Why Current Approaches to Training are Flawed

Of course, there are also those who seek training as part of their need for continuous professional development (CPD) and those who need to fulfil statutory requirements (e.g. First Aid and Fire training). Outside of these categories, the one area that I have seen a real increase in demand for is No 2 above– seeking solutions to emerging problems. I have witnessed an increasing number of clients who come with organisational issues or problems and wish (or their senior management wish) to convert the problem into some credible solution(s).

Training is still quite didactic in nature, with a trainer at the front with some form of board
and a tendency to assume that the client only needs a specific body of facts and concepts, preferably delivered through endless PowerPoint displays with some group exercises for
good measure. One only has to look at the success of the SlideShare to understand the importance of PowerPoint in conveying information.

Don’t get me wrong, PowerPoint has its merit, but for many, it is the only interface. Learning through PowerPoint is not really learning. The emergence of TED (Technical, Education Design) presentations has been an interesting and stimulating development in how to communicate effectively with audiences, but as short-form conference presentations, their impact is limited in terms of conventional training. Naturally, TED style presentations can make a huge difference when trying to convey an idea and holding your audience, but their impact is limited in a realistic sense.

Since the 1990s, one significant shift in training delivery has been the move away from the didactic approach of training towards facilitation and self-directed learning. This has been an improvement, although in my opinion, many training centres adopting this style often take it too far and leave the poor attendees with hardly any critical knowledge but “they have been made to think”! Getting the balance right is difficult. Technology has helped, especially YouTube and visual learning, which can inspire and convey complex narratives quickly. But holding peoples’ attention and converting awareness into understanding, is hard work. Today, peoples’ attention spans are poor as their focus centres on mobiles and tablets, often leaving the trainer quietly fuming with rage.

At the London School of Public Relations I have been thinking about this for some time and
I realised that despite my own recognition of the limits of our own delivery systems, I continued to engage clients in a relatively conventional way while adopting the best elements of the facilitation approach. In 2012, however, one of my clients provided me a “Eureka” moment. He wanted “insights” to take away that challenged his existing way of doing things. If the insights did not amount to much, then what they were doing was generally correct (in his view) and only some minor adjustment was probably needed. If the insights challenged much of the conventional thinking and the logic that supported it, then maybe something significant had to be done.

I then realised that for the past two years I had been slowly altering my training mode to help question assumptions, highlight problems and opportunities through intense questioning
of clients’ work and examination of their product/services and website. I found this approach mentally exhausting and sometimes dangerous, as on occasion one trod on toes and challenged big egos. But, by-and-large, clients appreciated the effort and enjoyed being challenged and wanted to co-discuss their brands’ resilience. The trainer, in effect, becomes something akin to a brand psychologist, probing deep into their reasoning and questioning assumptions and stereotypical thinking. Questioning many existing frames of the brand was challenging,
but exhilarating for both parties. One is not suggesting being subversive or radical for the sake of it, but shaking the bars of the brand cage, and seeing what if anything falls out or collapses.

Once the penny dropped about what I was doing, I started to formally develop and structure my ideas. I called the approach TSIG, which stands for Training, Solutions & Insight Generation. For it to be effective, it necessitated that I, the trainer, understood a considerable amount about clients and their work before they arrived. While researching, one then developed key questions and highlighted key challenges, which usually were refined during the course. Naturally, one gets it wrong sometimes, which is an inherent risk. Clients, I noticed, however, were very forgiving for any assumptions or ignorance on the trainer’s behalf and seemed impressed that someone had actually taken the time to research their brand and empathise with their challenges and recognise their operating constraints.

How TSIG differs from conventional facilitated training is that at its heart, TSIG morphs into business development and consultancy. In effect, the trainer, although still imparting knowledge and hopefully transferring skills, is also heavily engaging with the client to tease out problems and then through careful suggestion and elimination, come to some better understanding. One then develops realistic solutions to problems, while all the time helping the client formulate useful insights, which they take ownership of and have something to return with and report to their superiors. An important caveat is to gently warn the client that taking back new ideas that may challenge existing ways of operating has risks attached. At LSPR we advise clients on how they should approach their managers and remind them that these are just new ideas that have not been scrutinised by those who will know best if they can be successfully implemented and have “legs”.

TSIG requires a trainer to be quick on their feet, constantly review their subject matter, and in effect, take on the role of a consultant. This approach becomes even more challenging when you have more than one client – with a group of 10 delegates on the same course the approach becomes very demanding, but not impossible. Ideally, TSIG works best one-to-one, but then ideas are also catalysed by the presence of others in the group, who often have similar or converging issues.

The effect of a group, however, is to act like a form of crowd sourcing or an open source innovation. The trick is to ensure that you identify the most common issues early on, and get people empathising. As the TSIG trainer, what you cannot allow to occur within a group, is that one person dominates or that members ramble on about their situation, oblivious to the needs of others. As the “conductor of the orchestra” you are in the position to maintain the speed and dynamic of the session, ensuring that some specific element of knowledge or insight is generated.