18 replies to this topic

[gcse-fhp]

I have shared this post in another forum and I think it may be of interest to some of you here. You may offer or receive training. This is something to keep in mind about contemporary training models:

The business model merely provides a lot of information in exchange for money. In the instances where training is an operation’s internal activity, the business model merely ensures the check-off that training has been done. In contrast, and in all instances, the moral obligation model concentrates on ensuring that training produces the desired effect. For the trainer and the trainee, the moral obligation model always wins the day. The point here is: Always check the kind of training that you offer or is offered to you.

Edited by gcse-fhp, 03 October 2012 - 10:48 AM.

[Simon]

Well why bother doing training if it doesn't add value.
I do a fair bit of training and I always have a checklist that I try to follow:

- Begin with the end in mind – the goal
- Relevant content based on business need (e.g. new technology, process, improvement area etc.)
- Considers learning outcomes
- Focused content not scattergun approach
- Technically sound content
- Well designed
- Fun, creative interactive
- Considers different learning styles
- Considers audience demographic
- Hosted by a good quality trainer
- Comfortable location
- Suitable refreshments and breaks
- Not too long
- Checks understanding throughout
- Gathers feedback from participants on course on day and at a later date
- Follow-up to check theoretical learning and practical application
- Has the training met the desired business goal

I'm sure a professional trainer would have some issues with my list, but it helps me.

Regards,
Simon

[gcse-fhp]

Bravo! Simon,

This is a very good list.

Do you mind if I re-post your comment to my other forum discussion on this subject with full credits to you? I will not do this if you do not want me to.

Thanks,

gcse-fhp

Edited by gcse-fhp, 06 October 2012 - 02:56 PM.

[Simon]

if you link back to here as your source I don't mind.

Regards,
Simon

[gcse-fhp]

Of course! I'll link back to here.

Thanks

gcse-fhp

[Simon]

Was the topic just a grand statement from you or do you have some practical ideas for ensuring training is effective?

Regards,
Simon

[gcse-fhp]

Hi Simon,

Thank you for your question. There could be a longer answer but I will try to keep it short. This post is not simply a grand statement. I, and I am convinced that other readers, have practical ideas for making training effective. You proved this by suggesting the list that you posted. This post is only encouraging the necessary sharing or discussion of such good ideas.

If it has not already done so, I hope it causes you and other readers (trainers and training recipients) to think beyond seeing training as the mere delivery and reception of information solely for financial gain. The delivering and receiving of information is part of training for sure but it is not all that training must be.

In a well developed training process, information transfer is optimized and supported by a practical sense of moral obligation and social responsibility on the parts of trainers and training recipients. The right things must be taught, learned and practiced for the benefit of society. Almost all training is done for the benefit of the individual and the society at large. Where there is any disconnect from this, we end up with the futility of the business (and almost mercenary) training model.

The possibility of training being mercenary is not exclusive to the delivery of training solely for financial gain. It is also possible that training recipients may seek training only to have doors of opportunity open for them. After they have gained entry, they may selfishly abandon their moral obligation and social responsibility and become negligent in using the training received for the benefit of society.

The kinds of considerations that you shared in your checklist are helpful. Even with such aids, it is most helpful when training is done through a well developed “nurture” or “immersion” approach with an infused sense of moral obligation and social responsibility. This is of particular importance in the workplace setting which is the main consideration of this post. How can an organisation accomplish such “nurture”, “immersion” and social responsibility among its employees?

Here are some key practical steps that an organisation may take:

1. Employ/develop trainers who believe and practice (or have practiced) the training delivered (this means that trainers are to be part of the team; not outsiders who merely deliver information to training recipients and leave);

2. Provide an atmosphere that nurtures and sustains the moral obligation and social responsibility of trainers and training recipients (this means that training is not a time-limited activity);

3. Provide immediate and continuing opportunities for the training recipients to practice the training received;

4. Provide opportunities for a continuing and consistent collaboration between trainers and training recipients (in other words, provide opportunities for on-going coaching);

5. Provide and ensure a conducive, inspiring and friendly atmosphere for training and practice;

6. Provide pertinent training material resources and training delivery tools ( Simon, your checklist fits here as a training delivery aid);

7. Create conditions that allow for the on-going assessment of success in training through observable positive results of training (this means that training needs and objectives must be clearly identified with measurable parameters established – by “measurable parameters”, more than the usual scored quizzes at the end of training sessions are intended).

These are only a few of the practical steps or considerations. In case you are wondering, my source is the training program strategies that form the bases and rationale for the GCSE-Food & Health Protection CFHPE curriculum development guidelines.

Gcse-fhp

Edited by gcse-fhp, 09 October 2012 - 01:37 AM.

[Simon]

If we are talking about food safety training for example, there is a fundamental requirement for food business to train new employees, followed by providing deeper knowledge and then regular refresher training, which should be based on business need.

It’s obvious any training must add value and be effective whether conducted in-house or outsourced. Any company/person organizing or conducting training would be stupid not to attempt to understand their own training needs and then try their best to ensure they are met.

In the real world training is often very difficult to organize due to shifts, daily work pressure, lack of resources (money, people, time) and we all try to do the best we can.

I totally believe in training and people development, communication, being active on the front line and sure there are some basic common sense tips and checklists that help us to think about and plan training, but with respect I don’t get the “nurture”, “immersion”, “moral obligation”, “social responsibility” etc. for me it’s highbrow waffle - if I used words like those in my workplace they’d think I was a lunatic or worse.

It sounds like a complicated crusade for something that is quite practical and simple.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Regards,
Simon

[gcse-fhp]

Simon,

I am quite aware of the current industry-wide approach and the kind of training that you speak of. I have even delivered the much acclaimed “KISS” training in the past. Have you ever wondered or do you even care that after much repeated training over a long period of time, people still forget or even deliberately neglect to do the right things?

About the lunatic bit, it is quite alright to say things that may cause readers to chuckle a bit. After all, things can be too serious at times. However, I see that you have taken the ideas of “nurture”, “immersion”, “moral obligation” and “social responsibility” as suggested words to be used in training. They are not. They serve more in the realm of the principles and ideals for effective training. By the way, many innovators and radical thinkers are thought of as “lunatics” at first.

gcse-fhp

Edited by gcse-fhp, 10 October 2012 - 10:40 AM.

[Simon]

Have you ever wondered or do you even care that after much repeated training over a long period of time, people still forget or even deliberately neglect to do the right things?

Yes I care and have wondered (often). If you have a poor culture then training is a waste of time. I think what you mention is more about good leadership and management that develops a positive culture rather than training. This doesn’t mean “soft” it means performance is measured, checked, audited, discussed, reviewed and if things continue to fail even after training then we ask why and put it right. It may not necessarily be the operators fault they may have poor leadership, information, equipment etc. We have to look at any problem or business need from all angles and set about it in a rounded way and training is just one (important) part of the solution.

Personally I look at every problem with a fishbone or cause and effect diagram in my mind and ask what are the causes related to Man, Method, Machine, or Material. There are usually multiple causes.

By the way I’m not calling you a lunatic – as I said using those words in a manufacturing environment would be scorned upon and are not very meaningful or practical to most people.

Regards,
Simon

[gcse-fhp]

Simon,

Thanks for the additional explanation about training and the clarification about the lunacy comment.

I want to assure you that I am not that far away from where you are on training. I am only suggesting that in addition to all that you have described, training must be infused with a sense of moral obligation and social responsibility. Without this, those who are so inclined will continue to neglect to do what they have been trained to do. This observation does not pertain only to the rank and file workers. Some individuals in management positions and even some business owners may be likewise inclined. Only the right kind of training as noted will help break this inclination to be deliberately negligent.

Gcse-fhp

Edited by gcse-fhp, 11 October 2012 - 03:04 AM.

[RMAV]

gcse-fhp states:
"...training must be infused with a sense of moral obligation and social responsibility..."

The only way to do this is to teach a world view. There is no moral obligation and social responsibility without the "why" behind it.


"Only the right kind of training as noted will help break this inclination to be deliberately negligent."

You are asserting that it is the business of the business to teach people how to relate to other people. The trouble is each employee has a world view and there are likeley several different views within the business. Moreover, many of the world views are in opposition to each other. The answer is civil law, rules of the standard, rules of the business, etc whichever applies. Some will operate with a sense of moral obligation, but some will not. Those who do not have a sense of moral obligation need the law to create a check and balance against themselves, that is, they will operate as desired out of fear of punishment. Those without a sense of moral obligation or fear of punishment and who operate contrary to the law should be removed from the business.

Interesting topic overall, but I agree with Simon - we're making this too complicated.

[Simon]

Only the right kind of training as noted will help break this inclination to be deliberately negligent.

Don't agree it is not the only way it is just one (important) part.

Agree RMAV.

Regards,
Simon

[gcse-fhp]

Let’s not forget that people who are so inclined will always find ways to circumvent the law. In fact, many do so successfully since laws are often imperfect (full of loopholes) and those who are bent on finding loopholes find them. What is it that can turn such a non-cooperative tendency into an overt tendency to be cooperative?

I agree that things can become over-complicated. This is not the case yet with this topic. It will be if we go down the lane of differing world views. This will certainly over- complicate the simple suggestion that training needs to take into account the moral obligation and social responsibility of trainers and trainees.

Granted, there are different world views. However, we must return to the simple fact that the common ground that must govern civil law, rules of the standard, rules of business, etc., is the same common ground that governs the sense of moral obligation and social responsibility that members of every society must have. Otherwise, we would have anarchy. This would create a complicated and destructive state of affairs that any amount or any form of simplified training cannot get us out of. In a sense, we are there already. How else can it be explained that much training is happening alongside many incidents of failure in the industry.

The notion of “keeping things simple” is logical but it must not serve as an escape route and a high-sounding rationalization for not bothering to assess the obvious question. How successful are current approaches to training?

It is not for the lack of the usual form of training that the industry is suffering today. We have too many recalls occurring in spite of the prevalence and intensity of training that is concurrently taking place. We must not settle into doing the same things that are producing no lasting and sustained success in overcoming this obvious cause of problems in the industry. This is what I am drawing our attention to: We need to encourage the moral obligation and social responsibility of all players – top to bottom –through a serious consideration of how this can be done creatively through training.

If we do not dismiss this suggestion with a simple wave of the hand that it complicates things, but give it the creative attention that it deserves, those who already operate with such a sense moral obligation and social responsibility will be encouraged to continue. Those who do not will gradually and consistently learn to do so to the benefit of society at large – all of us.

Edited by gcse-fhp, 12 October 2012 - 03:27 AM.

[RMAV]

"It is not for the lack of the usual form of training that the industry is suffering today. We have too many recalls occurring in spite of the prevalence and intensity of training that is concurrently taking place. We must not settle into doing the same things that are producing no lasting and sustained success in overcoming this obvious cause of problems in the industry."

I am not sure I agree that current training practices are not successful. Others more informed than I can disagree as my evidence is **anectdotal only.** I have been in the food industry for 9 years in three different companies and saw significant progress in food safety in all them. I have been on and led HACCP teams. Once I identified an obscure issue that caused the need to establish a CCP. I have also witnessed and conducted recalls. One recall was due to our product being implicated eroneously, one was a mislabeled allergen, and one was a class 3 because of a spoilage organism in a supplier's ingredient.

I can make a case that internal company training was directly responsible for identifying the mislabeled allergen prompting a recall, and company-paid training was at least partially responsible for identifying a "sleeper" CCP. This is to say nothing of the countless times a production worker approached their superiors or us in QA identifying an issue we could solve before it left the building. Moreover, we should consider the billions (that's with a 'b') of pounds of product produced by those three facilities that were never out of spec. Even in a seeming perfect system with perfect training, there will be failure. Just look at the US space program...

Yet we should always look at everything in our enterprise, even training, in terms of continual improvement.

So in my little world (read: somewhat limited experience), training has made a huge difference and has moved us forward toward safe food. Good training, in my view, is only as good as the people being trained - regardless of their motivations.

You can build social responsibilty into training but it is only surface level at best. I do not see how you can go beyond, "would you want to eat it, or would you want your children to eat it? Do you want people in other companies who produce food you eat to treat you the same?" Perhaps this is what you suggest.

[gcse-fhp]

RMAV,

Your last paragraph hints on what I am suggesting and I believe that this can be made to go beyond the surface with the kind of training that includes the proper and effective use of real-life situations, "nurture", "immersion" techniques, etc.

gcse-fhp

Edited by gcse-fhp, 12 October 2012 - 04:39 AM.

[RMAV]

RMAV,

...training that includes the proper and effective use of real-life situations, "nurture", "immersion" techniques, etc.

gcse-fhp

Would you provide an example of what you intend? (I'm a bit dense)

[gcse-fhp]

Would you provide an example of what you intend? (I'm a bit dense)

The ideas of "nurture" and "immersion" are embodied in these key practical steps that I outlined in one of my earlier posts:

- Provide an atmosphere that nurtures and sustains the moral obligation and social responsibility of trainers and training recipients (i.e. provide and ensure a conducive, inspiring and friendly atmosphere for training and practice - this means that training is not a time-limited activity);
- Provide immediate and continuing opportunities for the training recipients to practice the training received;
- Provide opportunities for a continuing and consistent collaboration between trainers and training recipients (in other words, provide opportunities for on-going coaching);

Edited by gcse-fhp, 12 October 2012 - 01:15 PM.

[RMAV]

"- Provide opportunities for a continuing and consistent collaboration between trainers and training recipients (in other words, provide opportunities for on-going coaching);"

If I am competent to conduct the training, I prefer to do it myself for those who report to me for the stated reason above.