I am referring, yes, to the training methods (classroom, e-learning, outdoor, acroamatic, readings, shadowing, coaching…) used in large companies, because, in this aspect and in others, we live a critical moment within the evolution of continuous training, especially with regard to managers and knowledge workers. Considering, for example, the movements of the training consulting sector, there is certainly room for reflections. Above all, references seem to be needed: what is really being pursued with the courses and other training actions? What is understood by “development” of managers?… Permanent learning and development seems inexcusable, but is there a return on investment,or at least from the expectation? What is the role of the Human Resources areas in this matter? And that of individuals? Is there a market for all the consulting firms in the sector? Do large companies move (as some suppliers say) by price, and not by quality? What does the sudden preaching of blended learning respond to?
With the arrival of e-learning, the competition between methods seemed to be stoked, but it could also be openly spoken of a fight fired up by the millions of euros that large companies put on the market (I read that Telefónica invested 10 million this year, only in e- learning)…
We should think that large companies choose method and provider thinking about the effectiveness of training, as Kirkpatrick understands it, but we already know that this has also been used as a reward, as an opportunity to establish relationships, as a means of improving the record or curriculum…
Despite important opinions to the contrary, I believe that effectiveness comes as much or more from the content of the learning than from the container (method); But the truth is that the sector seems to be organized by methods: e-learning providers join, coaches join…
Of course, we can accept that for a specific purpose, there are methods that are more suitable than others, but I do not rule out that sometimes the method is chosen before the content.
In short, it seems appropriate to take a look at the different competing methods, and we will do so after a few introductory paragraphs on the meaning of development and training.
Development and training
Referring to the organization –organizational development–, development seems to imply a continuous improvement of collective effectiveness, without multiplying the efforts made individually, or taking physical and mental stress and fatigue out of bounds, that is, with satisfaction of the persons.
It requires improvement and innovation in all functional aspects of the company, seen as a living system (pay attention to the "system" and the "live"). It requires an approximation of "us" and "them", and commitment of all.
It demands defense of the collective interest, and, perhaps for this reason, it can collide with particular interests. In principle, all organizations pursue their development and prosperity, although there could be exceptions: some "changes" seem to have consisted of "raising the house."
It also requires permanent learning and development of people, at all levels. With our concept now referring to people –development of managers–, development supposes –but remember that I am trying to provoke your reflection, contribution or dissent– a broadening of the horizon (wide angle) and a greater range of vision (telephoto lens); supposes the detection (and corresponding neutralization) of what they lack and surplus in their professional profile; it supposes the alignment with the acceptable liturgies and doctrines of the organization; it supposes the emergence of an energizing and negentropic self-leadership, which guides their performance; It implies personal and professional maturation, at the service of the community.
Developmental psychologists point precisely this orientation to the common or collective good.
Are companies interested in accelerating the development of their people? Yes, but probably not all: some well selected.
There are - or were - seminars or workshops for almost everyone (now sometimes replaced by on-line courses of little success); but 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 the relays. I would say that there is assurance of generational renewal, but there is not enough development of people.
I fear that development is often confused, or at least merged, with training, but let us remember that the training of managers aimed on the one hand at knowledge and hard skills, and on the other at strengths and soft skills, all of this except peripheral targets, pursuing efficiency.
I would almost miss a training aimed at a better quality of life at work, because in the end efficiency and satisfaction are synergistic and nurture the desirable virtuous circle, as opposed to the vicious one of psychic fatigue, stress and poor performance.
The learning
Surely we all like this word -learning- more; in principle because it places the individual as an active and not a passive subject, but there is more. Each of us would probably define learning in our own way.
Making an etymological interpretation, we would say that learning comes to mean "perfecting yourself by following a path." And this, in its journey into the future, seems applicable to both individuals and organizations.
The conquest of this future, or let's say more simply the prosperity of the organization, demands frequent and rapid structural, technical, cultural changes…; but it also demands changes in people. Rather than evolution or development of people, we would sometimes have to think of a certain reengineering of ourselves.
So when we talk about learning, we already say almost everything. I stick with the expression "organizational learning", with that of "team learning", and with that of "individual learning".
It seems that learning is worth both for knowledge and for skills, strengths, attitudes, beliefs, behaviors… So, when we talk about methods now, let's think about learning methods, and, within this article, about individual learning methods (even if we are sitting in a classroom with other participants).
Let's think about methods that serve the purpose of improving our PPP (perfectible professional profile), especially in the soft part of it, that is, in relation to:
- Basic intrapersonal strengths Advanced intrapersonal strengths Cognitive skills Interpersonal skills Mental values, beliefs and models Attitudes and behaviors
I will start with self-learning, which is an always-open option, and then I will submit my own vision of each of the most commonly used methods to the reader's consideration, except only those that I forget.
Self-taught (or self-taught)
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 their accreditations, the self-taught (say self-taught, if you prefer) not only takes advantage of any opportunity, but also generates them. It makes learning an autotelic activity; He does not learn to pass any exam, or to show off his knowledge: he learns by learning himself: that is his reward. His work appreciates him because he accuses him.
Although more than a method it is an alternative, I have started with self-learning because I believe that 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, can lead to problems, if he works in a mediocre environment.
He is typically very selective: he knows what he wants to learn and why. Before, the self-taught looked for opportunities in the company's “public” offer, and read books and magazines; Now he also has a great new tool, the Internet, which has made him develop a new skill: serendipity.
The autodidact is also a great observer, even of himself.
Of course, as, as you advance, new goals open up for you, sooner or later you need help; but it is usually aware of it and looks for it. Find 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 suppliers, it does not inflate the budgets of the training area, it does not need large aid, it does not adorn the resumes, it does not receive credits or points (exchangeable or from others) Of those awarded by the Human Resources areas, the subject is seen as a freak, there is no one who can claim the development of the self-taught…
If you are self-taught, persevere but hide it: you are going against the establishment.
Despite the above, I believe that self-learning will grow in the company, at the dawn of the age of knowledge, and at the risk of dissatisfaction generated by e-learning as a self-conducted method.
Internet
It is used by the self-taught and the non-self-taught (everyone who can), and it is more a means than a method; but I am referring here to searching the Internet (via Google, for example) 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 googling of e-learning, because the content offered by it is, in general, of low quality; Instead, one can find expert articles, reports, and tests on topics very typical of managers: leadership, intuition, active listening, intelligent conversation, feedback, innovation, quality of life at work, knowledge management, emotional intelligence, digestion of successes and failures, confidence, commitment, motivation, self-knowledge, evolution of mental models, autotelic orientation, personal mastery, systems thinking, client relationships…
All of these themes seem ubiquitous in all organizations and in all cultures.
I dare to compare the documents (generally free access) on the Internet with the online courses offered, because, in the aforementioned subjects, these courses are usually very short (one or two hours), like "pills", and they don't seem to satisfy users. Instead, there are portals, including this one, that offer valuable texts for managers. I know of works that, recently published, register 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 preparatory phase in many cases.
And it is also obvious that each manager, or knowledge worker, must have an individual development plan, which serves as a guide to dedicated efforts.
In other words, if a company allocates 4, 8 or 10 million euros to its e-learning providers, it must be sure that it would not have a better return with less expense, through the free connection of its people to the Internet.
Surely it is if you spend them, but the fact is that e-learning does not satisfy, and the Internet, if you search well, yes.
I want to elaborate on this point (and insist that authentic learning must be promoted with intrinsic and not extrinsic motivation), but… pay attention to googlelization.
E-learning
I do not know if still in the turn of the century, or already in the neosecular, the providers seemed to see a great business opportunity, and they even joined forces (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 demand for content.
Although it was released in 2003, in 2002 a book was produced that spoke of the “best practices” of e-learning in Spain. I read it carefully, and what caught my attention the most was how much there was talk of success: it seemed suspicious to me.
Also in 2002 (October) I remember that Raúl González, director of FYCSA, perhaps aware of the dropouts that the method generated, identified in a presentation the success of e-learning with an end rate higher than 75%, without going into analyzing the effectiveness of learning.
In fact, this e-learning provider company then relativized the contribution of content to learning, and reminded us that at university we learned complex topics with precarious content.
The fact is that, now, in 2004, the majority of e-learning users declare (perhaps they would have declared it earlier if they had been asked in a timely manner) that it is contributing little or nothing to improving performance.
Not all e-learning will be disappointing, but it does not seem to have served learning enough.
It seems that neither does it serve to oxygenate outside the office, nor to exchange opinions or points of view (virtual campuses are not yet turning out to be very virtuous, in general), so that we cannot speak of the success of the online method in its first steps, unless the Human Resources areas of the companies pursued only, and perhaps at all costs, its implementation as a method.
What does seem unquestionable is that the future of e-learning would have to go through a better service to users, which would be to say, by neutralizing technical access problems and by better content: this is what users demand, according to a recent study by Santillana Formación.
Still talking about content, in principle it would be possible to identify e-learning with the online version of that programmed teaching of decades ago, and I join this because Computer Aided Teaching seemed to emerge from this intention in the 80s; but also, and among other possibilities, e-learning now seems to be sometimes identified with traditional distance training, enriched with tutelary follow-up by e-mail.
You have your own opinion, but I prefer, as a definition of the concept, interactive and multimedia e-learning, although if necessary I would logically prefer a linear printed text, if its content were 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, prominent providers - such as José Ignacio Díez, vice president of APeL (Association of e-Learning Providers) - are publicly blaming their clients for their failures.
In other articles (which I refer to because I have received acquiescent feedback), I have spoken that perhaps more metempsychosis is needed than metamorphosis in this e-learning: something will have to be done.
Distance training
E-learning can be seen as such, but traditional distance training is still in force, and 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 shortage of those who call this e-learning, but I bet on clearly distinguishing if the study is carried out on the PC screen itself, with multimedia display and user-system dialogue, or if the study is done on material linear printed.
There are many managers who follow master's degrees at a distance, and who feel satisfied with the experience, but shorter courses are also followed at a distance. It seems natural that for communication with the tutor, and with other students, the asynchronous method of e-mail is preferred, and a virtual campus may even be available for synchronous and asynchronous discussions; But the study is done on printed material, generally of good didactic quality, the result of teaching experience.
Distance training (orchestrated from within the organization, or from outside it) is not a bad option for managers, if the content and service expectations are right; And I wouldn't be surprised if some e-learning providers dropped the “fast food” interactive design and moved to internet-supported distance learning.
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 the good old days, although perhaps more than visibly contributing to the learning of managerial skills, it has contributed to the other purposes already mentioned.
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 they transmitted, if they transmitted any. I also believe that sometimes a problem is passed on to the supplier that should have been resolved internally in the company.
This is all very complex and does not fit into this article, but in general, classroom training has to also be more in tune with the expectations, if not the needs, of the attendees.
I have never been in favor of turning classrooms into adult day care centers, and now less so. I think we should go from the festive spirit nursery workshops, to high-density workshops or mayeutical workshops; in other words, to a different… participation.
With regard to the alleged war of methods, I have observed how some providers who labeled themselves with e-learning have changed their image to that of "training consultants", perhaps to offer blended solutions that combine that with training in classroom.
Perhaps the reader thinks, as I do, 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 complements. It is the contents - I believe - that determine the suitability of the methods and their combinations, and then the best is chosen as far as possible.
Referring to blended, the Director of Development and Training of Telefónica de España, Carlos Pelegrín, argues that providers who are good at e-learning are not so good at face-to-face training, and vice versa, so one would go directly to training in the classroom, with supports, on line or off line, convenient.
Considering also the rejection generated by e-learning in its users, I would think of combining the classroom with supports such as coaching (better if genuine), readings of interest, feedback from a good source, individual or shared reflection, etc.
(I would like to take this opportunity to recall that this same Telefónica manager seems to also make the contribution of content to online learning relative, and prefers medium quality content to excellent content, so the debate is open).
Certainly, and returning to the classroom, it is not advisable to leave classroom training actions isolated because their effects are diluted. Companies know this well, and tend to assign senior managers the tutelage of the youngest learning.
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 much easier than it seems, and it does not subtract, but even adds, attention to daily work.
In short, I think that the blended-learning postulate goes through classroom training, and even through intranets, but not necessarily through e-learning (as we know it). But let's go to another method.
Coaching
Everything is more complex, but I would say that this is the “pull” method par excellence, and that traditionally in-company training has been typically “push”. There are things that only the maieutics of a good coach can achieve; what comes to link this method with a certain degree of learning-development already achieved, that is, with executives.
However, now that we are witnessing a certain exotericization of the esoteric, it is possible to apply Confucian or Socratic dialogue at lower levels. I was talking about mayeutical workshops, to refer to a variant of group coaching, which would precisely contribute to the dissemination of the method among young managers.
What business is there around coaching? Well, we would almost have to start talking about the training itself in its techniques, and soon we would have to separate segments. When a tag becomes a buzzword, it attracts upcoming (and not so close) activities: we should know better 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 be more of a tutor who helps us to generate our own answers to core questions that we had not even asked ourselves.
Without further ado, let's think of the great Chinese and Greek masters of antiquity.
I believe that all training consultants should be approaching the profile of the coach; But we should not repeat the error of e-learning: you have to be maieutic experts, and also experts in the personal needs and concerns of managers (not necessarily in 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 efficacy and quality of life.
If the maieutic ability is developed and the self-management of managers and personal fulfillment are deepened, coaching, also improving its affordability, seems to have almost as much future as past.
I add, that is to say, I remind you, that we also talk about virtual coaching, that is, at a distance in synchronous and asynchronous communication; I prefer the face-to-face by far, but the important thing is that, in your case, the virtual is also virtuous.
Mentoring
Mentoring has similarities to 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 mentee in their professional career.
Just as coaching focuses on the individual himself to build his fulfillment, mentoring is guided by the references of the organization.
The mentor takes advantage of his power of influence in the company so that, when the time comes, the pupil's development is taken advantage of in a position of greater relevance.
In 1997 they published an article on 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 similar profiles ”.
He also said, however, that it is preferable to practice it "in a way 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 former is an internal resource and the latter 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 (effort would have to be made to train them).
I did not say it in 1997, when I was talking about Telemachus and Mentor, but this method produces some reservations. 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 because it is a method in competition with others, but precisely because it should coexist with others.
Rotation
It was a very used method in the 90s, or it seemed to me. I remember arguing (slightly) with a senior manager at a large company about whether turnover was a means or an end.
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 held. This formula, which may seem efficient and inexpensive, can also be very expensive - it all depends.
Think that the developing manager is going to learn a lot, but, in the meantime, he will be occupying positions for which he may not be sufficiently prepared, and knowing that he is passing through.
Anyway, I see a possible conflict of legitimate objectives.
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 learn things too).
The outdoor has undoubtedly its interest, as does 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 to self-discovery - which is important - but I don't know if that much to learning. Try outdoors if you haven't, but do your best to learn.
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 mine.
Mayeutical workshops seem halfway between classroom training and coaching, but they also fit the idea of group coaching. They do not rule out - but rather give way - the subsequent stage of individual coaching, which might not be reached if the advantages of the technique used were not known.
I believe 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 specializing just in case.
Shadowing seems related (within the training of managers) with the relays. As it is practiced partially and without sufficient 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 present the necessary profile of a good tutor, so that the method must be taken care of, if an organization adopts it, both for replacements in managerial positions and for polyvalence or multi- skilling.
The 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. You go to another city or country, learn (or teach, or both) and come back, usually to a better position.
Not all transfers serve the purpose 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 a 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. I was recently listening to the gurus at the Expomanagement'2004 in Madrid, and I believe, yes, that the cases addressed there of some large companies, well related, are very instructive.
I myself have published a case on the Internet (about a sobering management buy out carried out with Gestlink) which, to my surprise, seems to have had many readings.
Finished
I submit the final messages of this modest consultant and observer for consideration. I believe that the continuous training of managers should focus on their professional effectiveness, that is, an improvement in performance that translates into results, without forgetting the improvement of the well understood quality of life at work, which, far from diminishing the effectiveness collective, nurtures it.
It is not necessary to eliminate semi-formative actions aimed at rewarding 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 above effectiveness in learning appears to be the consequence of an adequate analysis of the needs and possible solutions, and of the means to orchestrate these. Managers responsible for training in companies can take pride in the budgets they manage, but more legitimately in the satisfaction of the people whose needs they serve.
I do not think it is a good idea that HR areas stimulate (extrinsic motivation) the follow-up of courses (neither online, nor face-to-face in the classroom) with points or credits that influence (or threaten to influence) the professional trajectory; although it does seem reasonable to me that they reward their attendance when there is intrinsic motivation, and authentic, autotelic, learning. Remember that, although convinced, I do not intend to be right, but to provoke your reflection; So please excuse my indoctrination theorist touch.
The e-learning-fast food providers, without forgetting that they have probably been supplying what was asked of them, seem to have already assumed that this collides very head-on with the users, and redirects their strategies towards combined methods.
But I believe that it is necessary to decide whether or not it is worth continuing with the programmed online teaching in the case of custom production.
Perhaps it is necessary to continue with it, but generating valuable products for different customers, so that quality is profitable.
For when the client asks for low-cost tailor-made products (typical of large companies with strong purchasing power), things are complicated, but it would be necessary to sacrifice superfluous loads of interactivity and multimedia devices, which are didactic load.
I believe that, within e-learning, clients pay more attention to forms than funds, but users are more interested in these than in the former. This is how I perceive it.
The profitability of classroom training is also on the table, but it should not disappear; much less to be replaced by e-learning as seems to have been intended, more or less openly.
I have always had the feeling (I am always referring to the so-called “managerial training”) that what was learned in the classroom in 8 hours could be learned outside of it in 1 or 2 hours: I confess as a student, but without hiding that I have dedicated myself to training managers (both in the classroom and online, and both in technical content and management skills) throughout my modest professional career.
But, rather than drawing attention to the density of the seminars or workshops, I would like to insist on the need not to leave these training activities isolated, with the danger of their being diluted.
I also want to insist on the power of maieutics, within the development of managers.
Perhaps not all that shines as such is coaching, but the usefulness of a good coach is beginning to be accepted.
In fact, as a simple solution, it is intended that bosses are also coaches of their collaborators; well, the coach's technique can be learned, but you have to make sure you have learned it.
And 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 cheap.
I leave it now because I am often told that I extend myself too much…
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 unseemly (maybe there is, but I can't think of) than an arrogant manager; well, yes, it suddenly occurs to me that even more ugly and dangerous is a narcissistic or psychopathic senior manager.
In short, let us always be humble, even those who are really great: it is a symptom of development.
