I had a discussion recently. We all have them. I love ‘em. They inform. They stimulate. They provoke thought. We discuss the weather, politics and sports. We chat about our issues, our kids and our pastimes. We speak with our peers about our jobs. I had one of those. I love what I do and love to speak with others about it. Training others, wow. Yeah, maybe not the most exciting topic. It is for me. I like to ask questions and create a new context about how training evolves.
OK, so, consider an analogy. You are having a party and you would like to have a bottle of zinfandel. That is your thing. You go the wine store and seek out the bottle. Maybe you pick the one as soon as you walk in…it is on sale. Maybe not. In training, some organizations want to train a specific method or concept. Like the bottle of zin, that is an objective. And as a manager, you know you need to run an effective store. That also is an objective.
Here is where it gets tricky. Some go to the wine store and want a California zinfandel. Maybe they like the Russian River Valley zin’s from Sonoma or maybe they like Rodney Strong in particular. Maybe others like a French or Australian varietal that, though not like the American grape, provides the same finish or taste. The objective has not changed, just the delivery of the end result. In training, you will have a variety of learners. You will have everyone from newbies to crusters, from slow movers to quick adopters, from “don’t care” to “keeners”. Same objective though. As manager, we have people with varying degrees of personal, motivational, economical, sociological, generational and professional realities. Yeah, the objective is the same. In case you forgot, it was the whole effective store thing…not the zinfandel.
Point being? Well this was the discussion with a trusted peer. With all of this complexity, how does one create impact in training? Is it the content? No. It’s all the same stuff. Is it face to face versus internet based learning? Closer, but not really…arguments can be made for either one. It always comes back to the Kirkpatrick Evaluation of Learning thesis and its first element – REACTION. Learning can only occur when action stimulates reaction. Training is comprised of many actions, so which one is the right one? It depends. Think of the terms “Status Quo versus Big Bang”. Which do you think will provoke a higher degree of learning?
Action…reaction. It seems like something is missing. Consider the dialogue from The Matrix.
Morpheus: “We are looking for the key maker.”
The Merovingian: “Oh yes, it is true. The key maker, of course. But this is not a reason, this is not a why. The key maker himself, his very nature is a means. It is not an end. So to look for him is to be looking for a means to…do…what?”
Neo: “You know the answer to that question.”
The Merovingian: “But do you?”
So if I am to be an effective trainer or manager, I must first know the “why” and then the “way” becomes clearer. The “way” can and will most probably change. It will depend. The “what” will just be. I can hear my brother-in-law saying this “Kurt, what the heck are you saying?”
If the dissemination of information (even when it is peppered with a certain amount of bias) is required to be delivered, what makes for the best delivery? My challenge in training is how I provide a message to my learners in a different, unique and provocative way. How do I surprise, stimulate and influence how managers do their job? How do I (key word) provoke a learning reaction? Everyone has a different take, energy and taste in life, retail and yes, of course, in wines.
So what are some other considerations?
A big one is that despite our goal or objective, our “why”, everyone has a different take rate or buy-in…a different look at how things work out. We all bring certain knowledge to the table. Do others mirror that same level? No. Therefore, do we need to “force” it? Do we understand how other will “react”? Are we trying to make it happen or are we stimulating it? Are you OK with someone not being 100% and are you thinking about adapting to make change easier? Which leads us to…
Variety. Some like zins, some like chards and some like pinots. OK, sorry…couldn’t resist the wine thing again. This is a variety of points of view and reference. It is one thing to say one does not have the same buy-in; it is another to multiply that by 10, 20 or 100. You will never have a room full of the exact belief structure or degree of understanding. So this means if you grow and have scale, your objective becomes inherently inconsistent. And…
Then there is technology. The speed and accessibility of information has become incredibly monumental. It is changing how people ask questions, find answers to questions and then share their opinions regarding the answers and questions. I have to imagine, just for a second, what a 24 year old did in 1927 when they had a question about leadership or managing a team of 4 in a retail store. Now consider the same context for a 24 year old in 2012.
So the message does not matter as much as the delivery, people’s understanding and belief structure are variables and we all “google” stuff in .9 seconds. Wow, is it any wonder I am frustrated, you are now frustrated and my peer is always frustrated? It’s just a discussion. A discussion about management training. Or was it about wine? I need a glass of wine.
Cheers