What’s Wrong with Training?

Let’s cut to the chase: Training doesn’t work when it comes to changing behaviours. While organisations pump vast amounts of money into training programmes, hoping for transformative effects, the outcomes never match the investment. You’re probably wondering why. It’s high time we scrutinise what’s really going on.

What About the Hawthorne Experiment?

In the late 1920s, the Hawthorne Experiment was conducted at the Western Electric Hawthorne Works in Chicago. Researchers changed various environmental conditions for workers to see if productivity improved. To everyone’s surprise, almost any change led to increased productivity. It wasn’t the training or the changed conditions that boosted productivity; it was the fact that someone was paying attention to the workers – and their needs. It showed that behavioural change doesn’t stem from training sessions but from the environment and context in which people operate.

How Do Methods Differ?

Training often employs a fixed method, aiming to produce quantifiable improvements in performance. This approach assumes that humans are like machines: input a certain variable (in this case, training) and expect an improved output (better behaviour or skills). But unlike machines, humans have feelings, motivations, and personal circumstances that training methods can’t address. Where’s the psychology? Absent?

Is There an Alternative?

Certainly, and it’s not another fancy training programme. Changing behaviours often requires a more holistic, systemic approach rooted in psychology, systems thinking and group dynamics. That means looking at organisational culture, team dynamics, leadership styles and the paramount impact of “the system” (the way the work works). Engage with the issues that truly matter to people – their needs – and you’re more likely to see lasting change. Simply put, training in isolation is a lost cause.

What’s the Bottom Line?

Training won’t change behaviours. Whether it’s a disregard for approaches that consider the human element, or the illusion of improvement illustrated by experiments like Hawthorne, it’s clear that training isn’t the magical cure-all many believe it to be. The sooner organisations realise this, the sooner they can take steps towards meaningful change.

Who’s Coaching New Coaches?

When an organisation decides to bring coaching into its culture, the focus is usually on its employees. Yet the coaches themselves are often left to endure rigid training, which stands at odds with the coaching philosophy. If organisations genuinely believe in coaching, why don’t they extend this to their new coaches?

What’s Wrong with Training Compared to Coaching?

Training enforces a rigid structure, pushing predetermined information towards the participant. This approach is inflexible and impersonal, falling short of individual needs. In contrast, coaching is a dynamic, two-way relationship tailored to the individual’s unique needs and objectives.

Why Do Organisations Stick to Training New Coaches?

Many organisations default to traditional training methods, even for roles better suited for coaching. This inclination towards training could be seen as a glaring oversight and a lack of genuine commitment to the coaching approach.

Is Training New Coaches a Misstep?

Absolutely. Training, with its push approach, is fundamentally ill-equipped for roles that demand behavioural change and personal development. Especially in the realm of Collaborative Knowledge Work. By clinging to training for their new coaches, organisations contradict and undermine their supposed endorsement of coaching.

Why Is Coaching New Coaches the Superior Option?

Coaching, unlike training, draws out an individual’s inherent potential. It enhances both the effectiveness and empathy of new coaches and helps foster a real coaching culture within the organisation.

What’s the Next Step?

Organisations might choose to move beyond training and embrace a coaching-centric approach universally, starting with their newest coaches. Doing so is not just lip service to a trend; it’s a necessary evolution for genuine development.

Is Coaching Itself Beyond Reproach?

As we sing the praises of coaching over training, it’s crucial to consider a larger issue: Is coaching itself the end-all solution for organisational development? No. According to quality management expert W. Edwards Deming’s 95/5 rule, most problems (95%) are the fault of the system, not the individual. Coaching often targets individual behaviours—the “5%”—and overlooks systemic issues that could be the root cause of performance limitations. Organisations might choose to scrutinise their coaching programmes to ensure they’re not just treating symptoms while ignoring the disease.

Conclusion: Where Does This Leave Us?

If organisations are serious about adopting coaching, they might choose to apply the coaching approach at all levels, including new coaches. However, it’s worth reflecting on whether coaching itself, focused as it often is on the “5%”, is enough to address the underlying systemic issues that are impeding progress. To achieve lasting change and growth, organisations must consider systemic improvements as paramount. Anything less represents a missed opportunity.

Are We Training People For the Wrong Skills?

In business and software development, we’ve got a misalignment. We’re so wrapped up in perfecting the technical, we lose sight of the human. Developers are trained to churn out code more quickly, code that’s faster, cheaper, and more reliable, but are they learning how to solve real-world problems? Testers are trained to find bugs, but not how to prevent them. The result: technically proficient software that either nobody wants or that arrives late and over budget, or both.

Technical Matters?

Yes, quality code is essential. Yet, it’s by no means the end-all and be-all. A developer isn’t just a code-writing machine; they’re attendants. The fixation on coding and computing skills above all else turns them into technicians rather than holistic thinkers capable of understanding and meeting folks’ needs. When developers are pigeonholed into this role, organisations miss out on the broader impact their expensive developers could be making.

What About Bugs?

Finding bugs is a red herring – what if we could prevent them in the first place? Testers are often pigeonholed into merely identifying issues rather than participating in a more proactive approach. This approach costs time, money, and may even reduce the software’s overall quality because the focus is on fixing, not preventing. The need for speed in bug-finding diverts attention from other valuable forms of contribution, like feature development and needs validation (making sure the product meets the real needs of all the Folks That Matter.

What’s the Cost?

When we narrow our focus to speed, efficiency, and defect detection, we end up inflating costs and extending delivery times. Software development isn’t just about churning out lines of code or ticking off a testing checklist. It’s a more nuanced art that blends technical skills with an understanding of the needs of all the Folks That Matter.

Where’s the User in All This?

In the chase for technical mastery, it’s easy to forget the end-user. Products, at their core, are intended to make lives easier, to attend to folks needs. When developers and testers are not trained to master these things, we end up with products that are high on features but low on utility.

So What’s the Solution?

If we’re to correct this misalignment, we need a cultural shift. We might choose to reorient our training and development programmes. For developers, this means less emphasis on speed and more on understanding who matters, and then discovering and meeting these folks’ needs. For testers, a shift from just finding bugs to a more holistic approach to quality via defect prevention (Cf. ZeeDee) would be transformative.

Where Do We Go from Here?

The technical aspects of software and product development are, without a doubt, essential. But they aren’t the whole story. By shifting our focus to include all the needs of all the Folks That Matter, we can create products that not only work but makes a difference. The first step? Acknowledging that we’ve been training for all the wrong skills.

The Illusion of Training-Induced Change

Let’s start with a provocative statement: Training doesn’t change people; it only gives them options. There’s a widespread belief that sending staff on training courses is the magic key to fixing various performance or behavioural issues. But if you’re aiming to change people’s behaviours through training, you’re on to a loser before you even start.

The Gulf Between Teaching and Learning

Teaching and learning, though often used interchangeably, are not synonymous. Teaching implies the transfer of knowledge or skills from one person to another. Learning, however, is a more intricate process, deeply personal and emotionally charged. It involves not just the intake of information but the reshaping of perspectives, attitudes, and ultimately, behaviours.

People can be taught without learning a single thing. They’ll nod, take notes, even pass tests, but once they’re back in their familiar environments, it’s business as usual. Why? Because learning has only happened when behaviours have changed.

The Dynamics of Behaviour Change

Behaviour isn’t a switch you can flick on or off through an afternoon workshop. It’s a complex mosaic of habit, culture, context, motivation, and personal choice. Each person’s behaviour is influenced by a labyrinth of internal and external factors, which can’t be manoeuvred through PowerPoint slides and handouts.

The secret sauce in behaviour change is not teaching or training. It’s learning. And how does learning happen? Through curiosity—a deeply intrinsic motivator that spurs us to explore, challenge norms, and grow.

Radical Curiosity: The Gateway to Learning

If you’ve been chasing the mirage of training-induced change, redirect your energies towards fostering an environment that celebrates ‘Radical Curiosity‘. This is a step beyond the garden-variety curiosity that makes us click on an interesting headline. Radical Curiosity is the relentless pursuit of ‘why’ and ‘how’, the unquenchable thirst for knowledge that disrupts conventional wisdom.

When you are radically curious, you don’t just want to know what works; you want to understand why it works and how you can make it better. This is the sort of curiosity that can drive genuine learning and transformative behaviour change.

How to Cultivate Radical Curiosity

Here’s the million-dollar question: how do you instil Radical Curiosity in a team or an organisation? Here are some thoughts:

1. Open Dialogue: Encourage questions and discussions that challenge the status quo.
2. Safe Spaces: Create an environment where people feel secure enough to share radical thoughts without fear of ridicule or judgment.
3. Encourage Exploration: Give people the freedom to explore new ideas, methods, and even make mistakes.
4. Reflective Practice: Facilitate sessions where team members can reflect on what they’ve learned and how they can apply it to change their behaviours.

The Bottom Line

If you’re investing in training to change behaviour, you’re on shaky ground. The change you seek is rooted in the fertile soil of learning, nourished by the waters of Radical Curiosity. Replace your training programmes with initiatives that nurture curiosity, and watch how behaviours transform organically. That’s when you know learning has truly happened.

In the grand dance of life, each of us has our own rhythm, our own unique cadence. Yet, when it comes to learning, we’re often coerced into moving in lockstep, following the tempo set by impersonal online tutorials. Isn’t it time we break free from this uniform waltz and explore the thrilling unpredictability of our own intellectual choreography?

The Romance of Discovery

In the world of learning, online tutorials often serve as a pragmatic guide to those who prefer a step-by-step navigation. But my heart sings to a different tune. I’m an advocate for the romanticism of exploration, of stumbling upon a discovery without a prescribed set of instructions.

Imagine, if you will, a world where every creative endeavour is led by a predetermined path. It’s rather like reducing a breathtaking, improvised dance performance to a paint-by-numbers exercise. Yes, online tutorials are efficient, but don’t they sap the very marrow of our learning experience, the thrill of the unpredictable, the joy of the unforeseen breakthrough?

A Ballet of the Mind

Then let’s think about pace. Tutorials tend to act like a one-size-fits-all suit, but isn’t learning a more personal affair? A ballet of the mind, it unfolds at its own rhythm, dancing to the beat of each unique learner. In my book, tutorials might as well be straitjackets, stifling the learner’s own interpretive twists and turns.

Personal Discovery

So, here’s a revolutionary notion – learning, like life, isn’t meant to be a straightforward march. It’s a meandering journey. Each stumble, each hard-earned triumph, shapes us, makes us who we are. To surrender that process for the easy route of tutorials is to trade the richness of personal discovery for the mundanity of consensus and received “wisdom”. Let’s embrace our own intellectual adventures and step away from the conveyor belt of homogenised knowledge.

Buiilding a Better Team

My most recent book “The Team Fruit Bowl” aims to provide a host of practical insights, and a road map for making your team better.

To help The Team Fruit Bowl‘s readers along that road, here’s a learning path for the book.

Learning Path

1. Introduction to the Concept: Begin by understanding the fundamental premise of the book – the idea of comparing different team dynamics to various fruits. Familiarize yourself with the overall structure of the book and the key themes it explores.
2. Deep Dive into Individual Chapters: Each chapter of the book focuses on a different fruit and the team dynamics it represents. Read each chapter carefully, taking notes on the key takeaways and practical applications. Remember, you don’t have to choose one fruit as a model for your team. Instead, consider the unique aspects of each fruit and how they might apply to your team’s context:
   • Team Apple
   • Team Banana
   • Team Orange
   • Team Grape
   • Team Pineapple
   • Team Watermelon
   • Team Strawberry
   • Team Blueberry
   • Team Peach
   • Team Lemon
   • Team Raspberry
   • Team Coconut
   • Team Kiwi
   • Team Mango
   • Team Kumquat
   • Team Pear
3. Reflection and Discussion: After each chapter, reflect on the lessons learned. How do they apply to your team? What elements resonate with your team’s current dynamics? If you’re reading this book as a team, this would be a good time to have a group discussion.
4. Practical Application: Start applying the lessons learned to your team. This could be in the form of new team-building activities, changes in communication, or adjustments to your team’s structure or culture. Remember, change takes time, so be patient and persistent. And most importantly, feel free to mix and match the elements that best suit your team’s context.
5. Continuous Learning: Once you’ve gone through all the chapters, don’t stop there. Revisit the book regularly, reflect on the changes you’ve made, and continue to learn and adapt. The journey to a high-performing team is ongoing, and there’s always more to learn.
6. Evaluation: After a few months of applying the lessons from the book, take some time to evaluate. What changes have been effective? What still needs work? Use this evaluation to guide your ongoing learning and development as a team.

Remember, the goal of this learning path is not just to read the book, but to truly understand and apply its insights to improve your team’s dynamics and performance. The beauty of “The Team Fruit Bowl” is that it allows you to pick and choose the elements that best suit your team, creating a unique blend that’s just right for your context.

The best way by far to learn is to teach others. This statement has been echoed by many educational experts and researchers over the years, yet it is still not implemented in many teaching and training situations. It is a well-known fact that teaching is a powerful tool for learning, but why is it not used more often?

One of the reasons for this is that traditional teaching methods have been based on a one-way flow of information. The teacher imparts knowledge to the student, who is expected to absorb it and regurgitate it in exams. This approach may work for some subjects, but it is not effective for all.

To truly understand a subject, one needs to engage with it in a more active and interactive way. By teaching others, we are invited to break down complex concepts into simpler parts, and explain them in a way that others can understand. This not only helps to reinforce one’s own understanding of the topic but also helps to identify areas where one may have gaps in one’s knowledge.

Another benefit of teaching others is that it helps to develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. When teaching others, one needs to be able to anticipate the questions that may arise, and be able to come up with solutions on the spot. This helps to develop a more holistic understanding of the subject, and also helps to develop transferable skills.

So why are so few teaching and training situations based on this principle? One reason is that it can be challenging to implement in practice. It requires a shift in mindset from the traditional teacher-led approach to a more collaborative approach where the emphasis is on active learning and student engagement.

Another reason is that there may be resistance from students and teachers who are used to the traditional approach. It can be daunting to take on the role of a teacher, and some students may feel uncomfortable with the idea of peer-to-peer teaching (it’s hard work!).

Despite these challenges, there are many examples of successful teaching and training situations that are based on the principle of peer-to-peer teaching. From peer tutoring in schools to mentorship programmes in the workplace, these approaches have been shown to be effective in promoting learning and development.

In conclusion, the best way by far to learn is to teach others. By engaging in active learning and peer-to-peer teaching, we can develop a deeper understanding of a subject, and also develop transferable skills that can be applied in a range of different contexts. While there may be challenges to implementing this approach, the benefits are clear, and we might choose to look for ways to integrate it into our teaching and training programmes.

Given the time it takes to develop such skills to the point where they become useful to clients and employers, when do you start ramping up new skills in anticipation of emergent demand for them?

Especially when some new skills area suggests a sea-change from your existing skill set and comfort zone?

Or maybe you’re just accepting of increasing irrelevancy and declining rates of pay?

It’s wayyy easier to provide solutions than to help folks find their own solutions. What are the consequences of this observation?

• For consultants, trainers, pseudo-coaches and others whose income depends on selling “solutions”?
• For folks seeking long-term, permanent solutions to their problems?
• For folks who choose to hire consultants or other experts to solve their problems for them?
• For folks habituated to delegating the finding of solutions to their problems to others?

Voltaire asks us a rhetorical question:

“Is there anyone so wise as to learn by the experience of others?”

~ Voltaire

I’ll not be offering any solutions to this conundrum. I am available help you along the path of finding your own.Do get in touch!

#IANAC (I am not a consultant).

– Bob

Further Reading

Rother, M. (2010). Toyota Kata: Managing People For Continuous Improvement And Superior Results. Mcgraw-Hill.
Marshall, R.W. (2021). Memeology: Surfacing And Reflecting On The Organisation’s Collective Assumptions And Beliefs. [online] leanpub.com. Falling Blossoms (LeanPub). Available at: https://leanpub.com/memeology/ [Accessed 16 Jun 2022].

Would you like to talk it through?

Education is all wrong: Training doesn’t work. Teaching doesn’t exist. See: http://t.co/5GQ8RSjp