Confusion Over What Constitutes “Training” is Stumbling Block to Effective Worker Development Strategies

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

For the anyone searching for information to help them choose a worker development strategy, a web search of “on-the-job training methods”  might produce thirty or forty informative, but confusing, charts. The search result is a mixture of domains, methods, philosophies – one seemingly in conflict with the other. A non-practitioner of workforce development strategies can gather from this search result alone why there is a perpetual state of confusion between even “experts,” marked by  decades of employer and trainee disappointment in the lack of recognizable strategies and outcomes, which are often devoid of meaningful results.

Over the years, approaches and methods have evolved out of their ineffectiveness, many diverging from the basic principals of workforce development. Markets for products to address these approaches grew and well-funded marketing began to find unaware customers. The notion of “training” morphed into branded versions of “learning,” selected not so much on their basis in logic, but more on the lack of “smart” choices and how well the marketing effort worked.

---

“A great first step is to clearly differentiate between “learning” and “training.” The strategies, methods of delivery and outcomes for each are very different. Without such clarity, one might mistakenly invest heavily in a strategy to accomplish worker development objectives that, instead, uses up vital resources and scarce opportunity, and sours the organization’s attitude toward training for years to come.”

---

The acceleration started around 40 years ago. Prior to that, job classifications did not change much and were relatively simple in structure. Then panic set in over the approaching “skills gaps,” as computers were introduced into every aspect of our lives. Fear of baby boomers nearing retirement, taking their technical expertise with them, added to the challenge. Solutions started to appear out of academia, based on the world they knew and not as much on the world they were trying to improve, as they would have liked to think.

Did these methods address the workforce development challenges of their time? In 2023, employers are still concerned with the “skills gap” phenomenon. Retirees, many who put off, or came out of, retirement for economic reasons as the cost of living continued to rise and their pensions evaporated, are still in the workforce and their inevitable departure, with all of their technical expertise and job wisdom, still on its way out the door.

Sure, a student can learn in the classroom or online to use a particular tool, or a particular software, and through practice develop higher order core skills. But these may not matter, or be forgotten altogether, unless the student applies those higher order skills (and the other foundation skills they developed) in the mastery of a task required by an employer. Successful repetition of the task produces consistent performance and mastery – the “value” that employer’s recognize.

This is where the problem exists. There are an abundance of learning strategies marketed, but employers rarely are deliberate about creating and maintaining an on-the-job training infrastructure to ensure each student transitions quickly, effectively, consistently and completely to mastery of the tasks the employer needs performed. Often the net result is significant underdeveloped worker capacity that leads to higher than necessary labor costs, inconsistent work quantity and quality, and non-compliance with internal processes and standards directed by ISO/AS/IATF quality programs, labor law and safety mandates. All of these negative outcomes – which spawns rising cynicism – can be avoided, if the right strategy is selected. The good news is it is never too late to correct a mistake.

Sadly, as the drive (with good intention) to increase the number of apprenticeships and apprentices ramps up, the effort found an ally in institutional education which, not surprisingly, sees the solution in the classroom.  Some employers, desperate for answers, were willing to consider “streamlined” apprenticeships; not the old-school 8 –10 year apprenticeship model but something more like 3 – 4 years. Institutions, at the ready, began repackaging and re-branding their 2-year degree programs into apprenticeships…and the federal and state training grants are following. Much of what they consider “hands on training” is taught in the classroom, while the work the current or future employee is expected to perform is at the work site, on the employer’s equipment and to the employer’s process specifications. Without structured on-the-job training to focus all of the core and higher core skill development into a deliberate and vital outcome, the notion of “apprenticeships” may become tarnished as employers and trainees discover they were short-changed, and when the media takes a critical look.

For employers, this is a time when clarity of goals is important. Every other activity in the organization is driven by a vision, goals and objectives and a purpose. When accurate, this can create a “unity of purpose” and garner the strong support necessary to sustain multi-year programs. Too often, past disappointments make worker development efforts become vulnerable to budget and training department staff cuts. The popular sentiment becomes “anyone can write and deliver a training program” (that was also said of Job Descriptions, and look how well that turned out). As this sentiment grows it becomes easy for employers to forego sharply focused monthly training outputs and the metrics to measure and improve worker performance. Without structure, the training that goes on every day, all day in a job setting, is uncontrolled, not accounted for or documented. The limitations and the symptoms of inadequate, or non-existent, structured task-based training are all around.

A great first step is to clearly differentiate between “learning” and “training.” The strategies, methods of delivery and outcomes for each are very different. Without such clarity, one might mistakenly invest heavily in a strategy to accomplish worker development objectives that, instead, uses up vital resources and scare opportunity, and sours the organization’s attitude toward training for years to come.

There are three general domains of skill development, each with various methods to accomplish it. Some are effective, some not. To remember these domains, it helps to think of a pyramid structure. The first domain is the bottom layer, considered the foundation – basic core skills (how to read, how to perform simple math) and abilities (the capability to hear, the capability to comprehend, the capability to lift). These competencies and abilities are needed to build upon skills in the second domain, which are more advanced core skills (performing trigonometry, reading technical documents, using basic tools) and advanced abilities (auditory attention in factory settings, processing technical information). These are usually best taught in classroom settings and, in some cases, through online videos and webinars.

But if one thinks that developing core and advanced core skills and abilities is all that is needed to develop workers for successful employment, great disappointment will follow. As anyone who has taken any college course knows, the longer the span between course completion and using what was learned in the performance of a task, the likelihood one will forget (or remember the information incorrectly) is higher. So if the third domain – structured, task-based on-the-job training – isn’t integrated into the training strategy, there is a greater likelihood the effort and resources are wasted, with no improvement in the worker’s capabilities or performance. Put another way, if resources are scare and have to be applied smartly, invest in the structured on-the-job training; at least the worker has an opportunity learn and mastery units of work of economic value to the employer.

Attending a class or online seminar, in the workplace or offsite, while employed is not on-the-job training; it is “on-the-job learning.” Without the distinction, what would the task-based transfer of expertise from one worker to another be called? Core, advanced core skills and abilities development are important to building the foundation upon which to develop task-based performance (applying the core skills and competencies into the mastery of a unit of work that the employer values). Thinking the training job is done after class attendance is misguided and a significant contributor to employer skepticism and disappointment.

And there is also a big difference between “on-the-job training” (informal, unstructured, ad hoc) and “structured on-the-job training” (structured, deliberate, measurable and sustainable). The former can also be a large cost for the employer with disappointing and non-measurable results. The latter facilitates the accelerated transfer of expertise™, the results are intentional, identifiable, measurable and capable of improvement. While the former is a “this will do” approach, the latter logically connects the effort to the accomplishment of increased worker capacity, work quality and quality, increased compliance with quality and safety requirements and increases in worker engagement and morale.

Everyone has heard the saying; “the right tool for the right job”, and “you are only as good as your tools.” These sayings are very true when it comes to the choice and use of tools. The quality of the tools that you choose to use are as important as the tools themselves. Since there are a wide variety of tools only capable of helping to accomplish certain things, it’s important to make sure that you choose the right type and quality tool to meet specific worker development objectives.

But selecting the right tool or method assumes that the person looking for the method understands not only what the achievable outcome is meant to be and the benefits/limitations of each method in supporting the effort. Although a wide variety of methods and sources are concentrated in a certain area of focus that makes it seem legitimate, literally it is a “fools paradise.”

Employers who unwittingly rely on internal “experts” and even community resources to advise them on worker development strategies do so at their own peril. As with many experts these days – not every person wearing a white coat and possessing a medical degree are the same, not every lawyer is the same, not every mechanic is the same – employers can be driven to low or no-output workforce development strategies, which utilize the wrong methods targeting the wrong outcomes and have no metrics to measure success or failure. Resources are unnecessarily depleted, return on worker investment unrealized and cynicism of the concept of training fueled. Once it reaches this stage, other departments in an organization, without worker development training and experience themselves, “take a stab” at the problem. Instead of filling the hole, they dig the hole deeper and then defend the hole they dug. Billions are spent each year to develop the workforce but we still talk, 40 years later, about a “skills gap.” Maybe it is time we take a step back and get as serious with worker training as with any other technical discipline in the workplace.

When deciding on an approach to develop your workers, at your worksite and to your specification, care should be taken to consider options as you would any other business decision. Some questions to ask yourself and your team:

1. What is the expected outcome of the resources expended?
2. How will I know if we are successful in developing and improving performance?
3. Is this a “one-time” training experience that is supposed to impact performance for the near future, or will changes in the work processes and technology require updated training materials and repeat training? How easy is it to revise the content of the approach we selected?
4. What follow-up is necessary to drive performance even higher?
5. Is this training approach a repetitive cost for each additional trainee, or is it an investment with declining training delivery costs?

The development of workers to be the best they can be doesn’t have to be an insurmountable challenge. Once one filters out all of the noise, the answer is simple and the outcomes extremely attainable – at a fraction of the wasted resources typically expended. Circle back to the simple, logical worker development strategy you might have let others talk you out of long ago and sharpen your focus to reach your project goals.

I encourage any interested employer and workforce development professional to learn more about Proactive Technologies’ approach, Proactive Technologies and their partnerships with institutions,  and to contact a Proactive Technologies representative.