Emphasize the Quality of Your Training Programs

As with any department (or corporation for that matter), the first emphasis should be on quality. I know that seems to be a buzzword for many businesses at this time, but it is a reality. As with any other customer-related business, word of lack of quality spreads at a much faster rate than word of quality. There is no reason to whine or complain about what is or is not fair about that statement; it is simply reality.

To establish a reputation for quality, the first thing a training department must do is make a statement to the other departments or outside organizations of its competence. There is really only one way to do this, and that is to start training. Most likely, this training will come from a request or need from another department. Once it is determined that, in fact, there is a need, be sure the department is not on the line to do too much. Training is not the end-all, cure-all. It exists simply to improve performance, not to solve world hunger. The sooner a training department and those around it realize this, the better.

Make Sure Trainers Work with the Curriculum Developers

Another important factor involving the creation of a training department is the function of its employees. One of the first things that managers seem eager to do, when running a training department, is to separate the presenters from the curriculum developers. Let me make one thing perfectly clear: This is a terrible mistake. It follows the same old logic that states we keep sales and service people apart. It seems many forget about the potential for one to teach the other, increasing both employees' value. Sadly, it remains an unwritten law in most companies. Suppose we keep those who work on your car's engine away from those who work on its chassis. I once owned a car where this was so much a reality that I actually had to stock two separate sets of tools—metric for the engine and linear for the chassis. Where the two connected, it was anybody's guess! This also explains why, for some cars, changing the oil filter is like heart bypass surgery. I guarantee, before that engine was placed inside that chassis, changing the filter was a piece of cake. So why is it so many training departments keep presenters away from developers? Certainly, the argument can be made that if presenters need only concentrate on delivery, the focus and presentation would be better. The problem is, I made that argument, and even I do not believe it.

The benefits of allowing the two departments to work hand in hand are many. If the presenter assists the curriculum developer, there is the potential for the presenter to master the curriculum and delivery faster. Next, not only does the pride factor give an instructor more confidence, it translates to the credibility that presenters and training departments are often seeking. Also, the potential for an out-of-touch curriculum developer missing out on real-world information is eliminated. Typically, presenters have experience in the fields they are teaching, and involved presenters can help monitor the relevance of a curriculum they work with on a daily basis. The chance of an attitude problem among presenters is also held in check when they have a say in the final project. Finally, once a program is up and running, the training department essentially has a sea of subject matter experts to draw on when needed. Keeping these channels of communication open can help ensure the curriculum is not becoming outdated. It can also help to ensure your training department is not wasting a valuable resource.

Promote Consistency in Course Content and Training Style

The last obstacle training departments must clear, once a program is up and running, is consistency. By “consistency,” I am referring to multiple presenters teaching the same curriculum. This scenario is a pretty typical one. An instructor sits through a pilot with other instructors to learn how the curriculum is to be delivered. The students come to town and are bowled over by the training. (Perhaps I'm a little biased here.) The instructors celebrate those first couple of tough weeks, and each begins to settle into the curriculum…his or her own way. Now, I am an advocate of each presenter developing his or her own style. What worries me is when a presenter crosses the style line and begins to change the curriculum. This often occurs due to boredom. It is a lot like an actor who delivers his or her lines dutifully night after night. When the part is new, so too are the lines.

After weeks of the same lines, night after night, the words begin to sound stale. The actor changes the lines to freshen up the part a bit and is lulled into believing the lines are now better. Some actors truly believe that they have somehow improved their Shakespeare. Fortunately, there are directors whose main job is to act as the actor's eyes from the back of the theater and remind the actor that although the words do not change, the audiences do. For them, the actor is saying these words for the first time. Each audience deserves the best. In business, the actor's script is replaced by the presenter's curriculum. The director is replaced by either a manager or an observer. In either case, take comfort in knowing the students' reactions and questions will no doubt take the curriculum to new and exciting places.

If it were not for the fact that students talk to each other constantly, inconsistency among presenters would not be such a major problem. Students have egos also, and each wants to assure the other that he or she is attending the best seminar and has the best presenter. I have actually observed students involved in heated arguments over which presenter's interpretation of the curriculum was most accurate. Often the students are forced to pick sides because both interpretations cannot be right. The loser's morale can be adversely affected along with the corresponding presenter's reputation and that of the department.

To make matters worse, the most challenging task involving consistency is not curriculum. It is subjective evaluation by presenters. Subjective evaluation involves interpretation by the presenter. In school, most of us were subjected to this type of interpretation when we wrote papers or completed essay exams. There is not a large call for this type of testing in corporate training. However, a number of courses involve role-play, demo, or case study evaluation. In this type of testing, the presenter interprets an action or series of skills and judges the student's effectiveness. Perhaps now you can see the potential difficulty when more than one instructor is evaluating this type of behavior.

The good news is there are solutions to both of these scenarios. The problem with curriculum is best solved with the proactive approach of establishing a benchmark right off the bat. This will often be served best by using your most tenured or senior presenter. The simple truth is that carrying out this task is not rocket science. Using a tenured instructor will, however, act as the final word involving gray areas of the curriculum and the presenter's interpretation. The only reason I suggest it be a tenured individual is that few fields hold higher egos than the training field, and this designation, handled fairly, may help to prevent a mutiny. Once this person has been put in place, it should be his or her further responsibility to assist in cross-training any new presenters, act as a contact for the curriculum developers, and, if possible, attend the various seminars to observe on a random, routine basis.

The more difficult of the two scenarios, expertise and consistency, involves achieving consistency in the subjective portions of the instructors' evaluations. The most effective approach I have ever used involves a few steps and a few late nights. To begin with, video- or audiotape a few samples of whatever you are evaluating. By “a few samples,” I am referring to samples of what is considered excellent, good, and not so good. The next step is assemble your team of presenters, order in some pizzas, and prepare for a late evening. What you need to accomplish is a consensus among those in the room as to what to interpret as what. Just a reminder: Consensus does not mean everyone in the room must agree 100 percent with the group's interpretation, merely that everyone can support the actions of the group. Gone are the days (and thankfully so) when consensus meant those in the group could live with the decision. That one word led to a lot of “I told you so's” by disgruntled individuals who did not get their way.

The mark of any good training department is its ability to achieve and deliver consistency. With the early establishment of a benchmarked individual and group consensus on the interpretation of subjective portions of the curriculum, a training department can sell credibility and effectiveness to whomever it interacts with.

Summary

When training is conducted properly, everyone knows it; and when it's not conducted properly, everyone knows it. Establishing a strong relationship with whomever is developing the curriculum is critical. Sometimes these developers are from your own company, and sometimes these developers are your clients you have been contracted to deliver for. Working together to ensure that your content is relevant and accurate and that the material is being delivered in a consistent manner will go a long way to making sure that everything delivered will be done in a quality manner.