Managers are not satisfied with the training that is orchestrated in their companies, either for themselves or for their subordinates. Perhaps that is not what is said when completing the surveys on the last day of the course but, with a certain distance or perspective, it is declared that the training programs do not achieve the goals that are proposed. At first glance, it seems very frustrating, considering the magnitude of the budgets that are handled in large companies; Furthermore, the new methodological initiatives - think about e-learning - do not seem to have contributed yet to the improvement of results. But, after a first view, there may be second and third views.
I read it a few days ago in EL PAÍS: according to an Accenture study, only 14% of Spanish executives consider that the training programs meet the proposed objectives.
It seems that this percentage is not much higher in countries such as the United States, France, Germany, the United Kingdom or Australia, so that a change of course seems advisable, even if it implies or implies cessions in the status quo, redesign of programs, and even some reengineering of ourselves.
Supposedly, training providers - consultants, e-learning or outdoor companies, coaches, business schools, etc. - supply what is asked of them, because relationships are usually maintained; It would therefore be necessary to analyze the needs that are formulated from the business world.
A digression
Even though we are targeting the business world to define needs, perhaps we have to go further and target society itself. I am referring, for example, to a better quality of life in companies (which largely depends on the profile of managers), because everyone, workers and managers, accept that we can be, at the same time, more efficient and happy in our job.
We also accept that this improvement is necessary, and that it would positively affect other dimensions of our life. Also these days there is a painful news about psychological and physical harassment in a school, which reminds me of harassment in companies: mobbing did not seem to exist officially until we have named it.
So, while waiting for other considerations, I would think about avoiding excessive stress, psychic entropy, negative emotions and bad coexistence practices (performance reducers), and promoting personal fulfillment, autotelic satisfaction, intrinsic motivation and the caring spirit of community, because all this resonates with high performance and collective enjoyment.
These things depend, to a significant extent, on our skills profiles, but do training programs in companies also address this consideration?
Going back to the study
The study to which I have referred shows that, in training, the objectives point to an alignment with the company's strategy, the satisfaction of the needs of the workforce and the improvement of productivity; It seems that none of this is sufficiently achieved, or, at least, this is the impression of the managers surveyed.
Here an observer is as surprised as when, after large companies proclaimed the success of corporate e-learning in 2003, it was learned that palinodia was perhaps more appropriate than epinicio, judging by the opinion expressed by users of learning online in 2004, in a study by Santillana Formación.
Obviously, you don't have to wait for surveys to be published in the media to know that things are not going well; so we were aware that training monies were not generating enough learning.
Perhaps they nurtured other people's prosperity, but they did not generate the desired satisfaction and learning in the workforce.
This appears to be the case regardless of whether the training is geared towards supporting strategy, using new techniques or working methods, or better managing subordinates.
What Training Directors Say
It seems appropriate to resort to what those responsible for training in companies say when they relate their experiences.
Coincidentally, I was recently (the Accenture study was not yet known) at a discussion table held at a prestigious business school: Cesma.
Training Directors of large companies (LG Electronics, Ernst & Young, Danosa, Banco Popular, Atos Origin…) from different sectors told us about their experiences, and I wrote down some things that particularly interested me. I summarize them here:
- Still, in some companies, it is difficult to understand the need to develop personal skills in managers (soft skills). Most of the speakers considered that the attitude of their department should be proactive, and did not speak of the other times postulate "protagonism of people in their own development. ”Only one of the speakers seemed to consider himself at the service of people, and confessed that he typically works“ on demand. ”Much was said about motivation: motivation towards training, and that training motivates for performance. Only one of the speakers spoke of the measure of the effectiveness of training, and his system was very close to that of Kirkpatrick. It was admitted that training serves many things: “If you want to transmit something to the staff, wear it training: softens… ”. It was spoken only once, almost in passing,Management by competencies. Coaching was related to Senior Management. The possibilities of e-learning were accepted, only as a complement or reinforcement of classroom training: the experiences had not been encouraging.
Perhaps you will find a more rigorous reference in Executive Excellence magazine, which sponsored, together with AECOP, the event, but this is what seemed most revealing to me. I thought I perceived that training areas are basically at the service of Senior Management; There was nothing to object to, except because the role of people in their own development had been preached years ago, and the orientation of these areas at the service of people: the “service” of formation was often spoken of.
Naturally, each company can view training in its own way, and use the label for educational, motivational, informative, synergizing, aligning, and even distracting or alienating purposes, as the case may be.
My limited experience certainly makes me think that, as suggested by one of the executives who spoke, different purposes are disguised as training within the company, and I emphasize this because this could explain somewhat the non-achievement of formal objectives that denounce the Accenture study. Here is my modest contribution to the debate in Cesma.
My contribution
At the end, when the director of the business school, perhaps formally, seemed to ask for suggestions for improving the training of managers, this writer was one of the intervening parties, although I did not appreciate acquiescence to my words at the table, but a certain need to pass the turn to other assistants: we had already passed the hour.
I said that the training and development of young managers came to be the diagonal of a cube, and perhaps that already sounded like a new revolutionary theory.
On one axis, I placed the effectiveness and efficiency traditionally pursued to materialize the long and short term objectives; on another axis, the quality of life at work, and the third axis of the hexahedron pointed to the deployment of efficiency and satisfaction towards the manager's area of influence.
In other words, I put the quality of life in companies as an important objective in the development of managers, a goal that already interested me when I began to undergo work environment surveys in the 1980s.
This writer does not aspire to possess the keys, but in this article I do point out the need to advance in the reengineering of the development of managers, for the benefit of themselves, their collaborators and their organizations.
I do not know what the reader will think, but I would identify well what is development, what is training, and what is, if any, underneath the costumes; It seems to me a necessary exercise, if one wishes to ensure the achievement of the objectives pursued.
The thing is more complicated and for that reason there is subject for debate; Consider, for example, that a manager may believe that he is sent outdoors to learn to work as a team, and verify that, the following week, he has the same problems with his colleagues and collaborators… Is there, or is there not, inconvenient to recognize that the outdoors is healthy, but not miraculous?
Curiously, one of the attendees at the discussion table, who had recently attended a psychologists' congress in Stockholm, pointed out that psychopathy in managers was much more frequent than desirable.
I would add references to narcissism and other personality disorders (these things are always more visible in bosses), but we must also refer to the existence of many managers who enjoy the emotional attachment of their environment, and who create microclimates of efficiency and satisfaction professional around him.
I confess that I have spent the whole of 2004 punishing the reader with the quality of life in companies, focusing it on professional autothelia, negentropization, and relationships with others and with ourselves.
I have seen, for example, how several modest articles of mine on the subject have appeared published on numerous Internet portals, with which I had no connection: it is clear that there is some interest in the subject.
On the other hand, I promise you that I did not invent work climate surveys: they were already invented, and I simply felt fooled by them in the past.
Expectations and needs of managers
We said at the beginning that managers are dissatisfied with the training that is orchestrated in their companies; but perhaps there would not be so much unanimity in defining the formation they expect.
It could even happen that some are not very sure of needing training, although they do feel like oxygenating themselves outdoors, establishing new relationships in a master's degree, improving their curriculum with new short and long-term training actions, or getting the credits or points they give access to promotions.
However, let us think, no matter how secure, that most are interested in learning, and even that they are aware of what they lack - and there is plenty - in their always perfectible professional profile.
Let us discard, on the other hand, the idea that managers complain about training to explain possible deficiencies in their performance (do not rule out, who does not want to do so, this possibility).
If a manager was not aware of their shortcomings, that is where - I believe - the human resources areas of companies would have to start: by facilitating everyone's self-knowledge, and self-criticism in the face of accepted models.
All people, but especially managers, must know themselves in the various dimensions of this self-knowledge: what we are, what we know, what we think, what we feel, and what we do.
We have to know, if we are narcissistic or neurotic; we have to know, if we have become technically out of date; we have to know, if we are wrong; we have to be aware of our emotions, whether they are positive or negative; we have to be self-critical with our behavior.
Even more: we have to be aware of the effects - positive and negative - of our personal traits on individual and collective performance.
We may need to develop a few skills or attitudes - think about computer literacy, communication, empathy, systems thinking, creativity, initiative, synthesis capacity, self-control, serendipity, personal mastery, the ability to allegation or inquiry, etc.-, or modify some beliefs, or cultivate a few values, and we do not know how. We may be very intuitive, but we are wasting this resource.
Maybe we have a talent for something else, and we don't know it. Perhaps we believe we are infallible, and this will lead us inexorably to failure.
Perhaps the cult of the ego leads us to narcissism, and we do not realize it. Maybe we should be the best solution for our area of influence, but we are the biggest problem. Perhaps we are moving from savoring to complacency, or from self-confidence to arrogance, or from a quest for achievement to a thirst for power.
An etymological and timely definition: learning is perfecting yourself by following a path.
We must all be on the lookout for opportunities to learn, and we must make the most of them.
It would not be worthwhile for us to criticize the quality or effectiveness of the training actions, if we were not taking advantage of them sufficiently, with a positive attitude resulting from self-criticism.
People must want to learn, and companies must make it easier for us to do so, to our mutual benefit.
But I am not going to distort the result of the study to which I was referring here, but I am trying to draw attention to the alarm that it supposes; Or will we remain unmoved by the information? Even if only half were dissatisfied - and not the vast majority, as it seems - the situation would continue to demand careful reflection, during which we would have to slow down inferences and draw conclusions.
Other consideration
What responsibility is being poorly exercised, if managers are dissatisfied with the training that is orchestrated in companies? It seems, indeed, a case of dissatisfied clients, although it is true that the results achieved also depend, to a large extent, on the participants themselves in the training actions.
As the matter is complex, the reader will understand that this writer will not reach his own conclusions but will try to encourage reflections, as I just said a few lines ago.
On the other hand, the dissatisfaction to which we refer may not matter too much to companies…
To this modest observer yes, but businessmen and senior executives decide on the matter.
Looking for positive changes, we can think about the areas of human resources, or training, of the companies, in addition to thinking, of course, about the workers or managers participating in the training actions.
We can even think about what content a master's degree in "Expert in company training management" would have, to see with what orientation a manager would arrive at the position of "Director of Development and Training" of a large company, after being selected by so Brilliant addition to your resume.
This manager will typically find himself with a beautiful budget from which he must get the most out of, not to mention the grants he will have to get; but it will be found, above all, with a staff whose professional potential is insufficiently used, and who seems to be crying out for it to be better used.
A Director of Training - or Human Resources - has to make decisions, but it is not possible to choose those that are less criticized, or that are more convenient to his immediate environment; It must decide for the benefit of improving the organization's results in the short and long term, preventing things from being adulterated due to misaligned interests.
If the training is well oriented and well explained, its users will be predisposed to take advantage of it and appreciate it; if the training is poorly oriented or poorly explained, there will be a negative bias. Does the reader agree or disagree?
One - manager or worker - must go convinced and satisfied to a training action: only in this way, with this catalytic attitude, can learning take place and experience the autotelic satisfaction of learning.
In this way, and assuming the necessary inexcusable quality of training, you will continue to be satisfied when the training action is completed, and when you verify the corresponding improvement in performance. This has nothing to do with the way in which e-learning has been orchestrated, to speak of specific things.
In e-learning, success seemed to be identified with participation (by the way, often extrinsically motivated) and not with learning effectiveness.
Finished
I think that, if you wish, you already have a topic for discussion. I just add one last thing related precisely to e-learning. I reproduce some statements by José Ignacio Díez, CEO of FYCSA, when he was treasurer (now vice president) of the Association of e-Learning Providers (APeL).
He said in a book on the best e-learning practices in Spain: “It is relevant to note that in successful cases, considering as such reaching an end rate greater than 75%, (…) in some cases the main success factor the motivation of people… ”.
At another time, Díez pointed to other more global measures (of success): “overwhelming successes measured with any of the known indices: people involved in online training out of the total workforce, which exceed 50%; hours of online training on total hours of training that reach figures of 40%; start rates and end rates above 80 or 90%; reductions in the cost of training… ”.
I bring, as an example, these statements here because I fear that the training areas of large companies also have a tendency to generate large figures for their annual reports to Senior Management, whether it is e-learning, or face-to-face training, or others. modalities.
I believe that one hour of effective learning is better than two hours of waste of time; But now I'm done, I really leave you, and I thank you for making it this far.
