Bad Corporate Training
Many of us have been subject to corporate training that was somewhat less than enlightening. If you’ve been
in one of those session you might remember longing
for it to be over so you could get back to the work you
knew was piling up on your desk.
Do you recall what made the actual training so bad?
Was it the:
- Obnoxious trainer?
- Nice trainer with terrible training skills?
- Horrendous training materials?
- Absence of training materials?
- Topic that you had zero interest in exploring?
- People with whom you participated?
- Bad timing of the training?
(It took you out of the office during a very busy period - i.e. Christmas for a retail store manager.) - Training’s lack of relevance to your professional role and goals?
In What Drives Training Decisions, I observed that within organizations “…every three or so years, “the powers that be” will realize that they haven’t implemented…training…for some time. So the budget will be made available…to “do something.” After taking a cursory look at what’s “hot” in the training world, they will chose a few selections that they feel will create a tasty training menu.”
One example of such is a company is a major financial firm that started up in my hometown, Toronto. Between 1994 and 1999 it grew from a 100 person firm with one office, to a 2000 person firm with multiple offices across Canada. Now you might be thinking, “They must have had a fantastic training strategy to grow so fast!” Actually, they didn’t.
This firm’s executive training and management training approach consisted of bringing in authors and professional speakers 
to present to 50 or 100 employees at a time. There was no curriculum based on their managers’ or executives’ professional development needs. There was no measurement system to assess either knowledge retention or increased performance. This company simply threw information at their employees at regular intervals and believed that it had an effective employee development program.
That was easy to believe. After all, the company was growing rapidly, its profits were soaring and its market penetration was increasing in leaps and bounds. What they didn’t realize was that this success was largely attributable to good luck. They had been in the right market space at the right time with the right mix of products and services. And their luck continued through May 2000 when they were aquired by a much larger financial firm.
Why was that lucky? Because like a “hot stock” or commodity in a volatile market, this firm’s success was not built on a solid foundation. It could have been lost as quickly as it was gained. You see, it had attracted employees who were stars at riding the waves of success and failed to train them in other proficiencies. Its people lacked the skills, experience and resilience to successfully navigate becalmed or stormy seas.
And it’s not just companies that are unclear on what distinguishes the best training from mediocre or bad training. Many independent professionals and entrepreneurs also find distinguishing good training from bad rather challenging.
What’s the worst training you have experienced? Tell us about your best or worst corporate training - and what it was, specifically, that made them good or bad.
Increasing the ROI of Your Corporate Training
Now that we’ve looked at what drives training decisions in the majority of companies, it’s time to look at those elite organizations that regard training as the fuel that powers their successful:
- New product and service introductions
- Market penetration and expansion
- Revenue and profit growth
While these powerhouse companies are diverse in terms of their size, market sector and product offerings, what they do have in common is that they offer their employees TEN TIMES MORE TRAINING than other organizations. They also have structures that support their high levels of training by continually measuring and testing employee competencies. These structures track for positive changes and typically show a learning curve that begins with a 5% performance increase which over time climbs to 57%.
That’s more than a 200% increase in employee productivity!
Elite organizations think of performance enhancement tracking as the opposite 
sides of their training coin. They are the yin and yang of corporate training, because the increased performance measurement is the return an organization gets (ROI) on its training investment. A high ROI warrants additional training expenditures, and when the returns are assessed and found positive, additional training will be justified.
You can see how an organization that has invested years in tracking and measuring the impact of its corporate training inititaitves will have a highly accurate and reliable formula that enables them to get the most out of their people. The best organization can also slice and dice their formulas to effectively prescribe the exact training that will most positively impact a certain type of manager or executive.
Companies that are considered to have “the best of the best” training programs also take the compositions of their teams, departments and divisions into consideration when they are assigning training programs, to get the best collective results.
Given the logic of matching training programs to the measurement of positive performance change, why don’t more organizations do both? Why do some happily go for the yin and totally ignore the yang? This seems on the surface to be a resource or budget issue, but is more often a result of poor or short sighted leadership.
Most firms put their efforts into keeping the “businesses ball in play” and scoring on the competition.
It’s the rare companies blessed with confident and visionary leaders that give equal attention to the score of the game in play and the performance potential of their players.
The obvious benefits to this “train then measure performance increases” model inspired Miboso to offer an ongoing support program to clients who have completed the Authentic Personal Branding Program. It’s also what’s behind the creation of monthly community gatherings. The general Miboso community serves people who are currently developing Personal Brands, as well as those who are considering doing so. Miboso’s second personal brand community serves Program graduates, specifically those top performers who want to stay at the top of their game by keeping their actions, brand and vision aligned.
To participate in a Miboso community gathering, e-mail clientservice@miboso.com to request your guest pass and schedule of upcoming events.
What Drives Training Decisions?
We mentioned in Who’s Training You that most organizations do not have full time in-house trainers. And amongst those that have had, or do have trainers on their payrolls, there is a trend towards outsourcing training.
So if there’s no in-house training team, who or what is driving the training decisions within organizations? Is training introduced to address problems, as we discussed
in our Choosing Executive Training by Function or Dysfunction Series (Part 2, Part 3
and Part 4). Or is it chosen on the basis of apparent analysis? Could it be even more random that that? Corporate executives and managers admit that the training trends within their organizations sometimes seem more “flavour of the month” than pro-
active or corrective.
Here’s the scoop. Training is NOT considered a priority in most corporations.
The “big five” priorities in the corporate jungle are:
- Hitting revenue targets
- Increasing profitability
- Growing market share
- Keeping shareholders happy
- Staying ahead of the competition
Training doesn’t make that list. But it IS critical to the achievement of the “big five” list’s objectives. And it’s interesting to note that even a seasoned hunter would not attempt to go after a lion without the trackers and guide who have the training and equipment to support him in making a clean and humane kill. But would an American company wanting to penetrate an emerging market try to do so without a team trained in the special skills required to achieve that goal?
Could it be that organizations, even in this era of global and economic change, are overlooking the value of specific skills training? It could. In the average corporation, sales training gets 80% of the training dollars. Other training decisions are driven by time. Time? Yes!
Once every three or so years, “the powers that be” will realize that they haven’t implemented a broad scale training program for some time. So the budget will be made available for them to “do something.” After taking a cursory look at what’s “hot” in the training world, they will chose a few selections that they feel will create a tasty training menu. As training is an infrequent occurrence, the organization will see likely it as a “big deal” and add in other enticing elements, such as an opening keynote from the CEO on the how well the company is doing on achieving its vision. Heck, while everyone’s gathered together, they might also decide to give out some employee awards and spring for a celebratory dinner, since cost cutting measures eliminated corporate Christmas parties for the past 4 years.
Here’s the actual breakdown:
- Companies with less than 50 employees offer no formal training at all
- Companies with 200 - 500 employees send a few specific individuals off to training programs and requires them to deliver what they learned to other employees. This opportunistic approach is delivered on an “as available” basis. It may even be that what is presented as “training programs” is a calendar of in-house speakers who talk about their newest books or trends within the business environment or a specific market sector.
- Companies with 500 - 2000 employees (and forward thinking smaller companies) offer higher calibre training programs that are more logically structured, sequenced and frequent. Their trainers that have organizational development backgrounds and ASTD credentials. More thought goes into who gets what training.
- Companies with more than 2000 employees typically have well developed in-house training and may even boast a “corporate university.”
What do world’s most productive and profitable companies do? They have a different approach entirely. Read our article “The Best of the Best” to learn more. And if you have any other insights on what drives corporate training decision making, please add a comment.
Who’s Training You?
Our Corporate Training article establishes that one of the challenges faced by the people responsible for delivering corporate training is that within an organization, every level of staff, from hourly clerks to salaried senior executives, is made up of individuals with very different training needs.
“The vast majority already have post secondary education from a wide variety of colleges, universities or technical training programs. Many have been working in their specialty field for a few years, or much longer. So their levels of training and shallowness or depth of on-the-job experience are all over the map.”
Our Video Training article addresses the array of learning styles that drive the trainees’ ability to take in and apply the information that is presented to them in a training session. (Our free learning style assessment will enable you to identify your learning style preferences.)
So now that we have looked at the various needs of the people receiving corporate training, let’s take a moment to examine the people who deliver it.
What makes a good corporate trainer? What sort of outlook, academic background and work experience equips an individual to excel as a trainer within an organization?
One of our clients decided to become a corporate trainer after going through our Personal Branding Program. Today she’s one of the best in the business. Here’s her story:
Sara was a teacher who came to MIBOSO wanting to shift her skills from classroom teaching to on-line distance education. In the process of developing her personal brand she realized that her passion for teaching was fueled by being at the front of a room full of living, breathing people. Personal branding led Sara to become a seminar leader and corporate trainer, a role which puts her in front of hundreds of people each and every week. This career choice was an ideal expression of her talent, passion and years of teaching experience.
If Sara had followed through with her plan to teach through a distance education program, she would have really missed the human contact that her corporate training role provides. So I think it’s also fair to say that in addition to having teaching and educational program development, or instructional design skills, it’s important for trainers to be people who really like being with and interacting with other people.
Is Sara the norm when it comes to corporate trainers? It might surprise you to learn that she’s far better equipped than most. So just who is delivering training within organizations? Let’s address that question by reviewing some baseline data.
1. Most companies do not keep full-time trainers on their payrolls.
A December, 2006 survey by the Novations Group reports that responants identified a very stong trend towards an increasing use of e-learning (57%) in their organizations. The survey also identified trends towards fewer classroom hours (30%) and an increased outsourcing of trainers (25%).
2. Trainers tend to be people who can present well and process paperwork quickly.
Many have no experience in either teaching or instructional design. Nor do they have formal training in developing or delivering corporate training.
3. Corporate Trainers are often people who have attended a specific training program and have the natural ability to duplicate the delivery of that training within their own organization.
Due to an increasing need by corporations to quantify the results of the training and development deliverd to their employees, (and by validating the return on their investment, justify furture expenditures ) the vast majority of corporate training needs are being fulfilled by outsourced trainers/training organizations. This has largely reduced the remaining in-house trainers’ roles to that of training brokers. And those who also develop a facility to work with measurement metrics and the alternate training options that are being increasingly embraced by corporations, (e-learning 57%, on-the-job training 41%, and personal coaching 35%), will be able to deliver sufficient value to keep their jobs—for now.
This leads us to the question of who decides which specific training programs need to be delivered within an organization? It turns out that the answer to that question warrants an article of its own.
Is Corporate “Training & Development” an Oxymoron?
While studying the topics of corporate and executive training, this question kept repeating in my head, at ever increasing levels of insistence, “Is training and development an oxymoron?” To find the answer, and thus dismiss it from my internal “question queue,” I opened my old Webster’s Dictionary and began thumbing through its delicate pages. Surprisingly quickly (for a die-hard web searcher) I arrived at my first destination.
On the right hand side of a page covered with dense, tiny type sat the definition. “Training: The act, process or method of one who trains.” “Development,” Webster’s went on to say, is “The act, process or result of developing.” Putting these terms together joins the process of training with the process of developing, which produced another question. “Can training and development occur simultaneously?”
As Webster’s definitions only served to deepen my curiosity, it occured to me that I might find the answer I was seeking by looking at “the processes” of training and development. So I turned to the Goliath of the training and development world, the entity that offers recruits the opportunity to “be all that you can be,” the US Army.
Basic training gives new recruits rigorous physical and mental training. Its level of difficulty comes 
as much from the challenges of the physical training as from the challenge of adapting to a totally unfamiliar environment. Most importantly, the US Army’s basic training effectively separates those who have the potential to do well in the Army from those who do not.
Basic Training is divided into two parts: Basic Combat Training (BCT) and Advanced Individual Training (AIT) . After 9 weeks of BCT, recruits move into AIT where they get training specific to their chosen Army roles, such as operating tanks, firing artillery, being a medic, etc.
Making a Case for Basic Organizational Training
In the business world, the Army’s “Basic Combat Training” could be compared to a comprehensive orientation program for “new hires” that teaches them how to handle themselves successfully in their new environment. (And let’s not address the dearth of such programs in the business world. That topic that could easily fill a book or two!)
Combine Corporate Culture and Skills Training to Build Sustainable Productivity
To continue examining the parallels between the military and civillian business models, it seems that specific professional skills training programs could be compared to the Army’s “Advanced Individual Training.” Investing in ongoing employee skills updates would be an excellent way for organizations to ensure that the top people they attract continue to stay at the top of their game.
And when you look at the Army’s training model, it’s interesting to note that during AIT, recruits continue to fulfill the same duties and adhere to the same disciplinary rules established in BCT. They are also regularly tested on physical fitness and weapons proficiencies, two competencies that are essential to top performance.
A comparable corporate model would require that the skills that are key to an employees’ success within the company - the cultural, procedural and navigational proficiencies specific to their organization - would continue to be developed throughout the first few years of their employment.
To stay true to the Army model, during this period, they would also receive ongoing advanced training in the specific skills they need to maintain or grow the special knowledge that they were hired to utilize on their employer’s behalf.
What a marvelous approach! Simultaneously productive, practical and visionary.
Unfortunately the Army and Corporate training and development comparison falls apart on a number of fronts:
So what do corporate employees typically get, under the corporate training and development banner?
1. Productivity Skills Training
This training typically focuses on training that will resolve functional deficiencies within an organization, division or department. For example, people in the Finance Department may be encouraged to sign up for “Advanced Excel Training” if a lack of proficiency with this software is causing productivity issues.
2. Management Training
These programs address “teamwork,” or “time management” and are offered as perks based on rank. Middle and upper middle management are subjected to more of these programs than those at either the top or bottom of the corporate ladder. There is typically no attention paid to individual needs.
3. Corrective Training
This is when corporate training DOES focus on the individual. When an employee is having difficulty in their role, and is of sufficient value (or offers enough of a threat) to an organization to warrant correction, an executive coach will be called in to work with them on overcoming their specific challenges.
What do you think? Can we, in good conscience, call what the corporate world offers “Training & Development?” Are organizations truly joining “the process of training” with the “process of developing?” Or can this term only be used with certainty when speaking of Army recruits? (Perhaps “Military Intelligence” is not the oxymoron it’s largely held to be.) Will we continue to let the Army’s approach to training and development eclipse what’s offered in the civilian business world? Or will we choose to adapt their model and use it to create an elite force of exceptional employees who, through their choice of occupation and employer is also able to “be all that they can be?”
Finding the Best Corporate Training
The first of three initial challenges faced by HR managers tasked with sourcing corporate training for their firms’ employees is the abundance of training formats. Is on-line training better than weekly in-house workshops or would two or three day off-site intensives be more effective?
Every training professional is familiar with the statistics that say less than 20% of what is taught in corporate training sessions is retained. As they want the training to “stick,” the choice of format can be critical.
The second is the huge number of “Corporate Training Firms,” “Corporate Training Programs” and “Corporate Training Experts” that must be assessed when new corporate training needs are identified.
The third challenge is to review the programs that are being provided through existing suppliers to avoid redundancy. It recently came to light that an astounding number of successful, profitable and “lean” organizations are “double dipping” on corporate training. Because the corporate training decision makers are not the same people who set up the organizations employee benefits plan, the professional skills, effective communication and stress management programs that the benefits plan offers are all too often re sourced and duplicated by the corporate training providers.
Corporate training decision makers must consider three more questions that involve the extent to which the training will be outsourced.
- Should you hire a Corporate Training Expert to write custom programs tailored to fit your employees’ unique training needs?
- If your employees’ training needs are not particularly unique, can you buy the required training elements from of an “off the shelf” training program and have them “white labeled” for your organization?
- Would you get more buy in from employees if you choose a “brand name” training program, one that is known for its engaging and effective training techniques? If you choose the branded provider, the premium you pay for the brand could be outweighed by the cost of selecting specific trainings from a less well known training company and skinning them with your organization’s brand and corporate identity elements.
Once you know that the corporate training programs that your employees need…
a) are not available through any other existing channel, and
b) will be most effective if delivered through an external corporate training company that is known and respected by your employees*…you will have significantly narrowed the field of possible 
contenders.
Ask around in your professional network. Find out which corporate training providers are generating the best results for corporations with comparable needs. Wherever your colleague’s feedback aligns with your own research and the results of your employee survey, you have a qualified candidate!
*Conducting a brief employee survey will give you this information. More importantly, it will lay the groundwork for “buy in” when you let your employees know that you are giving them what they asked for!