Your cart is currently empty!
Nuts and Bolts: What Are Your 2018 Goals?
I have spent my entire training career in the employ ofstate government. Including the university system, we have a workforce of85,000 in jobs ranging from maintenance workers and mechanics to statetroopers, consumer protection attorneys, kindergarten teachers, museum curators—youname it. Because we’re government, there is enormous pressure on trainingdepartments to deliver instruction on policy, safety, and other regulatory or“compliance” topics. It’s dull content, often provided in a cover-yourselfformat, and it’s usually not much fun for designer, facilitator (if it’s a liveevent), or trainee. It can be rote and cover too much material that may not beimmediately applicable, or may never be used. For many in the instructionaldesign business, government or otherwise, working with compliance-y content isthe bane of our existence. In spite of that, those 2018 goals still need toinclude the compliance topics.
All fun and games
Leadership training can be interesting and fun. Customerservice training lends itself to skill practice and shared commiseration aboutangry callers. Sales training often involves role-playing in getting leads orovercoming objections. Team-building workshops can involve games, collaborativeproblem-solving activities, or outdoor excursions. Content like this lends itselfto interesting treatments and fun interactions. As designers, these areas areprobably where we want to focus our attention and where, often, we leverage ourgreater creativity.
I get it.
Here’s what I also get: This year so far, five of our stateworkers have died on the job, or as a result of injuries sustained on the job. Theseworkers aren’t just names in a news report or numbers on a safety or labordocument. They were ours. Lots offactors came into play in the incidents, including insufficient staffing and,in one instance, a worker who panicked. But, as ever, training is part of a mix of factorsthat support and enable good performance. I don’t know that different, better,or more training would have saved these five lives, but the incidents inform usabout ways training could save others. At this moment there are people—colleaguesof mine—discussing future training for workers in these jobs. What should itlook like? More reviews of policies? Practical application exercises? Rote quizzing?All of the above?
Different cards on the table
A challenge with these situations lies with the perceptionsof different stakeholders about the problem and their understanding of trainingand how people learn. I know I’m overgeneralizing, but I’ve also had plenty ofexperience with this: Human Resources wants policy copied and pasted onto slidedecks and read aloud, live or online. Safety staff want more signage andwarnings and checklists and observations and incident reporting. Managementwants sanctions for people breaking rules—and training on what that means—and,as often as not, wants to put more responsibility on already-overburdenedfrontline supervisors. The workers want everyone else to spend timeexperiencing their reality before designing or assigning any new training. Andoften everyone wants a one-size-fits-all solution deployed to all workers. Sometimestraining solutions aren’t the answer. Sometimes the proposed training won’t solvethe problem. Sometimes it could make the problem worse. What role will you—or can you—play in negotiating this? I’vebeen fortunate to (mostly) have strong L&D leadership who understandtraining and help me navigate the politics of these situations, and I’ve hadhelp with building negotiation and assertiveness skills to get me through manyconversations and decisions.
