Despite the crisis, companies and organizations continue to allocate considerable resources to education and training. And it is to be expected that in the not too distant future many more will be dedicated: if investments in training and in managerial training are expensive, imagine the cost of not investing.
Different question is the efficiency, even the ROI, the performance of those resources and to this I want to dedicate these lines. There are three factors that, in my opinion, affect the effectiveness of training, ultimately the success, the success of changes, because training and change are closely linked. The three elements are: the trainer (s), the subjects of the training and the companies or organizations that sponsor and allocate resources to the training.
The trainers
In some ways, that of a trainer, that of a facilitator, is one of the so-called “helping professions”. From a neuro-evolutionary point of view, when we help we are developing our "survival credits" at the expense of other human beings; helping and being helped can evoke the transfer of emotions and behaviors stemming from the earliest and most powerful human relationships: parent-child relationships.
Therefore, the motivation to help connects directly with our "inner theater"; Helpers need to explore and understand their own motivations for doing so; They also need to ensure a personal balance between helping and being helped in their own lives. They need to supervise their work.
With the brief premises exposed, motivations of the dominant, narcissistic, “intellectual” type (“I know things that you don't know and you need me to learn them”), theoretical (when what is explained is much better exposed in many management books) and of personal appearance are incompatible with the help; so are the "gurus" who want others to accept and practice what they preach.
The main objective of the trainer should be to generate thought in others, never his own personal growth and for this he must put at the service of them his practical experiences, his experiences, his vulnerabilities; and from them and under them to investigate the theories, delve into the general underlying principles that will help others to think.
Sometimes the trainer is a “transitional object”, that is, many organizational phenomena (camaraderie, friendship, collaboration, fear, anger, rage, etc.) are projected onto him and the experienced professional must know that none of these feelings are directed to him personally: they are projections of what happens in the organization that are manifested (sometimes in the form of silence, disdain, disinterest) during training - because it is a space generally exempt from the risks involved in acting in the normal operations of the organization. company or with its organizational hierarchies -and you have to know how to elaborate them for the benefit of learning and discovery: helping others to think for themselves.
Participants
"Another training day, they will tell us a" roll ", they will leave and everything will remain the same." A very common comment. The reasons for it may be negative lived experiences but also what Edgar Schein calls "learning anxiety". Let's go with the negative experiences, even accept that the trainers that the participants have known have not lived up to expectations. But what was expected ?; What the speaker will tell his roll and leave ?. If so, there would have been collusion between trainers and participants. Why have the latter not taken the initiative? Why have they not asked the speaker to depart from the script and to relate their experiences? Why have they not taken control of the situation and taking advantage of this "transitional space"? talk about the issues that concern them ?; Why discipline,for not wanting to have a certain confrontation with the Human Resources department? What is all this telling us about the participants and the organization in which they work?
In an interview that Harvard Business Review, its editor Diane Coutou made Edgar Schein a few years ago it is said:
“Despite all the time, money, and energy executives spend on corporate change programs, the stark reality is that few companies manage to reinvent themselves. And this is because people in these companies rarely master the art of transformative learning, that is, deeply questioning prevailing assumptions or beliefs and, in response, altering their thoughts and actions. On the contrary, most people end up doing the usual thing in superficial makeup. Why is this transformative learning so difficult to achieve. ” In the interview, to a question from the editor, Edgar Schein replies: “I have a rather cautious position on what companies can and cannot achieve. Learning is a coercive process that needs blood, sweat,tears and a certain level of anxiety to achieve the desired effect. Anxiety is of two kinds, that of learning and that of survival. The latter is born from the conviction, not always aware, that without learning, at some point we will cease to be useful to the company and if we are not useful…… The one of learning derives from the fear of trying to learn- learning and change are interchangeable terms- and not get it ”. Schein goes on to say that it is difficult to alter and act upon the former; and that it is easier to do it on the second, new opportunities will always be offered if people are still interested.at some point we will stop being useful to the company and if we are not useful …… Learning arises from the fear of trying to learn- learning and changing are interchangeable terms- and not achieving it ”. Schein continues saying that it is difficult to alter and act on the first; and that it is easier to do it on the second, new opportunities will always be offered if people are still interested.at some point we will stop being useful to the company and if we are not useful …… Learning arises from the fear of trying to learn- learning and changing are interchangeable terms- and not achieving it ”. Schein continues saying that it is difficult to alter and act on the first; and that it is easier to do it on the second, new opportunities will always be offered if people are still interested.
Are participants always willing to sweat, bleed and have a certain level of anxiety? In short, do you want to learn? Do you want to change?
It would be better for all those who do not want to not attend these training programs, but then the other anxiety comes into play, that of survival. Perhaps organizations should explain this process in detail, in all its harshness …… and that each person chooses ……….
The companies
I maintain that the fundamental managerial learning from which all the others derive is the strategic one, if by strategy we understand the thinking and actions necessary to ensure the survival and sustainability of companies.
When the belief that the strategy is a private preserve for senior management is part of the company culture, it is very likely that the participants in the training processes will not be involved, among other things because they have that survival anxiety that nobody is capable of. to board.
Organizations that operate with this belief will offer dispersed, fragmented formations that will end up causing the boredom of the participants because they, unconsciously, when not consciously and verbally, will talk about the prevailing mental model that consists of dividing the personnel into two groups: one, relatively small, those who think; another, relatively large, those who do.
It is an artificial and damaging division because it does not take advantage of collective intelligence and because it causes discouragement to see that there is an impregnable power group that disdains everything that comes from outside it.
One of the answers is to offer training by professionals who are more in show business than in the authentic development of people; another, hiring the most expensive training firms. If we hire the best and do not measure up, it cannot be said that we have not done everything we can.
The Financial Times of July 31, 2013 publishes a comment about Nokia, about how national cultures influence organizations. At one point Nokia was the largest European technology company, but now it is in decline. The article alleges that its rapid growth was facilitated by the "Finnish psyche": hard work, honesty, unity to overcome adversity, and factual orientation above emotion. However, as his market grew, he fell victim to the (Finnish) “national trend” of reluctance to emotional engagement that caused him to distance himself from his clients.
If distancing yourself from customers in Finnish culture, and probably everyone, leads to decline, what effect will distancing yourself from employees have?
The education and training offered by companies to their employees must aim at rapprochement, attachment (in another article I will refer to this concept in detail) and not distancing.
