Stop Training Your Executives
Nobody wants to be told they need to go back to school. The more senior in an organization you are, the more certain you are about this. Whether it’s sitting in a classroom again or being in front of your computer as the WebEx slides scroll by, most training is not that enjoyable or even beneficial. The problem isn’t even that most programs are badly designed and boring to sit through. The real problem is that most organizations treat all of their training monolithically. The same people are in charge of it. The vehicles for delivering it all look alike. The underlying objectives get lost in the fog of execution.
When companies are spending money on training and education, on learning and development, they are not doing it as a perk. They are doing it because they have to. But just as there are different types of training programs, there are at least as many different reasons for offering them.
Let’s look at six different types of training and education.
Basic skills. Getting proficient in Excel, for example, is something that some people can do on their own. Other people benefit from structured instruction. The same holds true for presentation skills and for basic accounting. There’s nothing employer-specific about these skills. There are perfectly good courses out there to teach these skills – at colleges, online, and from training specialists. The challenge is finding the best one in such a crowded field. The best approach is to minimize search costs and be satisfied with good enough. The role of the corporate learning and development organization shouldn’t be designing and delivering these programs. It should just be facilitating the search process for the users. The courses themselves should be continually available, and people will take them at a time when their work schedule allows.
Continuing education. Professionals in most fields are required to take a certain number of hours of continuing education each year. Not only doctors, but accountants, real estate agents, and even (in some states) the people who cut your hair. These courses can be taught by professional associations or by outside vendors. They are not taught internally. The organization’s challenge is largely record keeping. They must establish that their people (1) took the class from an accredited vendor, (2) spent the required number of hours in the class, whether online or in person, and (3) passed a test. The classes should be available on a regular schedule, so that people have enough advance notice to get a requirement checked off.
Mandatory training. For legal reasons as much as anything, most organization expect their employees to undergo training in sensitive topics. Safety training in industrial settings is one example. Training about sexual harassment and what might or might not be unacceptable is another. Computer security and good IT habits is a third. Unlike continuing education, these courses are usually taught internally, and employees usually just need to sit through them once. What matters most is documentary evidence that the organization has done a good-enough job of letting its employees know what it expects.
Just-in-time training. There are times in an employee’s career where she will really benefit from a tailored educational program. Whether it’s starting at a new company or moving up because of a promotion, the employee needs to understand that the new position requires new skills or a new point of view. This type of training typically emphasizes self-awareness, leadership, and strategic thinking. If you think this sounds like the second year of an MBA program, you’re right. We’re no longer talking about training; we’re definitely talking about teaching. This type of education is best provided by university programs or specialized consulting firms. The challenge for learning and development organizations lies in evaluating programs and vendors of higher-level skills.
Advanced degrees. Getting an MBA at night or on weekends is a grueling experience. For some people, it rounds out their education, helping them make the transition from specialist to executive. For others, it is the ticket to a new job, maybe even a new industry. The real question is who should pay for it. Some organizations anoint a select group of Hi-Po’s, or high potential employees, and give them access to outside education. The US military has a long tradition of sending rising stars to Harvard Business School and its peers. When companies do this, they typically pay for the schooling, contingent on the employee’s staying with the firm a certain number of years afterward. The job of the HR department here is deciding who gets the benefit, and whether the school is acceptably good.
Strategic alignment. When an organization is executing a major change, it doesn’t just need to tell people what to start doing differently. People won’t do a good job on the “what” of change if they don’t know much about the “why.” If you’re not facing anything new in what your customers want, what your competitors are doing, or what technology is making possible, then there’s no need for change. But how often is that the case? Changes outside the organization call for changes inside. This is where a customized, timely, and externally-focused program can be invaluable. Call it education. Call it leadership development. Call it strategy roll-out. But don’t call it training. As dogs and athletes know, training is about gradually building up your capabilities and making certain behaviors routine and automatic. But a strategic realignment is anything but routine. That’s why off-the-shelf courses and TED talks from celebrities have little real impact.
Putting together a change program requires both internal leaders and external specialists. The internal voices not only identify the issues that need talking about. Their involvement is the signal that the organization is serious about change. The external specialists have an even harder job. They need to be top-rate facilitators, since steering senior leaders in an open, productive conversation can be like herding cats. But they also need to be business savvy. They need to know more about the industry and the changes going on outside than anybody in the room. That’s why they can’t just be trainers, or even most university professors. They need to have a strategic understanding of the forces of change that made their program necessary in the first place. Not many teachers are good at business strategy. Not many strategy consultants are good at teaching executives. These programs only work when they are led by people with both sets of skills.
When you step back and look at these six different types of training and education I’ve enumerated, you see how different they are:
The most fundamental thing to remember though, is that while some programs are genuinely training, others are education or, even more specifically, strategic alignment.
By the time people have risen to the upper levels of an organization, their patience with training will have worn thin. They’ll sit through mandatory training and continuing education like the dutiful people they’ve already shown themselves to be. But for those times when it’s most important to get their engagement and their buy-in, they need the high-level attention that is the hallmark of education. To drive real change in an organization, people need to reach their own understanding of the “why” behind the “what.” Only then can you start discussing the “how” of execution.
If what you’re giving your senior people is training, you’re wasting their time and your money. On the other hand, if you’re giving your executives education and insight into strategic realignment, you’re investing in their future and your organization’s.
When companies are spending money on training and education, on learning and development, they are not doing it as a perk. They are doing it because they have to. But just as there are different types of training programs, there are at least as many different reasons for offering them.
Let’s look at six different types of training and education.
Basic skills. Getting proficient in Excel, for example, is something that some people can do on their own. Other people benefit from structured instruction. The same holds true for presentation skills and for basic accounting. There’s nothing employer-specific about these skills. There are perfectly good courses out there to teach these skills – at colleges, online, and from training specialists. The challenge is finding the best one in such a crowded field. The best approach is to minimize search costs and be satisfied with good enough. The role of the corporate learning and development organization shouldn’t be designing and delivering these programs. It should just be facilitating the search process for the users. The courses themselves should be continually available, and people will take them at a time when their work schedule allows.
Continuing education. Professionals in most fields are required to take a certain number of hours of continuing education each year. Not only doctors, but accountants, real estate agents, and even (in some states) the people who cut your hair. These courses can be taught by professional associations or by outside vendors. They are not taught internally. The organization’s challenge is largely record keeping. They must establish that their people (1) took the class from an accredited vendor, (2) spent the required number of hours in the class, whether online or in person, and (3) passed a test. The classes should be available on a regular schedule, so that people have enough advance notice to get a requirement checked off.
Mandatory training. For legal reasons as much as anything, most organization expect their employees to undergo training in sensitive topics. Safety training in industrial settings is one example. Training about sexual harassment and what might or might not be unacceptable is another. Computer security and good IT habits is a third. Unlike continuing education, these courses are usually taught internally, and employees usually just need to sit through them once. What matters most is documentary evidence that the organization has done a good-enough job of letting its employees know what it expects.
Just-in-time training. There are times in an employee’s career where she will really benefit from a tailored educational program. Whether it’s starting at a new company or moving up because of a promotion, the employee needs to understand that the new position requires new skills or a new point of view. This type of training typically emphasizes self-awareness, leadership, and strategic thinking. If you think this sounds like the second year of an MBA program, you’re right. We’re no longer talking about training; we’re definitely talking about teaching. This type of education is best provided by university programs or specialized consulting firms. The challenge for learning and development organizations lies in evaluating programs and vendors of higher-level skills.
Advanced degrees. Getting an MBA at night or on weekends is a grueling experience. For some people, it rounds out their education, helping them make the transition from specialist to executive. For others, it is the ticket to a new job, maybe even a new industry. The real question is who should pay for it. Some organizations anoint a select group of Hi-Po’s, or high potential employees, and give them access to outside education. The US military has a long tradition of sending rising stars to Harvard Business School and its peers. When companies do this, they typically pay for the schooling, contingent on the employee’s staying with the firm a certain number of years afterward. The job of the HR department here is deciding who gets the benefit, and whether the school is acceptably good.
Strategic alignment. When an organization is executing a major change, it doesn’t just need to tell people what to start doing differently. People won’t do a good job on the “what” of change if they don’t know much about the “why.” If you’re not facing anything new in what your customers want, what your competitors are doing, or what technology is making possible, then there’s no need for change. But how often is that the case? Changes outside the organization call for changes inside. This is where a customized, timely, and externally-focused program can be invaluable. Call it education. Call it leadership development. Call it strategy roll-out. But don’t call it training. As dogs and athletes know, training is about gradually building up your capabilities and making certain behaviors routine and automatic. But a strategic realignment is anything but routine. That’s why off-the-shelf courses and TED talks from celebrities have little real impact.
Putting together a change program requires both internal leaders and external specialists. The internal voices not only identify the issues that need talking about. Their involvement is the signal that the organization is serious about change. The external specialists have an even harder job. They need to be top-rate facilitators, since steering senior leaders in an open, productive conversation can be like herding cats. But they also need to be business savvy. They need to know more about the industry and the changes going on outside than anybody in the room. That’s why they can’t just be trainers, or even most university professors. They need to have a strategic understanding of the forces of change that made their program necessary in the first place. Not many teachers are good at business strategy. Not many strategy consultants are good at teaching executives. These programs only work when they are led by people with both sets of skills.
When you step back and look at these six different types of training and education I’ve enumerated, you see how different they are:
- Some are generic, and any good enough program will do; others need to be custom built.
- Some are about compliance, while others are about change.
- Some are for people at all levels of the organization; others are specific to a certain level.
- Some deal with evergreen issues, but strategy programs are one time only.
- Some can be taught by internal staff, while others by necessity need outsiders.
The most fundamental thing to remember though, is that while some programs are genuinely training, others are education or, even more specifically, strategic alignment.
By the time people have risen to the upper levels of an organization, their patience with training will have worn thin. They’ll sit through mandatory training and continuing education like the dutiful people they’ve already shown themselves to be. But for those times when it’s most important to get their engagement and their buy-in, they need the high-level attention that is the hallmark of education. To drive real change in an organization, people need to reach their own understanding of the “why” behind the “what.” Only then can you start discussing the “how” of execution.
If what you’re giving your senior people is training, you’re wasting their time and your money. On the other hand, if you’re giving your executives education and insight into strategic realignment, you’re investing in their future and your organization’s.
March 12, 2019