RECENT research on company training programmes has shown that most company training programmes do not work and are a waste of time. Unless most companies learn how to create a culture of continuous learning for training and development all efforts at training would come to naught.
I have often discouraged most of the organisations I deal with against prescribing one day training workshops. A lot of these organisations are of the opinion that training exercises are a waste of time. This assertion maybe true, given the way these training programmes are carried out and packaged in most of these organisations. Honestly, how does spending hours cooped up in a contained learning environment actually end up producing more effective leaders? It is a question worth exploring.
A lot of companies spend time and resources annually on leadership development training. There are thousands and thousands of books on leadership training targeted at any function or level, and executive programmes at the world’s most esteemed universities. In other words, there is a lot of energy and resources being spent on these programmes. Whilst this is a good thing, there has not been any assessment after these costly exercises to ascertain the level of impact or indication of any meaningful behaviour change in the participants.
How can the new behaviour acquired in training be sustained? Studies have found that adult learners in a lecture setting forget nearly 50% of what they learn within two weeks. More so, research has also found out that the most highly trained leaders – CEOs — are often not able to translate their knowledge into experience. An American think tank “Center for Creative Leadership” found that 38% of new chief executives fail in their first 18 months on the job.
So given the foregoing, what factors make for a rich, enduring leadership development programme? What factors actually create better leaders? What makes the investment in leadership training worth it?
I will in this instalment proffer some issues to consider when developing a training programme for your organisation and which I have also applied with some organisations and have proved to be effective. Training must lead to transformation of behaviour and actions by the recipient.
We know from research that content that is relevant to one’s own experience and builds upon prior knowledge is most likely to be retained. Leadership programmes must integrate with the larger scope of the organisation. Bringing in someone to deliver the standard pump-up-the-troops programme may be briefly engaging, but not produce any behaviour change. Before spending a dime on training, it’s important to clarify: what is the purpose and goal? It is far more effective to focus on specific leadership skills that are pertinent to the vision and growth of the company and make sure the design is carefully tailored to them.
We have found that when a company cuts through the noise to identify a small number of leadership capabilities essential for success in its business—such as high-quality decision making or stronger coaching skills—it achieves far better outcomes.
I have often encountered the challenge where an organisation would just invite me to design a leadership training programme not directed at any specific leadership issue.
A training programme should be viewed as the beginning of the leadership development process, not the end. It is critical that after the programme is complete, there is a sustained effort to maintain momentum and individualise learning.
There are many ways to accomplish this. Some companies include personal executive coaching. Others establish a learning cohort that meets regularly and discusses concepts. It can also be valuable to conduct shorter trainings over a longer period of time, i.e. four one-day sessions rather than one four-day session. By stretching the learning out, you avoid overload and allow the concepts to be gradually advanced in a real-world context. I have applied this method with some organisations and individuals and it has worked wonders.
I normally refer to it as micro-learning and it is all about creating “bite-sized” content for employees to learn from. It’s much more in tune with the way people live now — quick, short, personalised. Some people learn faster than others, some people prefer videos to text, so it’s important to adjust accordingly. Micro-learning is a completely different way of thinking about training and development.
This is one of the hardest ones — how do you actually measure something like leadership? Many well-meaning measurement protocols end up backfiring. Consider the number of participants promoted, which is often a measurement of programme success. If the company has a few bad quarters and cuts back, then that metric becomes meaningless.
Most companies use evaluations sheets: those ubiquitous ratings of 1-5 on score sheets you fill out at the end of a programme. They measure how much participants enjoyed the programme, and while a consideration is not a meaningful goal. Companies need to carefully consider what measurement should be well ahead of time. Are people getting promoted faster?
Are managers seeing an improvement on performance reviews? Is the pool of succession candidates getting deeper? It often takes a year or more to see this fleshed out so patience and clarity are both key.
I would end by saying the world is moving fast and so should be organisational leaders. Failure to cope would lead to stagnation and irrelevancy on the global arena of business.
Mandeya is a certified executive leadership coach, corporate education trainer and management consultant and founder of Leadership Institute of Research and Development (LiRD). — firstname.lastname@example.org/ or email@example.com, Facebook: @lirdzim and Mobile/WhatsApp: +263 719 466 925.