This page contains a Flash digital edition of a book.
14


Feature


Robin Hoyle: in defence of training


This year’s chair of World of Learning explains why training shouldn’t be considered a dirty word


I


know I’m writing this as chair of World of Learning in a publication entitled Learning Magazine, but I’m a little concerned that the conversation about learning


might be being somewhat prejudicial to the practice of training. When I asked what I do, I talk about ‘training’. Whether I’m designing programmes, facilitating a group, presenting or creating an online module, first and foremost I am a trainer.


Hopefully (and if I’ve done my job right) the thing that people do when they attend the programmes I run, use the materials I have designed or read what I have written – is learn. The definition of learning I use is: ‘acquiring new or modifying existing knowledge, behaviours, skills, values, or preferences’. You’ll notice that nothing in that definition specifically talks about doing courses, completing modules or engaging in coaching sessions. The definition is about what happens, not how it happens. In fact, I would suggest that courses alone cannot fulfil this wide- ranging definition. Implementation in the real world is vital. As a trainer, therefore, my role is simple. It is to ‘enable people to do things differently and do different things’. Again, nothing about the how, just about the what. Lately, though, I’ve been reconsidering my definition of training. I should explain why. It is impossible to read anything about building workplace capability without encountering information and lots of opinion about informal learning. Recently, discussions about informal learning – however it is defined – have become positively evangelical. When a subject generates such fervour there is often a tendency to establish a position in


learningmagazine.co.uk


terms of what you are not, as well as what you are. The informal learning evangelists are most definitely not trainers. In fact, some of them are dismissive about the role training plays in organisations. We are constantly told that the change at the heart of my training definition is best driven by informal activities. Formal activities and experiences that people like me create are described as ineffective in the most withering terms. What’s more, the perceived low cost of informal training means that the gospel is warmly received in some quarters. One other thing has made me reconsider my training definition. Whenever things go wrong, training comes under the spotlight. The lack of training or its ineffectiveness is often blamed for poor performance. Whether the disaster under discussion involves agencies preventing child abuse or financial services firms misleading customers and mis-selling products – inadequate or – more usually – an absence of training will be blamed. When these scandals are reported, there’s


one more common factor - organisational culture. Whether it is described as target-driven, bullying or just plain toxic, culture is also a contributor to organisational failings. So, therefore, my new training definition needs to factor in standards and ensuring that things are done properly. In this way, my definition subtly changes to: ‘enabling people to do things right and do the right things’. Where an organisation is doing things right


already, then a culture that supports sharing and continuous informal learning seems to me to be a good thing. As a trainer, my role may be simply to create circumstances where that sharing and collaboration thrives. Through facilitating this continuous learning environment I should have ‘enabled people





The definition of coaching is about what happens, not how it happens


to do things right and do the right things’. So long as I have robust and relevant performance measures in place, then I might need to arrange very few formal opportunities for people to learn how to do their jobs.


But what if the organisation is failing?


What role do informal learning and a culture of sharing and collaboration then perform? Perhaps, rather than helping people adopt the right behaviours, the wrong behaviours are perpetuated. Maybe, in these circumstances, informal learning focuses on how to achieve





Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68