Danger!

Corporate Training
Initiative Ahead
On occasion I come across organizations that feel that they must set up training programs to meet
some identified (or ill-identified) corporate need.  Whether it is sexual harassment programs, multi-
cultural interventions, or any other topic, these across organization programs tend to be top-down
driven. That means that the impetus for training comes from senior executives or management,
sometimes in conjunction with human resource units. 

Is there anything wrong with such initiatives? First, it makes sense that efforts be made to develop a
more cohesive organizational culture, or new set of skills across the organization. The problem is that
executives are not always in touch with the needs and wishes of staff that will be attending training
sessions, and may forget that learning will only take place when attendees see that the training is
relevant and useful to their own lives.  When participants see the training as irrelevant, or worse,
suggestive of skill/attitude deficits on their parts, the result can be wasted resources or worse. 

A recent front page story in the Winnipeg Free Press (Oct. 11, 1995) illustrates the point.  According
to the report, the City of Winnipeg arranged for two day seminars for sixty civic employees (human
resources staff) in "anger management, mediation, conflict resolution, aboriginal awareness and
diversity, and sexual harassment issues".  Again, according to the article, two anonymous employees
in the building faxed what appears to be an irate fax to the Winnipeg Free Press.  The article
presented the following quote from the fax:  "What does this have to do with our jobs? This blatant
waste must be stopped". 

Now, keeping in mind that the media is not always accurate in its reporting of government activities,
and the fax was sent anonymously, this may be an example of  training that has been decided without
participant input, and motivated by factors other than enhancing the skills of staff.  And it certainly is
an example of training which is perceived as unnecessary, irrelevant, and possibly insulting.  So what
are the consequences? 

The municipal government looks foolish, attracting negative attention from media who are always
looking for stories of this type. Second, what are the effects on the credibility of these, and other
training initiatives?  In this particular case we don't know, but we can make the general suggestion
that training which is not driven by participants, or is communicated badly will have a significant
negative impact on the credibility of those that have arranged for the training (management, human
resources, etc).

  Some Tips: 
1. As a general rule, whether training is top-down driven, or driven by properly designed focus groups,
surveys or other needs assessment processes,  potential participants should be consulted as to the
relevance and usefulness of the proposed training. Input is required, not only to keep the training
relevant, but also to ensure some level of employee "buy-in" to the issues and the training. 

2. In cases where training is mandated by new or revised corporate initiatives (eg. respectful
workplace, technological change, new policies, etc) we MUST remember that marketing and framing of
the training is critical to ensure that it will be perceived as useful and relevant.  Just because
management feels the training is necessary does not mean that staff will see it the same way. So the
critical part is framing/marketing the initiatives from the point of view of the participants. 

In practical terms, these means a communication strategy that focuses on how the training will help
staff succeed -- do their jobs better, with less frustration.  On occasion, it may seem on the surface
that some training endeavors won't bring benefits to staff, but the truth is that almost every training
initiative can be framed in a way that focuses on staff benefits. 

Look for those benefits, and communicate the purpose of the training in terms of the benefits
participants will receive, not just the benefits the organization will receive.  Keep in mind that you may
have different communication strategies for staff and your customers. The reasons why some change
may benefit customers will be different from the benefits to staff. 

3. Be aware that staff can be offended by the notion that some manager or executive thinks they need
a particular kind of training. This is because the presupposition is that staff need this training because
they aren't good enough at something.  Most people don't like to admit they aren't good at
something!  So, it becomes very important, especially when dealing with interpersonal skill
development, or attitudinal development, to be vigilant and consistent in affirming the existing
expertise while suggesting that "we can all get better". 

4. In some situations it may be advisable for managers and executives to attend the same training
sessions as staff, and as full participants, not observers. This sends and re-affirms the message that
managers and executives recognize that they too can benefit from training on the relevant issues, and
helps break down organizational barriers. 

5. In some situations, training may be mandated for all staff members. There may be reasons why we
might want ALL employees to participate, and sometimes there may be legal reasons why this is
necessary (eg sexual harassment). However, when possible, present the training as optional. Allow
staff to self-select. At the least, this will confirm your sense that the training is necessary or desired
by some. 

Conclusion 

Setting up training properly, with needs assessments and proper marketing/framing is critical to
avoiding the kind of situation cited earlier in this article. That is one reason why Bacal & Associates
ASKS participants ahead of time what they need with respect to our Defusing Hostile Customers
seminar. Yes, the needs assessments guide us, but they also help staff buy-in to the process, and
reduce the possibility that staff will be insulted by being asked to participate. We also counsel our
management clients that attendance at such seminars should be voluntary, or marketed in terms of
staff benefits, not corporate benefits. 

The consequences of ignoring basic principles is that large amounts of money can be wasted on staff
who feel insulted and demeaned, and resist the training. In addition, considerable embarrassment can
occur, when staff take an active hand in resistance, and approach the media.