I’ve read David Maister’s work in the past but only just found his blog. Maister writes,
For much of my professional life, I have been paid to do training. It has been very well received in the sense that I have (usually) obtained high ratings, and clients not only paid their bills, but invited me back to do it again and again.
However, I now believe that the majority of business training, by me and by everyone else, is a waste of money and time, because only a microscopic fraction of training is ever put into practice and the hoped-for benefits obtained.
Unfortunately, training and other kinds of meetings and conferences are too often organized as stand-alone events, with a life of their own, disconnected from the firm’s progress.
What companies don’t seem to understand is that, as I shall discuss later in this article, training is a wonderful last step in bringing about changed organizational and personal behavior, but a pathetically useless first step.
3 comments ↓
One model I use is based on Mager & Pipe’s classic reference book, Analysing Performance Problems. You should ask these questions BEFORE prescribing training:
Are there obstacles to performance? (remove these first)
Are there inadequate resources? (training won’t address a lack of resources)
Is NOT performing rewarded? (might need to look at policies and procedures)
Is performance punished? (could be a supervisory issue)
Does performance matter?
and finally; Is the performance gap due to a lack of skills or knowledge for something that has not been done before? (if yes, then training may be suitable)
Diagram here: http://www.jarche.com/?p=727
Brilliant! Both the post and the comment from Harold. There are some dreamy-eyed instructional designers out there that need to get this msg. Its a hard one, but reality sucks. In my world we stopped using the chart Harold links to because then what would training do? All of those 5 items before training is recommended is ALWAYS! the case when internal clients come my way. But they don’t want to here it. They just want what they want…a training course. So we give it too them. I hate that part of my job. But I’m puttin’ my foot down. No more. I’m liberating myself and my colleagues. The internal revolution is long under way. Thanks for posting more ammunition.
Jay, and all, I’ve posted several articles on the theme of how ineffective most corporate training has been. You’ll find them listed as Opinion Pieces here: http://www.performance-vision.com/cn-articles.htm
The first two articles I introduce as follows:
Less Than a Penny for Learning
Written January 3, 2002, this piece describes three “nested” eighty-twenty rules which may be summarized as follows: little of what we spend on training goes to design; little of what we do spend on design is effective or relevant to job performance; and, even that ignores the vast majority of critical job learning that happens out of our usual sight - unstructured, inconsistently, on the job.
Stating the Obvious: Most Training is Boring, Ineffective, or Both
This was first written September 9, 2000 in response to Michelle Delio’s report, “Online Training ‘Boring’” (Wired News, August 30, 2000). Human Resources Executive published a version of my response in their January 2001 issue, but I feel my original makes a more coherent case. In her report, Michelle related results from a Forrester Research survey and other sources which assert that managers have difficulty getting staff to sign up for online learning, or completing courses that staff begin. The reasons she cited are several but focus on dull, text-based course designs. She went on to quote several sources who play the old song that people need to be taught by, and in the presence of other, people. She was right of course, at least as far as she went. Online training is boring. I’m only surprised that it took a survey to reach that conclusion. But we can go a lot further, and I think it is about time that we stated the obvious.
Regards, - Stan
Leave a Comment