Corporate Training is broken

‘Corporate Training is broken, so why are you still doing it?’ by Libby Drake, Training Journal, March 2014

This article asks a lot of questions but only provides a few of the answers.  It is however worth reading for anyone involved in designing learning solutions because it reminds us of what we should be striving for; that perfect blended learning programme where all attendees have been fully briefed by their line manager, have agreed their personal objectives and have completed their pre-course work. And afterwards they all go back to their jobs and transfer their learning, with the eager support of an engaged senior management.  Most learning professionals work towards this goal but also know how difficult it is to achieve.

The article addresses these issues by asking a series of questions which starts with the one in the title.  The author quotes a commendable amount of research results to back up her argument, which made me feel rather guilty about not knowing before, for instance; 50% of effectiveness of learning comes from post course activities (Peterson), people who receive support from their line manager use more of the learning (Cromwell and Kolb) and are more likely to practice their new skills (Ford and Axtell).  None of these findings are new or surprising but it is important to know that there is research to back up such assertions.

The disappointment of the article is that it is better at asking the questions and providing idealistic answers than it is about getting to the root of the problem.  At the end of the article the author (an instructional designer) suggests that one solution is to have more qualified instructional designers and to improve retention of learning by asking course participants to take notes.  Though these solutions could help at the margin, the key issue is the learning culture of each company and how learning professionals can successfully engage participants and their line managers. 

The challenge is how you create the necessary commitment and that is about starting from the needs of the business and developing tailored learning solutions in which those who take part, and their managers, are fully involved.  This does not just require instructional design skills, it requires knowledge of the business and the time and patience to get managers on board.  At MTP we did, in our early days, run some courses that were not fully related to the needs of our clients’ businesses and it was a depressing experience that achieved very little.  But over time we have seen clients change their approach and develop programmes that really do engage everyone involved and  lead to changes in behaviour.  It will rarely be perfect and maintaining engagement is a constant battle but it is always worth the effort.

So this article is valuable because of the issues it raises and it is perhaps expecting too much to look for easy solutions.  It is a good contribution to a debate in which all those involved in management education should be engaged.

Read the original article here

Alan Warner