I'm concerned.
I've been thinking about the "rational planning model" approach to purchasing training that prevails in many organisations.
This model is promoted by training managers because it provides documentary evidence that they have done lots of rational decision making in appointing a training officer or a training consultancy, and proves that if something goes wrong it wasn't their fault.
This model is promoted by training accreditation organisations such as CIPD, ILM, ALP and ITOL because it is complex enough to be examined and because it requires trainers to go through their qualification programmes that are a major source of income for some of them.
This model is promoted by large training organisations because the overhead resources needed to be sacrificed each time you apply for a piece of work are beyond the capacity of their smaller leaner specialist competitors.
What am I talking about?
At the moment, many organisations buy training the same way they buy toilet roll. Tenders are made and suppliers are approved on the basis of a pre-ordained set of "needs" that have come from an internal analysis and a secret dutch auction - i.e. sealed bids with full details to enable a contractual offer to be made.
DECLARATION OF INTEREST - Team Coaching Network is a small specialist supplier of training and NEVER bids for work in a tender.
Here are some reasons why I think this is not the best approach:
- "Needs Analysis" often comes from appraisal interviews. Managers may be required to tick a pre-set list of training needs to indicate what the employee needs; these are collated by the training manager who then puts the popular ones into a tender specification. If an employee needs to learn how to operate a fork-lift truck or to perform first aid, this is a great method. If they need to become more effective at working in a team this simply isn't going to help. Every learner who has come to me over the past 8 years has had subtly different requirements, many of which couldn't even be put into words in session one, let alone in an interview with their manager to decide whether they get a pay rise that year.
- Many tenders require "accreditation" of the people who will deliver the training. If you're teaching someone to drive, it may help if you yourself hold a full clean licence, but if you're teaching people how to become more persuasive in getting co-operation from colleagues, customers and suppliers, there ain't an exam in the world that can measure the competencies that make you effective in developing those skills in people.
- The very tendering process favours larger organisations who make their profits on economies of scale. If you're learning how to use Sage Line 50, then each participant needs to know the same stuff and every course will be the same so you can deliver efficiently to 10,000 people. If you're helping senior managers lead and shape cultural change throughout their organisation, you need the flexible customised approach that independent consultants are famous for; in fact some research into change management consultancies suggests the quality of independents outstrips all other consultants except the massive multinationals.
A procurement process designed to find the cheapest people to empty your bins may work for some kinds of training but it can run aground pretty sharpish if you try to use it for development designed to change interpersonal behaviour, improve working relationships or influence the organisational culture.
So what should we be doing?
Imagine a movie studio or a west end producer selects their lead actors by asking them to put copies of their drama school certificates, a description of how they would tackle the role, details of their ethical and environmental policies, and of course the fee they want, into a sealed envelope to be scrutinised by a secret committee.
It won't work, will it? Some of our greatest actors failed drama college or never even went. And you can't describe how you'd play the Dane on paper, you'd have to show them how you would do it. And while I've no doubt some actors never get asked to audition because they are beyond the budget, it's hardly the single deciding factor.
We instinctively recognise that acting is different from making sure there's enough loo roll around - it's not about logistics, it's about talent. Great actors respond in the moment, create changed emotional states, take the audience on a journey and leave you with plenty to think about. Good trainers, in the fields of interpersonal behaviours and organisational leadership, have to do the same.
I was once asked to deliver a short "taster" session with the prospect of a piece of work with that group if I was chosen over 3 other consultants. I was a bit peeved at first, but went ahead - after all half a day was far less than the time it would take to write a tender bid! I am proud to say the group chose me head and shoulders above the others, who made the mistake of using their 2 hours to pitch for the work, whereas I rolled out the flipcharts and listened to the team talk about what they really wanted and what they needed to be effective in their roles.
There isn't much time in the world to do this every time you want a training course, but we need a rebalancing between the clinical rational world of choosing a furniture supplier and the complex, personal business of starting a relationship with a trainer who could transform the whole environment of your organisation.
Dave Bull
Team Coaching Network Ltd - http://www.teamcoachingnetwork.com
Campaign for Real Teambuilding - http://realteambuilding.co.uk
Stumble It!
Posts
