourism, combined for example with a seminar on intuition, or with a kick-off meeting; but it is not very present in the fight for the bulk of the budgets. I think it contributes well to oxygenation, the relationship between managers and even self-discovery -which is important-, but I don't know if so much to learning. Try the outdoor if you haven't already, but strive to draw lessons. I also see it as a complement to classroom training, but I remind you that I reflect in writing to encourage your own reflections, whether or not they coincide with those of this writer, who today seems to be in an autotelic flow.
Mayeutic workshops seem halfway between classroom training and coaching, but they also fit into the idea of group coaching. They do not rule out - but give way to - the subsequent stage of individual coaching, which perhaps would not be reached if the advantages of the technique used were not known. I think that this modality, although at the moment it seems more esoteric than exoteric, can be extended in companies, and I myself, as a consultant, am just starting out just in case.
Shadowing seems related (within the training of managers) with the relays. As it is practiced partially and without enough awareness of it, the performance is quite improvable, in general. Shadows can feel uncomfortable in the presence of third parties, and those observed do not always have the necessary profile of a good tutor, so they must take care of the method, if an organization adopts it, both for relays in management positions and for versatility or multi skilling.
Temporary transfer to headquarters was a common practice in multinationals, but we can refer to all the usual variants in large and medium-sized companies. One goes to another city or country, learns (or teaches, or both) and returns, usually to a better position. Not all transfers meet the goal of learning, but something is always learned. Although not much is learned, it seems that no one will discuss a promotion to someone who has spent a season with the company's Senior Management, or in some department of a certain elite, or simply in a distant destination (it is already known that an expert is a lord who comes from afar).
The acroamatic teaching should also deserve more attention, because, it seems to me, it transmits experience. I believe that there is always someone willing to tell us stories of interest, although they may lack conciseness and purpose, and we lack patience, curiosity and the ability to extract lessons. There are, of course, excellent storytellers…, but I think I'm already reaching 6,000 words.
I'm finishing
I submit for consideration the final messages of this modest consultant and observer. I believe that the continuous training of managers should focus on their professional efficiency, that is, on improving performance that translates into results, without forgetting the improvement in the well-understood quality of life at work, which, far from diminishing effectiveness collective, nurtures it. It is not necessary to eliminate the semi-formative actions tending to reward the best managers or workers, but it seems necessary to advance in authentic learning. It would therefore better separate orchestrated training for effective learning from orchestrated training, where appropriate, for other purposes, so that the return on money and effort spent can always be measured.
The previous learning effectiveness seems to be the consequence of an ideal analysis of the possible needs and solutions, and of means to orchestrate these. Managers responsible for training in companies can be proud of the budgets they manage, but more legitimately of the satisfaction of the people whose needs they serve. It does not seem to me a good idea that the HR areas stimulate (extrinsic motivation) the monitoring of courses (neither online, nor classroom-based) with points or credits that influence (or threaten to influence) the professional career; although it does seem reasonable to me that they reward their attendance when there is intrinsic motivation for it, and meaningful, autotelic, applicable learning is generated. Remember that, although convinced, I do not intend to be right, but to provoke your reflection;so please excuse my little bit of theoretical indoctrinator: I hope you didn't mind.
The e-learning-fast food providers, not forgetting that they have probably been supplying what was asked of them, seem to have already assumed that this collides very directly with users, and have redirected their strategies towards combined methods. But I believe that it is necessary to decide if it is worthwhile or not to continue with the programmed teaching online in the case of custom production. Perhaps it is necessary to continue with it, but generating valuable products for different clients, so that the quality is profitable.
The profitability of classroom training is also on the table, but it should not disappear. I have always had the feeling (I am always referring to the so-called “manager training”) that what was learned in the classroom in 8 hours, could be learned outside of it in 1 or 2 hours: I confess it as a student, but without hiding that I have dedicated myself to the training of managers (both in the classroom and online, and in both technical content and managerial skills) throughout my modest professional career. But, rather than drawing attention to the density of seminars or workshops, I would like to insist on the need not to leave these training actions isolated, with the danger that they will be diluted over time.
I also want to insist on the power of mayoutics, within the development of managers. In fact, as a simple solution, it is intended that the bosses are also coaches of their collaborators…; Well, the coach's technique can be learned, but you should make sure you have learned it. In any case, it may not be necessary to ask managers to be good coaches: it would be enough if they facilitated the development of professionals in their environment of influence. I end by accepting that there are many other methods that may be used with little awareness of it, but that can be very effective and economical. I quit because I am often told that I am too long…
One last thing. As much as a manager (or worker) feels developed, he can always learn something: let's not forget it. There is nothing more improper (maybe there is, but I can't think of it) than an arrogant manager; Well, yes, it suddenly occurs to me that even more ugly and dangerous is a narcissistic or psychopathic top manager. In short, let us always be humble, even those who are really great: it is a symptom of development. And one more: let us star in our own professional development, either as managers or as technical experts.
