Practice Makes Perfect
In Aids for Training, we established that the best trainers are those who are well trained and able to effectively use a variety of training tools. They don’t use them in order to make their training sessions more interesting (though they inevitably do). The best trainers select training aids that enable them to impart skills to their trainees. They focus on training aids that actually facilitate learning, so that by the end of the training session, the trainee is able to demonstrate that they have gained proficiency in the skill being taught.
On the other hand, rather than zeroing in on the most effective training tools, poor trainers default to picking the training aids that they like and know how to use.
We also disclosed that in the training world there is a prevalent false belief. It is, “If I tell you this, you’ll get it.” This untruth has a sister belief that is just as widespread and equally wrong. This second false belief is, “People don’t have to practice to gain competence.”
Unfortunately, when corporations and individuals go through the processes of choosing a training program, their decision making processes are all too often driven by the question, “How little can I get away with doing [to learn this skill].” This is why the “learn while you sleep” training programs of the 80’s sold so well. People want the results without doing the work.
Practice takes time, and most people (and the organizations that employ them) don’t want to spend the time practicing that’s required to truly build a skill. And so to contradict the old axiom “practice makes perfect” (which has long been supported by music, foreign language and athletics training programs, to name just a few) the false belief, “I don’t have to practice to gain competence” was born.
It’s an odd belief, because the male dominated business world is aware that sports teams spend about ten times as much time practicing as they do competing. Yet when it comes to personal or professional skills training, it’s expected that professionals pick up new skills without any practice at all.
I learned this myself, as a fledgling entrepreneur, straight out of the corporate nest, when I enrolled in a course to learn a web authoring software program called Dreamweaver. The training I chose was a three day trainer-led program conducted in a classroom setting at an IT training facility that cost $1,250. My assumption was that after the training was complete,I would know how to use the software.
Throughout the program I was a diligent trainee:
- Attentive in class
- Following the trainer’s every instruction
- Reading the training manual at breaks
- Completing all of my homework assignments.
During the training, I felt confident that the 
learning I had invested in was occurring. And yet on the fourth day, as I sat at my computer and looked at the the Dreamweaver toolbars and menus, I drew a total blank. Over the next few days, it became clear that I had developed no proficiency in the program whatsoever. In hindsight, it’s clear that because I merely followed directions in class, and was not given time to practice the skills being taught, the learning had not “taken.”
The instructor had told us to call him if we had questions after the program. I would have if I could have formulated one. Where I had expected to find proficiency was an echoing void. Without practice, none of the learning took root. Consequently, I was unable to develop my website, as planned.
Ineffective training costs—on two fronts. I needed to invest MORE time, energy and money into sourcing and paying a knowlegeable web developer. I also needed to invest additional training dollars in learning the fundamentals.
How I wish that training had been formatted differently! I would have beneffited so much more if it had been prepared by professional trainers with expertise in anchoring learning (as opposed to technicians with software knowledge). Knowledge dissemination is not training. Argh!
If I had not been an A student and also excelled in a number of professional skills training programs, it would have been easy to feel like a failure. Not the intent of training! And there’s an expensive, lingering cost to remotivating oneself or employees.
99.9% of what passes for training is someone “telling” someone something, not instructing them on anything. Be sure you source a trainer who is able to deliver the goods you’re paying for.
And now that we’ve established what separates excellent training skills from those that are merely average, stay with us to read and comment on our overviews of the typical versus optimal uses of training tools.
Aids for Training
Good listening skills are an important contributor to successful interpersonal relationships. But where should the ambitious corporate executive or independent professional turn, when they want to develop better listening skills?
Training Options Include:
- Book or audio book training
- On-line tutorials
- Trainer-led groups
- Personal Coaching
How can you identify which training option will be the most effective learning approach for you? Your decision will be driven by the amounts of time, effort and money that you are willing to invest. Other factors that influence your training choices are discussed in Is Video Training for You?
When you have identified your preferred training option, you’ll need to source a specific training format. If you choose a trainer-led group, you will have a few more options to consider. They include:
- Classroom Training
- Local or Destination Conferences
- Local or Destination Workshops or Seminars
When you choose to learn using books, audio books or on-line tutorials, the success of the training depends on you, the trainee. When working with a personal coach, the best outcomes are achieved by the coachees who devote the most effort and attention to the coaching process. But in trainer-led training formats, the success of the training depends on the trainer. Who’s Training You? talks about the sorts of training that trainers do and don’t receive. Clearly, the trainer you want at the front of your training room is someone who IS well trained. But not just in instructional design and presentation. The very best trainers also have training, and a high level of expertise, in the use of training tools. The majority of trainers do not.
Good Trainers:
- Spend more time asking questions than lecturing
- Know how to use training aids effectively
- Use training tools to build the interactivity that enables trainees to grasp and internalize learning
- Require trainees to demonstrate that the learning has “stuck”
Bad Trainers:
- Inundate their trainees with information
- Spend more time lecturing than asking questions
- Believe that all that’s required to transfer knowledge from Point A (their manuals) to Point B (their trainees) is simply presenting them with the material
- Hold an enduring false belief that says, “If I tell you this, you’ll get it”
Talking Is Not Training!
I think we’ve all endured more than enough training sessions where the knowledge presented does not stray from either the head of the instructor or the materials they present. We’ve been talked to but not trained.
One such instructor was my university Statistics Professor. He not only wrote the textbook we were assigned, but had the impressive ability to rapidly cover the three massive whiteboards at the front of the lecture hall with complex equations. And sometimes he covered all three with one incredibly long equation. Or at least that’s what I think he was doing. You see, I had no idea WHAT he was talking about. It was clear that HE knew. And it was equally clear that he was unable to impart his knowledge to his students. He told us. He showed us. But we still didn’t “get it.” From the outside, this professor looked like the ideal instructor. He knew his subject, inside and out. He wrote the textbook. But he was unable to effectively facilitate learning.
As Easy as Slicing Bread?
Effective learning and development requires far more than mere instruction. Imagine “telling” someone how to slice bread. You might direct them to “pick up a knife and cut the bread.” You may even take the time to tell them which knife to use, and describe it so they can find it easily. What you cannot “instruct” or “tell” is how they need to stand to put their shoulder into the cutting process. Or how it will feel in their body when they are doing it correctly versus incorrectly. The technique behind the skill needs to be experienced. It cannot be instructed in a way that connects the trainee with the experience.
Measuring Effectiveness
The effectiveness of any training can be measured. Simply observe a structured demonstration of the trainee effectively using their newly acquired skill. They must be able to demonstrate the skill. But they likely won’t be able to instruct another to do the same. In most cases, that’s alright, as instructing is the trainer’s skill. And if the trainee took the training to gain personal proficincy, their mission will be accomplished. But if the trainee took the training in order to train others, those “others” can expect to recieve more pain than gain.
Let’s look at another example that’s a little more complex than bread slicing. Our Personal Branding program combines instruction with interactive and experiential training. This approach enables our clients to develop the “technique” they need to successfully bring their personal brands to life. But we don’t only teach our clients how to build brands that will serve them today. They count on us to equip them with the “techniques” they need to grow and evolve their personal brands over time, so that they can achieve the success and fulfillment they desire. This is one of core reasons that our Personal Branding Clients choose to work with us.
To learn about another false belief that strikes out a lot of promising rookie trainees, read Practice Makes Perfect.
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?”
Choosing Executive Training by Function, or Dysfunction? Part 4
In this last part of our executive training series, we will be looking the greatest challenges faced by executives in three specific industries. We will examine them in point form, as what we are really looking for are common challenges that are indicators of broad based executive training needs.
In 2008, Fair Isaac Corporation commissioned The Tower Group to survey Banking Executives. Results showed that their greatest challenges are:
- Improving analytics - 75%
(Indicates needs for better risk management/long term planning) - Managing increasing credit delinquencies - 50%
(Indicates needs for risk management/reduction) - Developing enterprise-wide fraud solutions - 50%
(Indicates needs for risk management/reduction) - Dealing with the current credit crisis - 33%
(Indicates needs for risk management/reduction)
A 2008 NASSTRAC Member Survey asked Transportation Executives about their biggest challenges, which are:
- Concerns around increasing transportation costs (despite rising fuel costs) - 50%
(Indicates needs for innovation/cost controls) - Globalization: increasing international shipping demand / outsourcing to third-party logistics providers - 35.3%
(Indicates needs for effective collaboration/long term planning/contingency planning) - Market Conditions: coordinating transport sectors & technology/maintaining & restoring infrastructure/managing congestion - 29.5%
(Indicates needs for collaboration/teamwork, innovation/recruiting/retention, short and long term planning) - Fuel surcharges and runaway fuel costs - 35%
(Indicates needs for risk management/communication/innovation/efficiency) - Marketplace demands to maintain costs, ensure efficiencies and deliver quality, on-time service - 26.5%
(Indicates needs for communication/innovation/efficiency)
- Labor costs. 71% said this is the primary impediment to enhanced competitiveness
(Indicates needs for innovation/recruiting/retention, short and long term planning) - Tax policy and work rules - 66%.
(Indicates needs for compliance/risk management, short and long term planning/contingency planning) - Government bureaucracy - 65%
(Indicates needs for short and long term planning/contingency planning - Raw material prices - 56%
(Indicates needs for innovation, short and long term planning/contingency planning
As a number of core issues appear consistently across these different groups it is tempting to conclude that many of these executives would benefit from training that enables them to directly impact:
- innovation
- efficiency
- recruiting/retention
- short, long term and contingency planning
- risk management/reduction
- cost controls
- compliance
- communication
- collaboration/teamwork
That may generally be true. But are these “nice to have” skills, or “must haves?”
When you look at all of the challenges listed above from a solution-based perspective, what would equip these executives far better to address these issues—quickly and efficiently? I suggest that training these executives in Conflict Management, Problem Solving and Decision Making Training skills would deliver far better returns. To go further down that path, training in Focused Selection Interviewing, and/or Performance Planning and Directing would give them the additional insights necessary to turn their challenges into success opportunities.
The paradox in selecting executive training is that what will minimize the pain of the issue is often 
chosen over that which will tackle the source of the pain. From the inside, it can be very difficult to tell the difference, as the pain can be overwhelming. And indeed, in industries experiencing a great deal of pain, such as manufacturing executives who are facing a loss of competitiveness due to their huge labor costs, a general anesthetic may be a necessary prelude to life saving surgery. But the anesthetic will only hold the pain at bay for a short time. If surgery is not conducted, recovery will not be possible. The entity—as it was—will cease to exist and a new life form will emerge to take its place. Addressing what’s causing the pain in your organization requires courage. Anything less than complete truthfulness leaves remnants of the problem intact. They fester and reinfect the organization. Repeat surgeries increase the odds of executive or organizational mortality
Contact us to discuss your organization’s health. Our Training Needs Analysis is designed to diagnose the true cause(s) of your organization’s pain and provide a succinct and targeted prescription formulated to kill the infection and establish an environment for vigorous growth. And if, after reading this, you think, “Hah! Yeah, right,” perhaps the disease you are dealing with is indifference to the truth?
Choosing Executive Training by Function, or Dysfunction? Part 3
In the third part of this series on executive training, we’re going to turn our attention to the challenges and training needs of executives within specific industry groups.
According to a 2006 survey conducted by Accenture and The Economist Intelligence Unit, the biggest challenges of Hardware Manufacturing Executives (defined as executives in companies creating a wide range of products, from mobile phones, to cars, refrigerators and television sets) are:
- - Lack of in-house software expertise
- - Increasing the speed of time-to-market
(88% say they don’t do a good job of testing their products to prior to marketing them.)
- Developing automated testing capabilit
- Coordinating with outside partners and software developers.
To resolve three out of four of these challenges, Hardware Manufacturing Executives will need to attract managers and specialists who are savvy, experienced and able to think “outside the box” in terms of manufacturing, software development and testing processes. What sort of training will enable these executives to find such talent?
Interviewing skills training is one option to to consider. Our Executive Interviewing Skills Training enables you to hear what the other person is saying as well as the meaning, motivation and agenda behind their words. This lets you to dig deep quickly and walk away satisfied that you left no stone unturned.
It’s also important to remember when you are screening potential new hires, that as much as you’re assessing them, they are assessing you. So executive training programs such as the ones we offer on Personal Presence help you expand your charisma. This really makes a difference in the impression the candidate takes away of you, and by proxy, your company.
Coordinating effectively with others appears to require good collaboration and teamwork skills. But if you are a careful, methodical person, will you really be able to collaborate effectively with people who are driven by urgency, or individuals who regard diplomacy or politics as “a waste of time?” When choosing an executive teamwork training program, be sure you choose one that addresses the personality differences that drive dissension and conflict in teams. As real life rarely unfold as neatly as a role play in a controlled training setting, it’s essential that you emerge from the training equipped to collaborate effectively with the many types of personalities you will encounter. For as increasing globalization brings developed and emerging nations together more and more frequently, you will likely encounter a far broader diversity of personalities, values and attitudes than ever before.
Teamwork training programs that cover all of these necessary bases are always an excellent executive and management training investments. Not only do they facilitate good relations within companies, they also enable you to build strong bonds with external suppliers and customers.
In the next and last part of this series, we will move on to look at the executives’ greatest challenges by industry. Instead of taking the time to address each of them individually, we’ll be examining them in point form. When thinking of the challenges we have already discussed, what common threads do you expect to see emerging? What core issues might be driving these challenges? What types of training will best address and resolve these core issues? Read on to see what we uncovered.
Choosing Executive Training by Function, or Dysfunction? Part 2
We ended the first part of this article with the question “Are there common needs for Executive Training that supersede individual, functional and industry specific challenges?”
To continue uncovering the answer, let’s look at the results of a recent gender specific study conducted by executive search firm Korn/Ferry International. After asking about the greatest challenges faced by female finance executives, this survey finds that gender bias ranked as these executive’s biggest challenge. Gender bias is a composite issue made up of a number of related elements, such as exclusion from the “boy’s club,” stereotyping, double standards and more. For a full breakdown see “Exhibit 3.”
After reviewing this list, it seems that executive training would also benefit the male executives in these firms. “Understanding Gender Differences” would be the sort of training program that could facilitate a far greater understanding between male and female executives. Teams that understand each others needs and goals are more productive, innovative and happier. This training could do a lot to slow the revolving door that far too many female finance executives pass through.
This survey goes on to identify three other challenges that ranked highly for female finance executives. They are:
- “A lack of recognition for achievements”
- “Establishing strong mentorship and support systems”
- “Establishing a work-life balance”
Emotional Intelligence training could expand the executives’ ability to recognize the achievements of their peers and subordinates, and by so doing, boost morale. In addition, providing executives with coaching skills training would enable them to provide skillful internal mentoring and coaching support.
The work-life balance challenge is more difficult to address. Female financial executives reported that they had accommodated the time demands of their roles in a number of ways, from reducing the time allocated to their outside interests, to neglecting their health and in a few cases, even opting out of the “Mommy Track.” See “Exhibit 2” for a full breakdown of the responses in this catgory.
Assigning an executive coach to each executive is one way to help these executives develop their 
own individual answers to these very personal questions. But it can be a costly solution. Assigning an executive coach or a facilitator with relevant experience to work with groups of female finance executives on a regular basis could also produce effective and practical solutions, as long as all of the executives are comfortable being open with each other - and the facilitator. A third option for executives is our Personal Brand Development program. In addition to gaining an in-depth understandings of their internal motivations and driving values, participating executives will gain clarity on their greatest strengths and personal “Modus Operandi” or MO. They would also build their confidence and develop the effective communication skills that will equip them to operate on a more level playing field with their male counterparts.
Clearly we uncovered FAR more data than we expected to when we began looking at what drives the choices of executive training. In Part 3 of this article, we will carry on by looking at the challenges and training needs of executives within industry specific groups.
If you are a female finance executive, do you agree with the gender specific concerns that the Korn/Ferry International survey reveals? Have you come across other solutions that you can share with us? Please feel free to add your comments, then join us for Part 3.
Choosing Executive Training by Function, or Dysfunction? Part 1
Executive Training is such a popular search term that I felt compelled to ask, “What are all of the people who use it really looking for?” It would be logical to assume that companies invest in training for their executives to make their organization more 
effective and productive, giving them a good return on their investment. But one thing I learned during my 15 years in the corporate ranks is that organizational decisions are not always logical! So my next question is, “How do companies identify which executives stand to benefit most from what sort of training?” Is it industry specific? Function specific? Challenge specific? Are each executive’s training requirements unique to him or her? Or is the answer to be found in an executive training equation that combines values from all of these categories, and perhaps even more?
To find out, I conducted an informal and totally unscientific survey of recent reports and surveys that sought answers to the question, “What are the biggest challenges faced by executives?”
For oil company executives, in our current climate of high (and rising) gas prices, their biggest challenges seem to be:
- Changing the public perception of their companies from price gouging and monopolistic (quite a feat, given their industry’s penchant for mergers and over the top profits) to benevolent and philanthropic. In order to succeed in this objective, they must:
- Convince the public that their companies increasing sizes and profits enable them to serve their customers (and indeed, their countries) by funding the research and technological development necessary to explore and expand energy options.
- Explain to the public that maintaining (or growing) their ranking in a highly competitive industry is necessary for them to succeed with their above outlined mission.
How very interesting! It seems that the executive training that would best serve oil company executives would be programs that enhance their communication and persuasion skills. Media training would be helpful and debating skills could also be utilized.
Now let’s look at a the executive training requirements from a global perspective. Executives building global [for profit] enterprises state that their biggest challenges are*:
- “Maintaining a common corporate culture [throughout global markets]” 49%
- “Understanding local customs and ways of doing business” 44 %
- “Serving remote clients/customers effectively” 41%
What sorts of training would best serve executives facing these challenges? They might want to 
consider a culture enhancement program (which is another description for organizational brand development). Diversity training would also be useful, along with a high level customer service training which could be rolled down through the ranks to the people on the front lines who actually deal with the customers. Actually, it might be interesting to turn the tables by having the front line people educate the executives on the issues they face every day before launching an amended broad scale customer service training. Emotional Intelligence training, complete with before and after 360 assessments would benefit the executives as well.
Sadly, only 55% of the executives who participated in this survey believe that their organizations are equipped to “develop leaders with the aptitude and skills to adapt to rapid change and new learning.” So a solid, outsourced leadership development program is also required, which explains why so many Internet searches target “leadership training.”
(*Source: Accenture Survey conducted Jan. 25, 2007)
In Part 2 of this article, I will continue to search for the answer to the question: “Are there common needs for Executive Training that supersede individual, functional and industry specific challenges?” Tell us what you think, then check out Part 2 to see what we discovered.
Netting the Best Leadership Training
“Leadership” has become the most overused word of the 21st century. Primary school children are 
rated on their leadership skills in their report cards. Non profit volunteers are assessed on their leadership abilities when they are recruited to serve. And of course, in the business world, there are massive lineups for leadership training programs at the world’s most venerable educational institutions.
100 Texas principals are in the queue for the Harvard Business School’s Leadership Training. They are being sent by an Austin-based non profit chaired by former Lt. Governor of Texas, Bill Ratliff. He explains, “This is an exciting, historic opportunity for public school principals and public charter school administrators from across the state of Texas. By investing in the leadership of our schools, we will realize the positive impact of the Harvard training in day-to-day school management, in campus morale, and, most importantly, in the classroom.”*
Yale Divinity School offers a “Leadership in Public Ministry” course. Oxford University’s growing portfolio of Leadership Programs for China** offers a range of programs that focus on key priorities such as balancing economic growth, the environment and social development.
As you can see, when you search for leadership training, you cast a very wide net. It’s conceivable that it will take you so long to sift through the 20 million returns that your “leadership training” search delivers, you won’t have time to actually undertake the training. How will you decide what to keep in your net and what to toss back?
We suggest that you narrow your search by adding a qualifier to your “leadership training” search term. Googling “Leadership training for executives” delivers one fortieth of the number of returns that “leadership training” does, so you will reduce your array of choices to about half a million. ”Leadership training for entrepreneurs” delivers one fiftieth of 20 million, or about 300,000 returns. Searching for “leadership training for e-marketers” really narrows the field. It delivers a much more manageable “mere” 300 returns.
And if the notion of gaining the laser sharp inner perspectives that you need to lead yourself and/or your team to successfully reach your vision, please ask us about our personal vision and personal brand development programs.
*Source: March 26, 2008, Austin Business Journal
**Source: oxfordjournals.org
Who Needs Management Training?
One of MIBOSO’s personal branding client firms offers outsourced management training to corporations that lack internal training departments. After a few years of delivering their management training curriculum, their instructors found that while the bulk of their “students” were employed professionals, significant numbers of entrepreneurs and small business owners had signed up for their management training programs as well. Why? Because as their businesses or professional practices grew, they began taking on employees and partners. They also began doing more negotiating with suppliers and clients. This exposed their need for strong management skills. Here’s an example.
I think we’d all agree that a personal trainer has no great need of strong management skills. But what happens when an entrepreneur leverages his personal training skills to create an on-line personal training enterprise? Another MIBOSO personal branding client, John Allen Mollenhauer, is the founding genius behind MyTrainer.com. His website utilizes all of the latest technical innovations to serve its community of burned out professionals who are fed up with being out of shape, overweight or exhausted. Today John manages a highly skilled team whose competencies his business relies upon to attract and support a diverse global community.
So while management skills are clearly necessary for ambitious managers or employed professionals wanting to progress in their careers, management training is equally important for entrepreneurs and independent professionals wanting to grow their “practice” or consulting business into a larger entity. Actually, it may be even MORE critical for the entrepreneurs to get this training. While the trends today indicate that successful entrepreneurs have a somewhat higher percentage* of college degrees than the general population, a number of VERY successful entrepreneurs** are college or high school drop outs, and in even greater need of management training, on demand…
- Michael Dell dropped-out of college at age 19 to focus his energy on starting PC’s Limited, which later became Dell, Inc.
- Richard Branson dropped out of school at the age of 16 to start his first business venture. He went on to establish the Virgin brand and the 360 companies it owns.
- Bill Gates was a college drop out who started the world’s largest computer software company, Microsoft Corporation
- Debbi Fields started Mrs. Fields Chocolate Chippery as a 20 year old housewife with no business experience
- Steve Jobs attended one semester of college before quitting to work for Atari. He went on to co-found Apple Computers.
- Mary Kay Ash founded Mary Kay Inc. without any formal education or training
*Research Source: “Nascent Entrepreneurs in Canada: An Empirical Study,” a 2002 study found that: Among Canadians “more Nascent [beginning] Entrepreneurs had university education than the general population.”
** Statistics source: college-startup.com