Are company procedures and apathy preventing selection of the best training providers?
With job titles such as Learning & Development manager; People & Culture manager; and Organisational Development manager, organisations are recognising the importance of people development, and have dedicated HR teams to develop and implement company wide strategies. By centralising the people development function via the HR Division, organisations attempt to manage the influx of training offers by external providers, and provide a co-ordinated approach to inter-departmental training. The budget and types of training programs are usually planned at least 14 months ahead, and often the decision on who attends what training is linked to individual annual performance reviews.
This arrangement works out nicely for both HR and the business managers. When you consider the dreaded annual performance review process (sympathies to any manager with more than eight direct reports), it is probably a relief for managers to simply look at a checklist of training courses available for the year (prepared by the L&D department) and pick one or two that are a logical fit with the direct reports’ Development Plan, where they can gain skills in behavioural/communication areas that they either need improvement in, or would like to enhance, as they are grooming themselves for the next promotion. The L&D department is likely to assess requirements for management training with round table management discussions, review existing training courses and providers, assess new training designs and providers and then finalise the training schedule for the year to come. But are companies missing out on leading edge training opportunities, because they are locking themselves into an annual training schedule with no flexibility to add or adapt training programs given new information?
In my experience with some large organisations, when new initiatives for training are discussed with the L&D department, there seems to be limited motivation to explore other possibilities once the annual training calendar is finalised. Why? Because it would mean changing the already approved training schedule – and that means more effort to persuade management to allow the change? That would require a determined person with a strong conviction about providing the best they can offer employees. They would also have to be confident that adding a new training provider will reinforce the agreed L&D strategy further. However, a likely consequence of approaching organisations after they have rubber stamped their 12 month schedule may be that they will politely offer to file the information, and be open to a follow up call again in six months or so.
HR are not necessarily to blame when approval processes and procedures for procuring a new training provider are time consuming with a lot of red tape. These procedures can inhibit flexibility to change. After all, if everyone is generally satisfied with current trainers and there is no or limited ‘bad’ feedback, why change? This can also be called inertia. But, there could be a price to pay for taking the safe ‘routine’ path, especially if your competitors are more willing to test out new initiatives more readily.
I called the Sales Capability Manager-HR of a large organisation in November last year. This person is responsible for looking after the training and development needs of the Sales division. I enquired about their training strategy, and when they indicated there is an ongoing interest in developing the influencing, negotiating and selling skills of their talent pool, I offered them an opportunity to come along to one of our public enrolment trainings in negotiating. The manager’s response was “we already have our training locked in for 2008.” That’s expected. I then asked, “what is your process for investigating new leading edge training programs which could be integrated into your corporate strategy later on?” The manager replied “we’ve already been through an assessment of various providers and have made our decision on who we’ll be using this year.” Fair enough, although she didn’t really answer my question. I then offered the Sales Capability Manager the option to come to our training herself in order to test it out. This would give her an opportunity to assess the calibre of our training, and be prepared with recommendations based on self experience, ready for the next round of management training discussions. She declined the offer.
Although this is not an indication that all large organisations respond in this manner, I am surprised with the few that had. Perhaps my timing wasn’t right, in which case I obtain an agreement to follow up at a later date. But if people development is a strategic process, that requires forsight into the future needs of the business and an assessment of what skills managers and employees will need to have in order to compete effectively.
Therefore, it could be assumed that senior managers in L&D, OD, and Business units would take on roles similar to talent scouts, agents, and coaches of sporting teams – search and recruit those that show potential; provide clear direction on their role and what the team expects; then give them the best resources, training (physical and mental), support and care to help them realise their full potential.
If this metaphor was a driving principle, then those responsible for bringing management training to the organisation would be searching and investigating all areas that could provide them with a competitive advantage, testing out new prospective trainers all the time. If they don’t do this, then what criteria are they basing their recommendations on?
