@davida3652
Profile
Registered: 2 months, 2 weeks ago
How to Choose the Right Professional Development Program
The Training Industry's Dirty Secret: Why Your Development Budget Is Being Thrown Away
We've turned workplace learning into a compliance exercise instead of skill building.
I've been managing workplace development programs across Australia for nearly twenty years now, and honestly? The current state of workplace learning would shock the people who taught me. In the old days, you learned by working alongside someone who actually knew what they were doing. Chaotic, sure. But it worked.
These days it's all about costly platforms and metrics that tell us nothing valuable. It's crazy.
Here's what nobody wants to confess: most workplace training fails because we're trying to fix people problems with technology solutions. Last month I sat through a "digital transformation workshop" where they spent three hours describing how to use a platform that could've been mastered in twenty minutes. They were discussing complex features whilst participants couldn't even log in properly.
The Real Problems Nobody Talks About
The amount of money squandered on ineffective training in this country is staggering. According to some report I read recently, companies spend around $350 billion globally on learning and development. That's a massive number. Yet studies show people forget most of what they're taught within days.
Had a client in the resources sector up north not long ago. Outstanding business, safety standards that put most companies to shame. Their required learning modules were completely useless. Digital programs that became box-ticking exercises. People learned more from casual chats than formal sessions.
It became apparent that we're focused on compliance rather than competence.
Production environments often have better methods to skill development. Seen operations where learning happens on the factory floor instead of conference rooms. There's something wonderful about watching a kid figure out how to operate machinery under the mentorship of someone who's been doing it for decades.
But try explaining that to a corporate training manager who needs to justify their LMS investment.
What Actually Works (And Why We Dismiss It)
Mentorship beats classroom sessions hands down. I've seen it happen constantly across different industries. Match knowledge holders with keen learners and the results are remarkable.
Westpac has some fantastic mentoring programs running in their branches. Simple approach: seasoned employees guide newcomers through real situations. Outcomes are outstanding: people stay longer, learn quicker, enjoy work more. Simple stuff that works.
Yet most organisations still default to classroom style sessions where someone talks at people for hours about theories they'll never use. Why? Because it's easier to monitor. Administrators love the data : attendance records, certificates, completion rates.
Meanwhile, the person who's been fixing machinery for fifteen years retires without passing on half his knowledge because there's no formal process for capturing it.
Fell into the same trap when I started out. Assumed I could build one size fits all programs. Invested ages creating what seemed like ideal orientation training. Fancy graphics, participation exercises, embarrassing pretend scenarios.
Total disaster.
Realised that everyone requires different methods and support. Who would've thought?
EQ Training Mania
Don't get me started on emotional intelligence training. Most tender documents mention EQ requirements. Somehow people think you develop empathy through digital modules.
I'm not saying emotional intelligence isn't crucial. Obviously it matters. Our training approach misses the point entirely. Emotional skills come from practice with actual people. Not via computer tests that assign you colours or animal types.
Worked with a company that invested enormous money in emotional intelligence development. Professional trainer, premium facility, elaborate resources that got ignored. Follow up surveys showed zero improvement. Turnover actually increased.
Know what would've made a difference? Teaching those managers how to have actual conversations with their people. How to listen without planning their response. How to be honest about their knowledge gaps.
But that's harder to package into a neat training module.
Technology's False Promise
Digital learning companies promise that algorithms will fix everything. Individual learning journeys, responsive materials, targeted knowledge delivered instantly. Sounds brilliant in theory.
Truth is: these solutions address non existent issues while missing real challenges.
Observed a business install intelligent software meant to analyse competencies and prescribe development. Expensive exercise that consumed months of effort. Software offered remedial training to experienced users but overlooked essential capability shortfalls.
Meanwhile, their best performing team was quietly running informal knowledge sharing sessions during lunch breaks. No technology required.
Actual learning advances aren't happening in software development labs. Innovation comes from businesses that build environments where knowledge sharing happens naturally.
Methods That Make a Difference
Certain businesses understand effective learning, thank goodness.
Bunnings has this fantastic approach to product knowledge training. Rather than classroom courses, vendors deliver practical workshops to employees. Physical items, honest questions, practical issues. Staff learn because they need the knowledge to help customers, not because compliance requires it.
Trade training that blends theory with practical mentorship beats academic only approaches. TAFE courses that partner with industry employers create pathways that actually lead somewhere.
It's consistent: training linked to actual jobs, mentored by experienced workers, with direct practice opportunities.
Still, organisations prefer traditional teaching methods because they're known quantities.
The Uncomfortable Truth About Engagement
Training providers won't like this: happy participants don't necessarily learn anything. Facilitated workshops that people loved but that changed nothing about their work performance. Conversely, run training that participants hated initially but that genuinely improved their capabilities.
Real skill building feels difficult because it disrupts familiar patterns and forces adaptation. However, challenging sessions produce poor evaluation ratings, leading us to abandon them.
Training has been designed for learner happiness instead of genuine skill development. Comparable to rating exercise programs on fun factor instead of physical results.
The Way Forward
I don't have neat solutions to these problems. Honestly, I'm not sure anyone does. Learning and development has prioritised systems and metrics over the fundamental goal: enabling people to improve their job performance.
Perhaps the solution isn't improved courses. Maybe it's creating workplaces where learning happens naturally through the way work gets organised and relationships get built.
Perhaps we require less structured coursework and more chances for peer learning during meaningful tasks.
Maybe the best development happens when we stop trying to control every aspect of the learning process and start trusting people to figure things out with appropriate support.
Perhaps I'm becoming a dinosaur who misses the days when training meant observing experts and slowly improving through practice.
Whatever the case, existing methods don't serve most employees effectively. Denying these problems won't make them disappear.
In case you have any kind of inquiries concerning exactly where as well as how to employ Employment Skills Training, you'll be able to e-mail us with the page.
Website: https://enhancementstore.bigcartel.com/advice
Forums
Topics Started: 0
Replies Created: 0
Forum Role: Participant