External Training essay
The topic of external training seems to be one of the most disputable in field of labor relations improving. Large controversies are gathered around its efficiency in fact. To take the look at appropriate problem, there is the attempt to compare and contrast to interesting articles, directly devoted to the efficiency of external training – “Why (Most) Training is Useless” and “TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?”.
To begin with, let’s get clear with the general view on the plots of these two articles. The first one, “Why (Most) Training is Useless” written by David Maister. This work worth to be called detailed evaluation of the serious misses, that usually happen with recently adopted external trainings. The clear list of counteracting factors for training benefits achieving is defined there. The author doesn’t deny the usability of training institution in general. The main idea devoted to needful changes in training system and approach, which will help to make institution beneficial at last. On the other hand,“TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?” is different with its meaning and written by unknown author. This work doesn’t seem so persuasive and comprehensive as the first one. The general idea is devoted to training’s usability. It’s beneficial meaning is supported by the author. However, there is the short view on some doubtful reason, which looks too generalized and not specified to determine useless nature of some external trainings. It is stated that these two articles can be compared as the manifestations of long-time adopted benefit-less approach(the second article) and innovational look at problem, with real solutions for efficiency improving (the first article). Let’s draw some particular analogues.
At first, “TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?” article grabs our attention with the common relevance of training as efficient tool to go with the times and rapid changes that inherent to every organization: “Change has accelerated to the point where some organizations are in chaos, and most are at least staggered. What all this means is that as our work worlds change, new skills, knowledge and concepts are needed to achieve our corporate goals. And, our personal goals. Just to stay even, and just to keep our sanity” (“TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?”,n.d.). Looking reasonable statement can be easily argued. The point is this quote emphasizes common need in training courses taking, missing the fact that training is always personally approached as there no training programs for the entire company’s staff. The same idea is supported by David Maister who writes: “Unfortunately, training and other kinds of meetings and conferences are too often organized as stand-alone events, with a life of their own, disconnected from the firm’s progress. Companies train people in new areas but then send them back to their operating groups, subject to the same measures and management approaches as before”(Maister, 2006). This comparison was used to show out one of the greatest problem of all trainings, which are concentrated around personalities, who have no ability to implement obtained knowledge at the work place.
The next comparison will be devoted to management skills improving. In this order, “TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?” take the side of belief that training is useful to improve management skills, whichare needful professional managing activities: “At a management level, the skills needed to manage a flat organization, a Total Quality Management organization, or a Special Operating Agency are different than those we have”(“TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?”,n.d.). The author of this work considers that the common management feel lack of knowledge, what causes no opportunity for skills development. This, doubtful claim is also refuted in “Why (Most) Training is Useless” article: “Managing is a skill, and (as it transpires) has nothing to do with rationality, logic, IQ, or intelligence. Whether you can manage is a simple question of whether or not you can influence individuals or organizations to accomplish something. It’s about influencing people, singly, in groups, or in hordes.No amount of understanding, knowledge or intelligence will help if you are not able to interact with people and get the response you desire” (Maister, 2006). In this order, we find out the claim that management improving cannot be provided through some additional knowledge giving. According to David Maister, modulating training is the only efficient to increase management abilities: “If, however, we really want to help people develop skills, we must view “training” the way an exercise instructor would use that word — designing a planned set of activities that engage the right “muscles” and slowly build them up through the experience of doing”(Maister,2006). So, we faced the controversies between rational and emotional approach to training. It wroth being mentionedthat the first one is commonly adopted today. However, it is doubtful with its efficiency and large disputes around management external training is the best evidence to this. In this respect, thought of David Maister seems to be much more convincing and it is going to become one more innovative and improving change in training approach.
Another contrast of analyzed articles related to the accomplishments of external training. For example, there is the next statement in “TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?”: “Training can help to: build a common understanding of the organization’s purpose, show management’s commitment and loyalty to employees, develop people so they can increase their responsibilities and contribute to the organization in new ways”(“TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?”,n.d..). Seemingly, such approach is also accustomed to be disputable issue in external training field today. The point is in inspiring nature of noted tasks. Three before mentioned directions require full revelation from the both sides – management and employee staff. It’s missing makes mission impossible. Unfortunately, this practice is widely adopted. David Maister writes in next way: “Very frequently, the person who calls me to discuss a speech or a training course is a conference planner empowered to engage in a discussion about how to bring about the changes that management desires. Their role is frequently unenviable. Such people are often (perhaps even usually) given an impossible task: put on a development program that will change things around here, but leave management out of it!” (Maister,2006). In this order, closeness to collaboration with employees trend is determined as one more point that is harmful to training’s efficiency, and this idea seems to be reasonable.
The last controversial point to be considered is different approaches to training as improving solution. The “TRAINING – UGH! What Is It Good For…Anyway…?” article takes widely adopted opinion that training cannot be official if the roots of problem are far from program competence. It is curious, that article does not defines the limits of identified problems, which can be resolved by training. Frankly, this idea can be understood in next way – we do what we do, if it doesn’t work we are out of responsibility. Seemingly, this attitude is the greatest harmful feature of modern training programs and their efficiency-less nature. Instead of searching for ways out, it is much more convenient to think thattask’s resolving impossible in principle. However, right approach to training program organizing is incredible with its potential. The only step to be provided is the new view on the field. Seemingly, changing intentions of David Maister are devoted to the same idea. In this order, “Why (Most) Training is Useless” article is even more strong with its proclamation of right training usability.
To conclude, comparison and contrasting of two analyzed articles became influential with established view on external trading problems and challenges. In fact, we read about two different perspectives – traditional and innovative. Simple analogues drawing showed out serious misses which are insurmountable obstacles on the way to training institution improving today. “Why (Most) Training is Useless” by David Maister seems to be the innovative and fresh look at the accustomed troubles. It is important that concrete solutions for problems resolving and general improving are contained there. Facing the challenges is always harder than reality accept, but it is the only way out for progress. This idea became the core one relatively external training.
