TJ - The Publication for Learning and Development

Martyn Sloman

By Martyn Sloman (March 2008 Issue)
0 Comments Comments
Article Rating:

Poor Best

Email to a friend | Print Version

Few subjects seem to generate as much passion as any hint that the off-the-job training course is not necessarily the most effective vehicle for learning. A course has many advantages: it creates protected time for learning, brings people together to exchange views, and allows them to practise skills with feedback in a neutral environment – among other benefits.

However, the changing modern organisation means that there is more emphasis on on-the-job and peer-supported learning. It is also much more difficult to persuade managers to release staff for days on end, and training and learning events are getting shorter.

As I reflect on my past career I am amazed at what we took as acceptable. Twenty-five years ago I taught at the staff college of the National Coal Board. Delegates came for two, three or four weeks and even, on the flagship course, six weeks. They were divided into syndicates and given a group project, heard visiting lecturers, got drunk in the bar (it was a macho culture) and we delivered a range of skills modules.

My speciality was time management. This was always popular, evaluated well, and I pride myself that I did a good job. Who knows, I might even have left a few people with some useful techniques that they apply today; always ask ‘what is the best use of your time right now?’ was my favourite. However, I had a nagging doubt that (assuming that readers are familiar with Myers-Briggs Type Indicators) runs as follows: ‘J’ types are instinctively good time-managers and work out their own approach; ‘P’ types are hopeless whatever you suggest they do. Indeed, as a ‘J’ myself, it always amazes me that ‘P’s ever manage to catch a train or pay their household bills.

In retrospect, the problem is not the use of off-the-job residential training course as such, but the course catalogue. Simply running people through a standard sheep dip, though fashionable at the time, is inappropriate.

Jake Reynolds, of Cambridge Programme for Industry, argued in the CIPD publication Helping People Learn? that “a course is simply a period of time that may be used in any way necessary to promote the development of its participants. There is nothing in the name to suggest that it must be instructor-led, be wholly content-based, or indeed follow any other design philosophy. Many courses place greater emphasis on process than content, and some even place the design of process in the hands of the participants”.

These sentiments now seem to be reflected in some good practice initiatives. The design of much management training and learning focuses on an individual project, embedded in the organisation and developed through facilitated learning sets where participants are both supported and challenged.

However, there are always times when instructor-led activity is needed; when people need to be told what to do. I fly frequently from London to Scotland, where I teach at Glasgow Caledonian University. I would be horrified to hear a conversation between the cabin crew along the lines of “Shelagh, we are about to come down in the North Sea and will need to evacuate. This is your teachable moment. Have a look around, take account of the different types of passengers, consult others and come up with a plan”.

This situation calls for an automatic response delivered through behavioural training, not a consensus approach based on a socio-constructivist model.

‘Being told what to do’ is not a model that should be restricted to physical situations involving situations with machinery, plant or technology. A recent high-profile case concerned the BBC. In July 2007, it was revealed that the standards and production values had slipped on a number of prominent programmes and viewers were given incorrect or misleading impressions. Director General Mark Thompson immediately identified compulsory training as a critical part of the solution. All relevant staff members were required to attend a training module.

Here, the off-the-job training course is a signal from the organisation that something is really important.

So the course is not dead; far from it. What is out of date is the view that the solution to every skills problem can be solved in the training room and that the route map can be found in the training catalogue. Training and learning is a far more diffuse activity.

Martyn Sloman is CIPD adviser in learning, training and development. From 1997-2000 he worked as director of management education and training for Ernst & Young. He is a visiting professor at Glasgow Caledonian and Kingston Universities. He can be contacted at m.sloman@cipd.co.uk

We have only displayed above the opening paragraph of this article. If you are a TJ subscriber, login now so you can download a PDF of this article in full, free of charge. For non-subscribers the PDF can be purchased for £9.00 see the "Buy Now" Option above.

Click here for a free 30 day trial to Training Journal

Back to top | Current TJ

 

Readers Comment

Comment on this story here >

Be the first to comment on this news story