Who is Responsible for Decisions Regarding Training?

by Dean Prigelmeier, President of Proactive Technologies, Inc.

We sometimes run into a conundrum when promoting the concept of structured on-the-job training: finding who is responsible and accountable for the decision to provide training within an organization. It doesn’t seem like negligence, but it often feels like every decision-maker is saying it is someone else’s responsibility, sincerely believing the other has this important area covered. But it is also surprising when no one inside the organization asks who is responsible when any of the many symptoms of lack of training shows up.

In this environment that seems like “training anarchy,” it is easy for loud voices and strong personalities to step outside their zone of expertise to tackle, what may appear to be, a simple challenge – only to come up short. Sadly, although the proposed solution wouldn’t rise to that provided by an experienced professional or recognized as “training,” others may not know this. They might vent their disappointment by denigrating the notion of training or seek blame of the trainee saying things like “these workers just don’t want to be trained.” The legitimate role and purpose of training is tarnished, but never the solution’s architect.

Enormous amounts of money in direct expenditures, workers and management time, opportunity costs, etc. could be expended, only to wind up at a under-whelming end. At the same time a seasoned expert in worker development would have predicted the failure if someone could coherently explain to them what the plan was. Far too often the training strategy boils down to putting two people together and hoping for the best, with a class here and a class there, a job/safety analysis that is never used, illustrated work processes that quickly grow obsolete and unusable, color-coded pie charts that really don’t say much and/or a policy saying workers will be trained that is ignored. Granted, a few of these strategies combined might provide recognizable progress if aligned and implemented correctly. But often each of these has a different brain behind them, residing in a different department with a different directive and budget – each unaware of the other’s activities.

In the past, worker development resided in a Training Department of the Human Resources Department (if the organization could afford a formal worker training department). But as technology advanced from the 1980’s on (with the proliferation of microprocessors that changed the nature of work) and the need for more focused and effective training approaches became more vital for both retaining (“up-skilling”) incumbent workers and training new-hires, mysteriously training departments were disbanded and the responsibility passed to anyone who had a plan, had a budget and were allowed time to experiment. While at the time this “laisse faire” approach to training might have been justified since no one at the time had an adequate solution, it was unfortunate that the training profession often applied outdated solutions to evolving needs and a perpetual lag grew only greater as time and technology advanced.

Taking one step further, some organizations dismissed their seasoned Human Resources manager in lieu of an “HR Generalist” that had not spent much time in studies concerning the concept of training, and is usually limited in their scope to recruitment, employment issues, benefits oversight and general human resource management responsibilities. Training responsibilities seemed scattered to each department, yet in many cases no one told the manager or showed them how to train their workers, or how to split their time between meeting monthly production or service numbers and thoughtfully and effectively training the workers they were managing.

So the responsibility and “accountability” for training workers was left to those who might have become experts at learning their jobs, but have no knowledge of what it takes to be a good trainer, nor of proven training practices and measuring outcomes. Records are seldom kept because there really isn’t a recognizable outcome to record. Assessments of the effectiveness of training are difficult because there is nothing to measure. And even if someone “takes a stab” at the training issue, the approach may alienate the faithful when it becomes clearer that the strategy and the stated outcome are predictably unrecognizable.

Even though the general concept of “training” may seem obvious, unless trained and experienced in this area there is nothing obvious about the best-suited delivery method. The nature of the training required determines the type, range and content of the delivery method selected. This in turn determines the metrics to determine if the desired outcome is reached and the solution was effective.

If no one in your organization has a clear role, a clear strategy and the time and resources to address the training issue in your organization, perhaps someone who has effectively done so for over 35 years might be the answer. If you make the decision to let Proactive Technologies, Inc. build your organization a structured on-the-job training infrastructure, provide the support you need to make sure it is operating correctly and your expectations are met, you’ll find many of your other problems that were symptoms of the lack of proper training will disappear.

Many articles have appeared in the Proactive Technologies Report newsletter – some links for which can be found in the left-column list of “Recent Proactive Technologies News Article Quicklinks.” The Proactive Technologies website page “News and Publications” contains the full library of articles. But I would encourage anyone to contact a Proactive Technologies Representative and let them hear you describe your concerns, goals and expectations. They will explain how the PROTECH© system of managed human resource development and implementation technical support can help your organization achieve big outcomes on a fraction of the investment you would expect.