The enigma of training
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
Mahmudur Rahman
It's needed. It's required. It's done. Yet somehow training, remains somewhat of a mystery. From multinational corporations to a makeshift shop training is oft a misunderstood and at times misinterpreted terminology. There's more to training than just following a process and most of it depends on the learner than the instructor.
The best coaches in the world will admit that they own a small percentage of success of an athlete, simply because the actual learning process belongs not to them but the individual who seeks to improve. It is this "seek" that is crucial because it defines the transformation of a desire into actuality, converting a "need" into "reality"
Nine times out of ten, the emphasis is on the preferred technique of allowing an individual to learn themselves. More and more organisations are turning to 'self learning" as being the best way for the individual to learn. As with most systems and processes there is no single way to perfection.
If by definition, training is to bring to a desired standard or efficiency, self-learning alone cannot suffice. The two key words "standards" and "efficiency" are relative depending on which perspective they are viewed from. The employer's expectation of standards and efficiency may well differ from that of the employee. This is where the human is so different from a machine, where efficiency levels are pre-determined. To date there really seems little by way of limits for human efficiency.
Key to the process is identification of training needs and this is one area where things can go horribly wrong. Expectations from a job often are used to define what the standards should be and that is where the learning process dies become limited. Needs' assessment, unless there is a balance between the two parties in question, can be terribly lop-sided. The 'perceived" need is often overlooked and therefore the trainer is actually limited before he or she can start. It all goes wrong when the gap between job specifications is divorced of job realities. And when the desired outcome is not achieved, the trainer or the employee is blamed. While the trainer's ability can be pre-judged, the ability of the trainee to receive is not taken into consideration. The case of school education in Bangladesh is a classic one, where less gifted students are not provided the alternative streams of learning.
Psychologists have stated upfront that the learning curve for toddlers differs from individual to individual. Some students thrive on figures, others on shapes and still others on sounds or speech patterns. And because we have little options varying styles of learning just cannot be universally offered or applied.
Even if the systems were balanced in approach, the follow-up is usually ignored. How many have really been challenged or tested in utilising skills picked up during training. Again, how many have on their own picked out ways of honing the skills that they were supposed to have picked up in the first place.
The next step, that of updating of skills is another enigma altogether. After all, the skills of today may not be relevant in two years time. Which leads to an obvious conclusion -- are the skills and knowledge picked up during eighteen years of schooling, really adequate for a lifetime? Perhaps, in a situation where the basics do not exist, this tantamounts to too forward thinking. (The writer is a former head of corporate and regulatory affairs of British-American Tobacco Bangladesh and former CEO of Bangladesh Cricket Board. He can be reached at mahmudrahman@gmail.com)
It's needed. It's required. It's done. Yet somehow training, remains somewhat of a mystery. From multinational corporations to a makeshift shop training is oft a misunderstood and at times misinterpreted terminology. There's more to training than just following a process and most of it depends on the learner than the instructor.
The best coaches in the world will admit that they own a small percentage of success of an athlete, simply because the actual learning process belongs not to them but the individual who seeks to improve. It is this "seek" that is crucial because it defines the transformation of a desire into actuality, converting a "need" into "reality"
Nine times out of ten, the emphasis is on the preferred technique of allowing an individual to learn themselves. More and more organisations are turning to 'self learning" as being the best way for the individual to learn. As with most systems and processes there is no single way to perfection.
If by definition, training is to bring to a desired standard or efficiency, self-learning alone cannot suffice. The two key words "standards" and "efficiency" are relative depending on which perspective they are viewed from. The employer's expectation of standards and efficiency may well differ from that of the employee. This is where the human is so different from a machine, where efficiency levels are pre-determined. To date there really seems little by way of limits for human efficiency.
Key to the process is identification of training needs and this is one area where things can go horribly wrong. Expectations from a job often are used to define what the standards should be and that is where the learning process dies become limited. Needs' assessment, unless there is a balance between the two parties in question, can be terribly lop-sided. The 'perceived" need is often overlooked and therefore the trainer is actually limited before he or she can start. It all goes wrong when the gap between job specifications is divorced of job realities. And when the desired outcome is not achieved, the trainer or the employee is blamed. While the trainer's ability can be pre-judged, the ability of the trainee to receive is not taken into consideration. The case of school education in Bangladesh is a classic one, where less gifted students are not provided the alternative streams of learning.
Psychologists have stated upfront that the learning curve for toddlers differs from individual to individual. Some students thrive on figures, others on shapes and still others on sounds or speech patterns. And because we have little options varying styles of learning just cannot be universally offered or applied.
Even if the systems were balanced in approach, the follow-up is usually ignored. How many have really been challenged or tested in utilising skills picked up during training. Again, how many have on their own picked out ways of honing the skills that they were supposed to have picked up in the first place.
The next step, that of updating of skills is another enigma altogether. After all, the skills of today may not be relevant in two years time. Which leads to an obvious conclusion -- are the skills and knowledge picked up during eighteen years of schooling, really adequate for a lifetime? Perhaps, in a situation where the basics do not exist, this tantamounts to too forward thinking. (The writer is a former head of corporate and regulatory affairs of British-American Tobacco Bangladesh and former CEO of Bangladesh Cricket Board. He can be reached at mahmudrahman@gmail.com)