Some Common, But Unfortunate, Reasons Used to Avoid Structured On-The-Job Training

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

The term “structured on-the-job training” shouldn’t scare anyone. Since the term “on-the-job training” has been hijacked and used to label any learning that occurs in a place of employment or offsite while employed, the term “structured” had to be added to clearly differentiate the deliberate training of job-tasks from the conveyance of knowledge.

“Knowing how to” and “being skilled at” are very different. A general medical practitioner can attend a seminar on rhinoplasty (e.g.nose jobs) but it is doubtful if anyone would let them practice on them without supervised training and practice to master the procedure.

The term “job-tasks” isn’t that mysterious either. Everyone knows what a job, or job classification, is. A job is made up of tasks – meaningful units of work, each having a beginning point and an ending point and a specific series of steps between. Every job is made up of these tasks, and someone is hired to perform them. But questions arise such as:

1. Who, and if anyone, trains the new-hire on the “best practice” for every task?
2. Is someone is assigned to train the person, does that person know the accepted best practice (i.e. are they “subject matter experts”)?
3. Is training on tasks consistent between shifts, between trainers?
4. Do the supervisors know which tasks each employee has mastered, and which they have yet to learn?
5. And even if the supervisor knows, what happens if that supervisor is promoted and the new supervisor hired from outside the department or company?

Employer’s do not consciously hire someone because they are “good at math,” or “can read at a 12 grade level,” or even “they seem to be able to get along well with others” alone. Yes, those skills and traits may be useful, but the employer expects the person to someday, with some training, be able to perform required tasks quickly, consistently and in compliance with engineering specifications, safety requirements and quality program guidelines. But what if the training assumed to be available is not structured, task-based on-the-job training? What if it was instead informal, inconsistent, ad hoc and, even worse, unavailable? What would an employee exposed to this type environment be able to demonstrate and add to their value? And what are the possibilities more harm than good might be done in the form of scrap, rework, non-conforming output or loss of customers?

Most employers believe they already have structured on-the-job training covered. This can be out of misinformation, misunderstanding or misdirection. The common belief is that if one just pairs the new-hire with someone believed, from memory, to have done a good job so far, something magical will happen. Sometimes it does, but often the “expert” who has been encouraged to perform tasks to a tight production schedule, in a hectic environment (new to the new-hire). They have repressed the nuances they themselves needed to learn and master tasks years ago, and are now asked to be a thoughtful, sensitive trainer…but do not slow down production to do it. The new-hire does not know what they don’t know and are fearful of asking too many questions even if they knew what to ask. They are totally reliant on the training transaction for a basis to determine what is expected. In any other area of a business operation, this non-systems approach would not be tolerated; no work standard, not metrics, no reporting and no way to improve.

So imagine the surprise when an employer tries everything else before they try the obvious. But resistance has to be backed by a reason. Here are some common ones we have seen:

1) We don’t have time for training – training goes on every day, with every employee, and on every shift. If the process cannot be identified, explained, documented, measured or improved, it is nothing more than an expensive form of “roulette.”

2) Accounting will not allow us to spend money on training – perhaps the proper case has not been made. Most accountants are familiar with the learning that led to their degree. But ask them, who taught them how to apply their degree to the accounting tasks of the employer they work for? How effective was that experience? Could the process have been more efficient and, if so, would the investment in developing their “capacity” have been more effective with higher, faster returns? Which is better; unstructured exploration or structured training? What happens if they leave, what will the experience be for the next accountant?

3) We have been waiting for 3 years for the HR module of the new enterprise software we purchased, at great expense, to come on line – you might as well stop waiting. Enterprise systems have a module they call “training,” which is an afterthought to make it look complete. It would be time well spent to investigate past the marketing literature. You might discover it is nothing more than a registrar module, which records when classes are attended. That is not training.

4) Our quality software system has a training module – again, quality systems sometimes have a “training module” mentioned in the brochure, but quality people know quality and, if it exists, do not be surprised if it too is a registrar module at best. It it is there, why hasn’t it been used while the skill gap has kept growing?

5) The one person that was supposed to be at the briefing couldn’t make it, and we need his/her buy-in – did that person not show for a credible reason, or obstruct the decision making process? Don’t give up. Some people who are comfortable with the notion that what they know is all that matters are swayed when they learn that they do not about structured on-the-job training.

6) Who is going to do all the work to set it up and maintain this training system? – Well, in Proactive Technologies case, they will perform the detailed job/task analysis, use their proprietary software to develop all of the tools for the human resource development process, brief your key people in their role and provide technical implementation support for the term of the project. Since this approach “structures the unstructured,” implementation is easy and none of projects in 30 years have required a client to add staff or equipment to implement it, nor interrupt production scheduling or operations. And, when the client is ready and decides assuming data and implementation management makes sense, Proactive Technologies will work with the client’s staff for a smooth transition of control.

7) We decided to have a few of our people take some classes at the local community college – while education is never a bad thing, do not look for it to raise “worker capacity.” Some classes have been around for decades, and what little value might be extracted might be minimal. There is no guarantee that the gained knowledge can be applied to tasks required of the job, or that opportunities might arise in time to apply the new knowledge or core skill before it is forgotten. This also plays into the hands of the accountants, whose textbooks list classes as a “cost” and “repetitive cost.” Structured on-the-job training is clearly “an investment” and the link to improved work quantity, quality and compliance (ISO/AS/IATF and safety) undeniable and measurable. Furthermore, once the structured on-the-job training program is set up, the level of investment declines per additional trainee.

8) We are sending a few of our people to a community-college based apprenticeship – Without structured on-the-job training, based on tasks you the employer need done, how do you expect to benefit? How will the apprentice benefit? How credible will the apprenticeship certificate be? Sometimes the poplar path leads the wrong direction. A better approach is the “accelerated transfer of expertise™, which is a hybrid between structured on-the-job training and related technical instruction, and which has been registered as apprenticeships or unregistered.

9) Some of our employees are getting certified to national skill standards – yea, but does that help the employer? Those are very general to industry, often out-of-date and, if current, more appropriate for graduates of career centers and high school vocational programs. Why not invest in training all of your workers to the tasks of their job with a “Certificate of Job Mastery” portfolio outcome instead?

10) We already keep training records – If what is meant an Excel spreadsheet that shows attendance, that is not training. There is a comfort that comes from collecting that information, but ask yourself what each entry tells you about the capacity of a worker to perform the critical tasks of the job. Relevant training records are important to the training process, but it might record nothing more than attendance.

It would be worth the while of any employer to attend a briefing of Proactive Technologies’ PROTECH © system of managed human resource development for the accelerated transfer of expertise™. A 13-minute preview briefing is available online, and live, online presentations are regularly scheduled – and presentations can be scheduled online and onsite to fit your scheduled. Contact us for more information. Learn how much no structured on-the-job training can cost an organization and how much value goes unrealized every year by nearly all employers, and how easily, quickly and inexpensively all that can change.