Blame the environment

This third post on training program failures looks at the training environment i.e. the actual workplace.

A student is subjected to the same demands and complexities of the workplace as the remainder of the work staff, but without the benefit of the their experience, knowledge, familiarity and ultimately, their resilience. Large or constant fluctuations in the work’s complexity and tempo will affect the student’s progress, often considerably enough to alter the outcome less favourably. Unreasonable problems, insufficient practice opportunities or irregular training bouts can mean inconsistent, and therefore ineffective periods of training.

To identify if there were any ineffective periods of training and if so, how many, you need to look at three main areas.

The People: Each of us responds to challenges differently and will leverage our various strengths to tackle problems in our individual ways. This means that our supervisors, co-workers and even customers will achieve their objectives using unexpected or undesirable methods that we may not understand or have the skills to complete. Different personalities can also result in different management styles, varying levels of support for the student and inconsistent policing of standards. Not to mention how the team dynamic can shift when we are short-staffed, overstaffed or introducing new members to the organisation.

ASK: Was there sufficient staff to balance workload or Too many staff involved, getting in each other’s way or fighting for time on the floor? Were they sufficiently skilled? Was there always a trainer available? Was there adequate supervision? Was there support for the student? The trainer? What about the co-workers? Was there any other training going on? Was their a change in staff or staff numbers? Was there a change in management, any promotions or demotions during the period that may have caused a shift in power or reshuffle of priorities?

The Facilities: Equipment maintenance or unavailability can affect the amount of training time allocated to the student. Introducing new equipment or procedures during the training can add extra challenges, even if the student isn’t directly involved. Any difficulty faced by other team members can easily encroach on the student’s performance or alter the challenges they would normally face.

ASK: Were there any equipment failures, maintenance or upgrades during the training? Was the student forced to modify practices for any period to compensate? Were the training facilities shared and if so, where was the priority afforded? Were there sufficient tools for the student (in number and in quality)? Was there opportunity for remedial activities or additional training to target specific weaknesses?

The Work: Balancing the workload with the student’s ability can be difficult in a controlled training environment (simulation, classroom etc), but in an actual workplace, it can be near impossible. Surges can tax the student, leaving them disappointed and exhausted. Lulls can be equally challenging by not allowing the student sufficient opportunity to hone their newly developed skills. Priorities can also change as the organisation responds to the demands of it’s customers or suppliers. Anything that shifts the company’s goals away from the training objectives will result in slower progress for the student.

ASK: Was the workload consistent enough to allow the student to practice, but varied enough to be representative of their expected duties? Was it challenging, but not over-taxing? Were there any quiet periods? Did the complexity and intensity evolve with the student? Did the student spend any time on the sidelines (too challenging)? Did they need to maintain existing responsibilities or conduct other competing work tasks? Were there any risks involved that made autonomy difficult?

Ideally we want the student to progress by facing progressively more difficult challenges, in a workplace that must respond to a sometimes extremely volatile environment. It is an unfortunate reality that the fluctuating workload won’t shift to meet the student’s needs and will at times, hinder the training process.

---

Download my free e-book: “IMPROVING YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN“ Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

Blame the trainer

It is time to shift our gaze from the student and onto the person(s) directly responsible for the delivery of the training program. I’m focussing on the trainer, but this could equally apply to anybody who had a role a play in the student’s induction into the workplace. Again, this is not an occasion to simply highlight the trainer’s shortcomings (again some of these will be through no fault of their own). This is your opportunity to provide feedback, development and improve the likelihood of achieving success the next time around.

Again there are six areas to look at.

Training: Sure, some trainers have a natural flair for passing on information or stepping the uninitiated through the machinations of the workplace, but when it comes to actually training some one properly, there a few skills that turn the amateur into a professional. Most of us know the basics of adult learning  (we are adults ourselves and we learn stuff every day right), but its when things get a little more difficult that you need a few extra skills or ‘tips of the trade’ to turn failure into success. Additionally, we want all of our training to be effective, efficient, consistent and in harmony with the workplace.

ASK: What training do they have? Have they been briefed in local administrative procedures? Have they attended any refresher training? Do they follow contemporary trends (blogs, periodicals, magazines, recent books etc) or are their methods outdated? Do they seek additional opportunities to improve their skills? Have they trained other trainers?

Experience: You may be tempted to immediately opt for the most experienced person when it comes to mentoring. Although this is generally true, experts can forget what it was like to be under training and often don’t understand how difficult it is to complete relatively simple tasks without a solid foundation of other related skills. Don’t get me wrong, experience in training is as equally important as experience in the workplace and it takes time for trainers to learn how to balance ‘letting go of’ with ‘holding onto’ the the student’s leash. Don’t just consider time in the seat. Consider also the types of students they have had, the specific challenges they have faced and their outcomes.

ASK: How long has the trainer been mentoring? What was their success rate? Have they dealt with previous failures or struggling students in the past? How long has the trainer been in their current role? Do they have other OJT or classroom experience? Have they been assessors or developed the workplace standards for the organisation? Do they have a wider background and fulfilled different roles in the organisation or are they limited to this one solely? How long since they have attended any training of their own and felt the pressure of an impending assessment?

Practices: Training is more than just what we know. The whole purpose of this blog is to inform trainers that what we do during the training is just as important. Training will extend beyond the actual sessions and weigh on the student’s mind well into their home life. It is also much more than just show and tell. How they correct the student, report their progress and offer remedial advice can be more influential than the actual information being passed.

ASK: Did the trainer give adequate instruction, demonstration and feedback? Did they record training efforts and activities under taken? Did they report regularly? Did they pre-brief and debrief? Did they offer remedial action? Did they try to learn what the student responded positively / negatively? If so, did they adjust their technique? Were they consistent? Did they plan? If so, was the plan adjusted with student progress?

Skill: It goes without saying that the trainer must know the area that they are teaching, but to what level? Is basic competency sufficient? Should the trainer also complete a qualifying period to ensure that they have a solid grounding in the ‘real’ conditions? The reputation of the trainer and their ‘perceived’ expertise is critical if they are to command some respect from the student. We also need to continually practice our moves to keep them sharp. Not only that, jobs evolve with new equipment, standards and practices. Trainers must keep up with the latest trends and challenges to teach the avoid teaching outdated methods.

ASK: How long has the trainer been competent in the area being taught? Are they experts or high performers that have some additional tricks of the trade to pass on? Are they respected or sought after as a trainer? What about co-workers and supervisors, do they share they same enthusiasm and respect for them? Does your process of assigning trainers involve a higher standard in the area being taught? Have they worked in the role recently and even if so, was it enough to keep themselves at the ‘expert’ end of the competent scale? Do they adapt to new challenges readily and are they themselves ‘proven learners’?

Personality: It happens far more often than we like to admit – some people rub us the wrong way. As a trainer, we need to adjust our stance to suit the student and the task at hand. Additionally, we must pay attention to details and be rigorously disciplined with our approach to training. We must also be steadfast in workplace standards, but flexible enough to be open to suggestions. Confident in our knowledge in ability, but humble enough to accept that we too have something to learn during the training process.

Ask: Is the trainer flexible, empathetic and have a open view on the various socially accepted diversity aspects (religion, culture, relationship status etc)? Do they accept feed-back? Do they act on it? Can they respond to the student’s needs and balance that with the needs of the organisation? Do they strive to be better mentors? Are they nice? Open? Reliable? Honest? Do they have a sense of humour? Do they come across as confident, but not arrogant? Flexible, but not pushovers? Tough, but compassionate?

Communication: As the arbiters of what constitutes success or failure during training, the student will learn to adjust their own actions based on the feedback and advice that we give them. As such, it is critical that we give them clear, relevant and reliable information. Students will become confused if our feedback is inconsistent or irregular. Likewise, sugar coating poor performance won’t protect them, it will leave them more vulnerable. Focussing on one aspect of the training or only on the shortcomings can give them a false impression of their own overall performance. The student’s greatest challenge at this stage is accurately self assessing their own performance and this skill can only be learned when the trainer does likewise.

ASK: Was the feed back given specific? Was it regular? Was it accurate with performance indicators, not just general ‘lift your game’ pep talks? Were the daily / weekly reports consistent with the student’s progressive evaluations? Were the shortcomings identified in the assessment consistent with those highlighted during training? Was the balance of positive feedback and remedial advice in reporting consistent with the student’s performance or too positive/negative? Was the student aware of their own shortcomings? Did they think that they had the advice/opportunity to succeed?

Once again, we are only looking a single part of the equation when it comes to solving why our training plan was unsuccessful. In the next post, I’ll discuss the training environment and the elements that will affect the outcome of your training program.

---

Download my free e-book: “IMPROVING YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN“ Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

New e-book: Improving your training from within

I’ve just added a new e-book to the resources section of this blog.

It explains how to prepare and run a post-training hot wash to generate ideas for improving your training program. Its completely free and I hope it helps provide some great insight into making your training more effective.

Blame the student

In the previous post, I spoke of the four areas you should investigate when a student fails your training program. Everyone’s finger is probably aiming toward the former trainee anyway, so here is a good place to start. Don’t just focus on the student’s shortcomings however, because there are a variety of ways that the student could have contributed to the lack of success and some of these can occur through no fault of theirs. There are six main areas to look at here:

Motivation: Motivation is a very important factor and can mean the difference between success and failure. It is one of the four golden rules of training and a massive learning multiplier. Motivation is a difficult aspect to measure, but there are some behavioural indicators that the trainer will observe during the training. Additionally, motivation is really only a symptom and it is most often the result of external factors, some of which are outside the view of the training team.

ASK: Were they enthusiastic about the training? Did they really try hard, put in extra curricular effort and seek additional assistance for the areas that challenged them the most? Did they initiate the training themselves or was it thrust upon them? Did they actually want to do it? Were they always on time? Early? Late, and if so on occasionally or consistently? Did they speak fondly of the challenges or complain about them to the bitter end?

Incentive: This ties in with motivation and is the external factors that the organisation adds to the training program. However, this is related directly to them due to the way that different students will respond to various incentives. It is the training team’s responsibility to identify which ones have greater value to the student and leverage them successfully.

ASK: Was there a valid reason for them to succeed? Was there added responsibility, credibility or promotional opportunities to enhance their workplace status? Was their a financial incentive? Was the training relevant to them or did it at least equip them with skills that were either transferable or improve current work practices?

Expectations: If the student has a preconceived idea about the training that is vastly different from reality, they may be over whelmed by the complexity or difficulty of the challenges. If it doesn’t equip the student as they’d hoped or give them access to improvement opportunities, they could become disillusioned or even question the value of their own efforts in the process. This ties back into motivation obviously, but could also lead to stress related problems or self-suspension if they consider success unreachable.

ASK: What were their expectations of the training? Were they accurate? Was it challenging? Not challenging enough? Did the training prepare them for the assessment? Were they confident of success? Did they think they would fail? Did they feel that the overall objectives were met? Did the training team live up to their expectations?

Conditions: It is important to consider what else is going on in the student’s life and may have had an affect on the outcome. This need not only be related to personal issues, but could also be the result of competing demands of the workplace. A student already entrenched in the organisation may have other operational responsibilities that demand their attention, whilst new team members have the burden of learning team dynamics and workplace etiquette whilst meeting performance objectives. There is also the additional burden or worry when their continued employment is conditional of a successful outcome.

ASK: Were there and personal factors that affected the training such as family problem, housing issues, financial difficulties, illness etc? Is the student having any legal or social problems? How new is the student to the workplace? Are they having personality problems with other team members? How different is this workplace from others in the same field? Other fields or professions? Does the student hold other responsibilities or subject matter expertise that is continually called on? Are they treat differently as the ‘new guy’? Is it team or solo performance oriented? Is it supervised or self regulated? Is a safety critical role? Is a student treated as a respected member of the team or seen as a burden? Is that the perception anyway?

Preparation: Preparing the student for the training is an essential start to the learning journey. They should have an opportunity to review the the objectives, the training schedule and milestones before taking a single step. They should also have a clear outline of their goals and how they are to complete them. Access to the training materials or pre-training activities will also assist their understanding of the importance of the training in their overall development. Likewise, they should have had some sort of pre-training meeting to discuss the program, commit to the activities and meet the team that will support them along the way.

ASK: Did they know they were going to be trained? Did you conduct a pre-training meeting? Where the objectives made clear? Were all of the training activities outlined? Did they know when and where it was to be conducted? Were they aware of additional support that was available? What about contingency plans should any difficulties occur? Did they meet their trainer beforehand? Did they have an opportunity to request another or at least discuss their own training needs? Do they know the failure policy? Did they have the chance to make their own recommendations? Were they mentally prepared? Physically prepared (if applicable)?

Suitability: A student who lacks the required level or prerequisite skills or experience is facing a tougher experience with a greater likelihood of failure. There is nothing to say that you can’t adjust these  benchmarks to accommodate the variety of strengths each student will bring to the challenge, but you must sure that you can modify the program to account for these relaxed criteria. Instead of asking if the student is suitable for your program, ask yourself “Is the training suitable for this student?”. If not, make the changes or cease the training?

ASK: Did they actually meet the pre-requisites? Do they feel the same? Did they have enough experience, the right qualifications or even the right temperament for the program? Were there physical challenges that increased the complexity of the training (injury, disability, upper body strength etc).  Was past experience actually relevant? Was the program modified? Was it even checked to see if the student qualified?

As I indicated in the previous post, the student is only one part of the training program and shouldn’t be treated in isolation when you are searching for a reason behind an unsuccessful outcome. In the next post, I’ll move on to the trainer.

Dealing with students failing your training program

After days, weeks and sometimes months of preparation, the student steps up to the assessor’s plate, takes a valiant swing and … misses.

In some cases they get a second chance, possibly a third, but like all previous attempts, success proves to be beyond their reach. The student has, dare I say it, FAILED.

With that simple statement, the blame has been lifted from the workplace and unfortunately with it, responsibility for any past or future actions relating to this iteration of the training program.

I’m not (completely) serious of course. A failure in the workplace is quite a serious occurrence. Resources are lost, futures are on the line and there is a sense of loss (occasionally relief) that sweeps through the team. Not everybody feels responsible as such, but we all can’t help wondering if things could have been done a little better.

So who do we blame? If it is a single occurrence, it is easy to point an accusing finger at the student – the program worked last time didn’t it?. If it is a chain of failures, we start looking for a common denominator. Of course one of these recurring factors is a ‘failing student’ and with the help of a misguided loyalty to our training program, we end up dragging them back into the equation, albeit with a little more compassion or justification for their lack of success e.g. recruiting can’t get the right people, they needed more life experience, this job isn’t for everyone etc.

I’m not saying that everyone is this near-sighted about an opportunity for improvement, but in my experience, this is an alarmingly frequent response. It’s almost like pinning the blame on a single point of failure allows the team to move on and get back to work, comfortable that the mystery has been solved.

The best advice I can give to training managers is something that was said to me by a four year old (who was suffering a vigorous lecturing at the time); “you know, when you point at me, three fingers are pointing back at you”.

So what do those disarming words mean to a training manager?

Well, it means that we should take a long hard look at the the entire process and not just the poor sod facing the unemployment line. They are rarely the only cause and in all likelihood, would have been successful under different circumstances. This is a opportunity to make your training program better, more effective and less demanding on the student (not to mention the trainers and the rest of the workplace).

Start with changing your view. The student hasn’t actually failed, it is the training program that failed.

Your student is in fact only part of the training program. Don’t get me wrong, they are a significant component and may in fact be the major contributing factor to the outcome. However, a failure is typically the result of many smaller constituents (usually insignificant in isolation and often present throughout previous iterations of the training program) combining with some new element/s (weaker student, inexperienced trainer, lack of resources, new material, evolving workplace etc).

The key point is to examine the training program in its entirety to identify the areas that need improvement and avoid a recurrence of this resource wastage. There are four main areas that you should assess to achieve this.

• The Student
• The Trainers
• The Environment
• The Program

You probably notice that it forms a nice little acronym ‘STEP’. The order of these isn’t particularly important with the exception of the last one. By tackling that particular area with the information obtained from the other three, you you can better determine exactly where things became ‘unstuck’ and identify the necessary changes to remedy the problem next time around.

I’ll examine each area over the next few posts and finish with an action plan for dealing with multiple student failures.

Is effort relevant?

In a previous post regarding observable behaviours and measuring performance,  I made the statement;

You cannot measure effort, interest or care. These are not and should not be included as a result …

I still believe that this is critical for assessing individual task competence, but in conjunction with something I read in Atul Gawande’s book “Better” (great book by the way – if you haven’t read it and his earlier work, “Complications”, you are doing yourself a disservice), I’ve started to reconsider the importance of student effort in the determining overall workplace proficiency.

I’m not referring to a student’s motivation or their apparent attitude toward the training, but instead the actual physical or mental exertion that is required by the student to complete the work related tasks in the actual work environment.

Is there a difference between a student who can complete a task with relative ease and another who must apply 100% of their capability to be successful? If so, should it be a serious consideration; i.e. could it mean the difference between a successful assessment or a failure, regardless of the actual outcome?

On pondering the answer to this question, I immediately thought of the physical fitness test employed by the Royal Australian Air Force. On face value it appears to be quite tame in terms of difficulty – just a few sit ups, a flexed arm hang and a 2.4 km jog. But when you consider that it is to completed sub-maximally, that is without overly exerting yourself, you start to understand how it could challenge someone who has let their fitness level deteriorate. If the test arbiter thought that you were applying too much effort during the examination or it looked like you needed to (eg sporting a couch-potato physique), you were promptly issued with a heart monitor set to betray your accumulated laziness as a high-pitched squeal to everyone within ear-shot.

Not the best analogy I’d agree as the test is really assessing your physical limits by extrapolating your result from the lesser challenge. However, the concept of testing the student sub-maximally, in terms of effort, not via a modified set of standards, ensures that they are able to manage an increase in workload without detriment or have the capacity to elicit additional assistance should it be required.

Can we actually measure the amount of effort that a student is using to complete a task? Not directly, but if we look carefully, we should be able to use a few other metrics that signal when the student requires additional effort to complete their allotted duties. As we approach our work capacity, we have less time to devote to individual tasks. We begin to make more mistakes, spend additional time correcting them and start overlooking things that were previously readily apparent or no longer appear important by comparison. A few physical signs also appear; raised vocal pitch, edginess in our responses, a small sweat, abruptness with our co-workers and less tolerance to distractions (and peripheral incompetence, perceived or otherwise). Of course this is only a sample of possible physical reactions to the exertion and can be quite subjective , dependant on both the person and the working conditions. None-the-less, you can still use measurable such as; time, accuracy, quantity  (or  voice volume, word choice, number of corrections) etc.

In conducting simple tasks, this is usually an irrelevant factor and its the outcome that counts.  But what about the real world; the complex environments that we actually work in where you task-share, prioritise demands, manage multiple competing responsibilities, scan the environment for additional actions and respond to contingencies? Being able to just complete a single task is insignificant on the competency schema and a student who falters when the pressure increase slightly will usually have an affect the workplace and/or it’s workers. Additionally, work complexity will wax and wane with activities depending on the time of day and task at hand forcing the student to ramp up at short notice and then identify opportunities to relax or ‘regather themselves’ afterward.

Shouldn’t competence include the ability to surge on demand and identify when additional resources are needed in sufficient time to employ them?  Shouldn’t your assessments therefore cover this intangible element?

Do you measure error rates, time between tasks or the physical markers for workplace stress that indicate the student has progressed beyond comfortable capacity? Do you test how well the student can prioritise their tasks, identify their own limits and call for assistance in time for the work to be shared? Are you accounting for  the impact the student is having on the entire workplace, not just the direct results of their efforts? Most importantly, are you assessing the effect the workplace is having on the student and whether they are truly proficient, not just simply competent?

Eight Assessment Don’ts

In my previous post (long ago it seems), I discussed the concept of Assessors decreasing the validity of their assessment by introducing a little entropy into the assessment process. It was spawned by an assessment of my own and I just couldn’t help myself, I had to rant about a few of my pet peeves. It appears I’m not alone and a few other assessment do’s and don’ts that annoy the ranks of ‘the assessed’ have surfaced.

I’ve actually amassed more than these eight here, many more in fact, but I thought I’d save some of the simpler ‘faux pas’ for a later date.

So, here are eight things that you should not do whilst assessing a student in the ‘real world’

1. Don’t refer to yourself as the authority: Sure, as a standards enforcer, you are an authority on the topic, but you are not necessarily ‘the authority’. The student doesn’t need to hear about your interpretation of a standard, how other people continuously misinterpret it, what the intent really is or how you have decided that that is not the best way of doing things. An assessment is also not the time to be ‘clarifying’ or ‘debating’ the correct procedure. You may understand the political machinations behind a particular standard’s evolution or take pride in how you ‘know better’ than your peers when it comes to ‘plying your trade’, but this is definitely not the time for you to assert your sovereignty over the laws of the realm.
2. Don’t confuse technique with standard: Don’t get me wrong, the particular methods that you use can be valuable advice for a the workplace journeyman, but these are better delivered as part of the debrief. Just because you like it a particular way shouldn’t tarnish the outcome. If it clearly violates workplace practices, stop the assessment or succinctly correct the student, otherwise, its just an opinion that can wait.
3. Don’t give up: Even if things are going completely awry, you are not wasting your time by continuing the assessment. In some cases, you can use this opportunity to find out where the root of the problem lies (it isn’t always the student). Persist as long as you can because even a student with a plethora of critical weaknesses still has a few strengths that can be built on. Having said that, if it is a matter of safety or the future viability of the company is at stake, by all means save the student from a moment that will haunt them for the rest of their lives. Just give them the opportunity that they deserve. They can learn from this experience and may even surprise you with their resilience in the face of adversity.
4. Don’t disparage any other other members of the team: Your coworkers may not do it exactly the way you like it or share your passion for exactness or efficiency, but calling into question their motives, professionalism or work ethic is will make the student uneasy. Are you trying to undermine their credibility, are you hoping to increase your own or are you just driving a wedge into the team? Is the student supposed to pick a side or bolster their own independence to meter the ineptitude that apparently surrounds them?
5. Don’t question every move: Allow the student a little room to move during the assessment. Give them a chance to correct a mistake or change their mind about a decision that they have made. If you ask the student to explain their every action, thought process or motivation, it will wear the student down. Sure, query them if you are unsure as to what they are trying to achieve or why they chose a particular path, but allow them to demonstrate what they know without having to justify each step of the process. Want to test their theory? Do it after the assessment, or better yet, before-hand to give them a chance to bolster their confidence by ‘showing off’ some of what they know.
6. Don’t do it for them: Yes they are still the same person that they were yesterday and will be probably wear the ‘new kid’ tag for a little while longer, but you will not be giving them a fair chance if you turn this into another training session or ‘lend an expert hand’ here and there. You are an impartial observer. The student needs to feel responsible for their own actions and outcomes. What if it goes wrong? What if it isn’t how they would have done it (now, during the assessment, they have the added burden of implementing a solution born from experience – the very thing they lack)? What if it goes right – who gets the credit (was it an assist)?
7. Don’t focus on the periphery: Know what is important and draw the student’s attention to these critical areas before the assessment. Targeting irrelevant or trivial points will distract the student, confuse their prioritisation and potentially hamper your own assessing ability (If you are so busy scrutinising the “Reverse Overhand Williamson grip” the student has chosen to wield the broom, you may miss the opportunity to see if the floor was actually swept).
8. Don’t excess: Don’t harp on a particular point by repeating it every few minutes to remind the student of their previous shortfall. If it requires a complex, comprehensive explanation and it must be done immediately, stop the assessment. If it doesn’t warrant stopping the assessment, then why are you bothering the student by trying educate them through a steady intravenous drip of information that is continuously interrupted by their efforts to continue working without making an error. Intervening is a valid assessment tool providing you carefully balance the consequences of interrupting the student with the ramifications of not enlightening them.

I understand that this may be infringing on the assessor’s task a little. Isn’t it your job to scrutinise, assess and deliver your verdict on the competence of the student? Of course it is, but if your methods actually hinder their efforts to demonstrate competence, then you aren’t getting an accurate sample of their ability.

5 techniques to improve assessment entropy

The purpose of a work place assessment is to evaluate the student’s competency in a particular area in real working conditions. During the assessment, we have two primary concerns:

• The assessment conditions are as real as possible, and
• The student is behaving in a fashion that they would normally if this was as standard working environment.

Now these can be difficult to achieve, even if the environment is identical to those conditions the student would be subjected to post training. We can usually identify the events or environmental conditions that directly affect the realism and even though they are often beyond our control, we account for them in our evaluation.

It’s the subtle influences that we tend to forget about and ironically, these can have the biggest impact on the integrity of the evaluation. Why? Because we usually discount them altogether. What is most painful to learn is that we, the assessor, are usually the greatest contributor to these chaotic forces, often even before we start.

Here are five ways that you obstruct an assessment, before you begin.

1. Be late. Be on time. Nothing says ‘my time is far more important than yours’ than tardiness. The impact can be devastating. While you delay, the student sits there pensive and uncertain. Is the assessment today? Did I get the timings wrong? Am I in the wrong place? Now even after you arrive, your rushing to get things back on schedule will influence the student; hey, they want to please you right, so they should pick up the pace as well.
2. Neglect your personal care. This is a catch all area for all things about you that may be offensive to the senses of your coworkers. Sure, body odour can be off putting, but so can the smell of coffee on the breath or dirt embedded under the finger nails. Chew a mint, fire off an extra burst of deodorant and save the gym sessions until after work.
3. Bring a conversation with you. Chatting can help the student to forget that they are being assessed, but excess unrelated conversation or continual witty retorts to other workers can alienate the student. First, they may feel like they are the only ones working (everybody else is chatting) and second, they may not feel that that have been fully initiated into the team (once they pass, then they can join in). Regardless of why, it will hinder their ability to concentrate or work with the rest of the team, even if it just to stop interrupting them.
4. Bring the rest of your life with you. The assessment is now your primary focus. Unless you are needed to perform CPR on someone, don’t get involved with the machinations or politics of the workplace outside the realms of the assessment. That means no email, no phone calls, no quick words with the boss to keep the wheels turning, no marking papers, checking your diary or planning your weekend. ‘Multi tasking’ is another way of saying ‘diluting the time you are giving to the student’. You will miss something.
5. Don’t prepare. Bring the appropriate documentation, writing implements and other necessary tools. Make sure that you are mentally ready as well. What happens if the student fails, is ill or finishes early? Are you ready to take over if necessary (this is a workplace assessment)? Is the rest of the process up to date (documentation, reports, assignments, written examinations etc). Have you reviewed previous training or assessment reports.

I’m pretty sure that we are all guilty of at least one of these at some time during our assessing career. It can be easy to be come so accustomed to the assessment process that it can be a little ‘ho hum’, but trust me on this, this is an enormously, huge deal for the student. Carelessly considered remarks, gestures and practices can, and will, be interpreted by the student and affect their performance. They have a lot more riding on this than you do.

Look at how you conduct yourself before, during and after an assessment and ask yourself two things; what impact do you have on the assessment process (including the student) and how do you reduce that footprint?

Next post, I’ll look at the assessment itself and propose some assessor technique (etiquette).

---

Download my free e-book THE WORKPLACE TRAINERS TOOL KIT Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “IMPROVE YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN” Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

Leave no stone unturned

The general purpose of training is to achieve the best results in the least amount of time. This can mean leveraging the student’s strengths and previous experience to maximise the rate of development. This ‘leveraging’ can include classifying some of their previous successes as a foundation for the new skills that they will need to acquire. So does’ that mean that we can simply ‘sign off’ the skills and knowledge that they may have utilised some time in their past?

It’s not that I’m completely against the concept of recognising current competencies (RCC) or previous learning (RPL). Rather, that as a trainer, you must be aware of the limitations and the implications of using previous skills when assessing overall competency in the new role or task.

Here are some of the complications that we can face when using a student’s previous experience in lieu of training.

• We forget: Over time we lose expertise in those areas that we haven’t recently practiced. Not only that, we tend to blur practices together and can end up with an alternative or blended view of what we should be doing in any given circumstance.
• We lack practice / familiarity: Even if we retain the knowledge, our skills will degrade if not exercised  with regular use. We may not be able to achieve the same level of result or perform at the same rate that we had previously. The effect of this will vary given the complexity of the skill, the time since it had been used and how well practiced it was.
• Testing can be inaccurate / representative: When we look at the actual competency itself, we may even be able to see flaws on how the student was initially designated competent. Was the skill used in isolation? In a sterile environment? On a limited sub-set of problems? Was it a single demonstration, not representative of the overall level of accuracy/precision over time? Examinations themselves only look at a student during a relatively short period.
• Conditions vary: The actual conditions that the student worked under have changed, so the skills that they may have used with relative ease can call on completely different areas of expertise when coupled with the challenges of this new role. The environment itself is also a factor. Are the lighting conditions different? Is it now an outdoor role that was previously conducted indoors? Is there significant PPE or equipment variations? What about the level of autonomy the student has in the role? Some people can’t work with a supervisor/trainer breathing down the back of their neck, whilst others prefer a little guidance every now and then.
• Ramifications can change: Unsurprisingly, the impact of the results on our environment can affect the effort and attention that we place on the tasks that we do. At the very least, moving into a safety or time critical environment can change the student’s perspective on the competency if not completely alter how they usually apply their efforts. This could also be the case when moving into a team environment or one with public outcomes.
• Standards may change: It is not unusual in any field to find than an accepted practice, implemented successfully for years, is suddenly classified as ‘risky’ and altered. When a student changes their industry altogether, they may be questioning whether their existing skills actually fit in with the new position that they are undertaking. This can even occur within the same organisation, just by changing locations (interpretations of the same document can vary significantly between the assessors and trainers, especially in isolated locations or positions).
• Techniques can evolve: Over time, we tend to find the best and most efficient means to complete our work tasks (this is what experience is all about of course). This is of referred to simply as ‘technique’ and although not necessarily laid down as a specific work method or standard, it is the best practice that has been honed to near perfection over trial and error. Thus a student who has a break, even a small one or is moving into a different area, may find the tried and true methods that they had applied earlier, not so welcome in this particual neck of the woods.

Now don’t ignore the student’s precious background  and by all means used their experience as a foundation for the new skill being taught, What I am suggesting is that care is taken when conducting a ‘needs assessment’ and that every competency is realistically considered, not just taken for granted. Trust me, the cost of going over something twice (I call that practice) is often far less than the consequence of overlooking it all together.

---

Download my free e-book THE WORKPLACE TRAINERS TOOL KIT Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “IMPROVE YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN” Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

Broken links and training of my own

As you may have gathered from the silence, I have been absent for the past six months. This is the result of a career swing back into my original field of expertise – Air Traffic Control.  Unfortunately, this has incurred a six month or so stint of  ’humility recalibration’ (or ‘refresher training’ as it is also known) and greedily eaten into my spare team.  After twelve years on the giving end, it is a invigorating reminder of how stressful life can be at the other end of the stick when your career is on the line.

For the trainers out there, please remember this.

I’ve started repairing the broken links that occurred through my failure to maintain the sister domain of  Training Tools. My apologies for any inconvenience this may have caused.

I hope to start hearing from you all again soon.

5 ways to reinforce negative behaviours

I was discussing with a colleague how procedures at our current job were less well known to the staff than the ones at my former job. Now both jobs involved an element of safety (one was actioning requests for emergency services, the other controlling aircraft). Failing to apply the correct procedure in either role could have dire consequences.

So why are the workplaces so different?

We came to the conclusion that it was a result of the ‘culture’ that had developed within the organisation and the perceived consequences of of failing to act appropriately. In particular, we identified five main mistakes that the organisation was propagating down the chain of management (remember, as far as an employee is concerned, the next level up is ‘the management’ and representative of the entire organisation’s leadership). These were:

• Ignoring the product, unless a complaint was made
• Displaying indifference unless their own performance was at stake
• Condoning incorrect practices by not fixing them
• Encouraging behaviours inconsistent with documentation
• Enforcing procedures based on consensus, rather than performance indicators.

This is also relevant to workplace training, particularly in post-mentoring development where the student has achieved basic competency, but needs to develop further and hone their expertise. Hence, the same five mistakes occurring within this particular organisation can be applied to supervising any employee during their post-training development.

The five mistakes

Ignorance: Ultimately, behaviours are established through feedback. We will correct ineffective behaviours based on feedback from the experts and likewise, repeat those behaviours that have a positive impact on our performance objectives. When senior staff don’t assess our performance, or only investigate it when a complaint is bought to bear, there is no opportunity for feedback or a to establish whether our actions are the most appropriate for the given situation.

Don’t get me wrong, most of us can readily apply some self-assessment techniques, but often these are limited by our experience and our awareness of how our actions impact on the rest of the organisation and its objectives.

indifference: A worse problem occurs when we are being assessed, but are not advised of the results. An employee who continually makes mistakes that go unacknowledged, or worse, unnoticed, will begin to question the value of their efforts. Why place extra effort to achieve better results when mediocre performance is accepted. Typically, this will be applied equally to high performers who will then become discontented with the lack of acknowledgement for their extra effort.

I am regularly countered with the “But aren’t we all adults” argument and that we should all be trusted to work autonomously. Of course we do mean well and usually don’t ‘slack off’ just because we can, but we all have different standards and interpretations of what is expected of us

Condoning incorrect practices: When we or someone else makes a mistake and it’s taken with a ‘grain of salt’ or ‘laughed off’ without fixing it, the consequences of the actions leading up to it can be ignored. Additionally, the mistake mat not be understood by the person committing it. How would it be fixed? How can it be avoided or its impact mitigated? What else does it affect? Once again, The value is in the feedback – what behaviours do we reinforce, adjust or avoid?

Encouraging bad behaviours: Through your own actions or behaviours, you could be encouraging others to do something wrong. Do you cut corners, adjust procedures or use alternative strategies to those prescribed? Do you actually know the procedure or just ‘wing it’ using the benefit of experience or a wider range of knowledge? This may be an acceptable practice, but how will it be viewed (an implemented) by those with lessor understanding or skill.

What if everybody is doing it wrong and by doing things the right way causes problems with the the rest of the team’s performance?

Enforcing incorrect procedures: By failing to standardise practices, you can force someone to do the wrong thing. This commonly occurs when two supervisors like things done their particular way and this forces staff to adopt different practices, depending on who is currently running the show. No big deal right – what if one of them isn’t following the procedure to the letter of the law through ignorance, misinterpretation or ‘knowing better’? What does the employee do then?

What if everybody does it wrong (I know the book says this, but that’s not the way it is done around here)? This could mean that the documented procedure needs amending, but then who gets to decide which procedures are treated similarly and more importantly, how do I know which ones are affected?

Conclusion

These insidious behaviours may seem innocent enough in context, but often are an indicator of bigger problems. It is similar to the “Fixing Broken Windows” theory. Simple things like feedback, post training performance evaluation and recognising the efforts of employees, especially those still trying to find their place in the organisation, can go a long way to ensuring that team members are actually given the opportunity to perform.

---

Download my free e-book THE WORKPLACE TRAINERS TOOL KIT Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “IMPROVE YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN” Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

10 tips for a more realistic ‘practice assessment’

This is part two to a post I made earlier in the week. In part one I discussed the reasoning behind preparing your student for evaluation by having them complete a practice the assessment before conducting the real thing. I also made a post on assessment preparation around 12 months ago, but only glanced over the concept of running a practice session.

Remember, the purpose is to have the student experience assessment conditions. At this stage of the training they should have demonstrated that they can do the job competently and all we are trying to do is avoid under-performance or ‘choking’ during the actual assessment.

Here are ten tips to make your practice assessments more valuable

• Lead up to it: Stimulate the build up and anticipation for the student by giving them a few days notice. Use any training time to prepare for the assessment and refer to it regularly. Test theory regularly, focusing particularly on any weak areas.
• Meet with the assessor: What are their pet hates, favourite question to ask, what style do they use and what constitutes an instant fail? Do they have any ‘patter’ that they use during the pre-brief? Do the sit back or scrutinise every action with an audible “hmmmm”.
• Practice all components: Don’t just start at in the middles of the action scene – simulate the entire event. Start at the pre-brief, continue through to the debrief, with a question and answer session (for those areas not observed), and finally, give a report, using the actual assessment form or template. If the assessment contains a theory exam, give them one.
• Make it as real as possible: The effectiveness of this technique will hinge on how much the student believes that these are the assessment conditions. Warn other staff to treat this like one. Invariably they will act a little different (more forgiving, less critical etc.) when one of their team mates is being assessed.
• Be early or be late: Don’t just turn up on time. This will add to the apprehension, making their feelings closer to what they can expect on the day.
• Consider an actor: If possible, have someone else conduct the assessment. Even if that person is only a trainer and not a workplace assessor, a new face can help simulate what it is like have someone different evaluate the student.
• Don’t trainer, assess: Use the actual assessment form, stop the assessment if something goes wrong and don’t explain the best way to do things unless it constitutes a breach. Unless it is something that could cause harm to any participants or the organisation, let them dig themselves out of any trouble they encounter.
• Give them a result: I know I said this in the third point, but give them a list of their shortcomings if unsuccessful. Brutal honesty is the key, but tactfully delivered of course because we don’t want to reinforce any unfounded fears.
• Throw in an exam: If they have to do one, disregard this point (see point three), but if there is no associated theory exam, throw one in anyway, Keep them thinking about theory and make them continue to ‘hit the books’.
• Induce pressure: If all is going smoothly, make something go wrong to increase the workload, just to show them what might happen during the assessment. This is an exercise in preparing for the assessment conditions. Once again, judge your timing and severity, we don’t want to be scaring them into a state of despair.

Conclusion

The purpose of practising for the assessment is to simulate the conditions that the student will be facing on the assessment day. You may feel that some of these techniques are deliberately making it tough for the student or sabotaging their chance of success.

The point is, this isn’t actually about performance (although as a secondary objective, this can be a useful tool for identifying student shortcomings). It is about having them practice what they have learned, under assessment conditions, so that it won’t come as a shock to them when they have to do it when it really counts.

---

Download my free e-book THE WORKPLACE TRAINERS TOOL KIT Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “IMPROVE YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN” Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

Practising for assessment – Part one

The culmination of many training programs comes is the formal assessment. It’s not meant to be the climax of the event, instead just a regular day at the office to see how well you now fit into the daily routines of the workplace. All of the hard word should be over with; basic skills have been honed, advanced techniques, if not perfected are at least understood and can be applied as the circumstances dictate. You know what to expect and how to deal with it, otherwise your trainer wouldn’t be putting you through this right?

However, in reality, this is ‘the test’ that makes or breaks you (or so it seems at the time). This is where you must prove your worth to the organisation and show them that the efforts employed are about to give them a return on their investment. These are common thoughts for anybody that is about to face an assessment, particularly if it is the final competency evaluation that decides whether or not this is really the profession for you.

Apprehension is unavoidable; what if you are found wanting, what if the pressure is too great, what if circumstances conspire to turn the best that you have to offer into failure? What if you just choke? In an article by the Scientific American on Choking Under Pressure, the author explains that the problem of assessment under-performance may be contributed to the fact that we are to busy concentrating on our efforts to just get on with the job.

Why does this happen?

Choking, apprehension and our fear of failure usually stem from our lack of familiarity with assessment conditions. After a few years, these feelings subside as we become accustomed to the routine, especially in those roles where regular or constant evaluation occurs (e.g. aviation, emergency services etc). Of course, as soon as it comes to something new, we tend to return to ‘non-productive’ worrying over unfamiliar ground.

So if familiarity is the solution, preparation for assessment can improve the student’s knowledge, and hence understanding of the assessment process. It can also help by stimulating the emotions associated with the assessment conditions to give the student a sample of what they can expect to be feeling on assessment day.

Preparing for Assessment

A solution offered in the article above explains how to prepare for assessment condition:

“The best way to make a performance situation feel like rehearsal, says Raôul R. D. Oudejans, a psychologist at Free University Amsterdam, is to subject yourself to the same anxiety-packed conditions during practice that you expect to encounter during your moment in the spotlight.”

It then goes on with a interesting story about about a study done on the marksmanship assessment of Dutch police officers, which is worth reading.

Conclusion

The solution is to practice for assessment during the on-the-job training, which means taking the time to create ‘assessment periods’ for your student so that they can build up to and experience assessment conditions. This is a particular effective tool for newer students or those unfamiliar with this type of training and can immediately highlight some critical flaws in their preparation.

In the next post, I’ll offer some tips to make your assessment practice more effective.

---

Download my free e-book THE WORKPLACE TRAINERS TOOL KIT Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “IMPROVE YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN” Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

Remember who you are talking to

Remember who you are talking to

In the military, it is important that you style your communication appropriately for the target audience. Now I’m sure that this is important in every job, but there are some things you just have take a bit more seriously in a military environment. For example, you can go to jail for insubordination (rarely would you, but it is possible), they use equipment designed to extinguish life and you must accept that in theory, every staff member can be sacrificed for the greater good of the nation. The three key components are style, tone and level.

Style is the language you use. Are you talking to a fifth grader or the company director, are they a novice or an expert returning after a hiatus or lengthy period? The difference can mean jumping straight to the point, laying down some background knowledge first or deciding to garnish up the bad news with a bowl of great, but potentially irrelevant news.

Tone is the direction and emotion that put into the meaning. Are you asking or telling, directing or berating, rewarding or condescending? What is your intent; fear, intimidation, guidance, assistance or just information? What is your mood? Our words are influenced by our emotion and although you are saying one thing, the underlying message or what is written between the lines may contradict your intent (unless that is your intent anyway).

Level is targeting the actual words that you use at the audience. Do they know the jargon? If they don’t, you won’t impress them with your vocational verbiage and if they do, you can come off sounding inexperienced. Do you know the technical terms? Bluffing will make it far worse and credibility in communication is essential if the listener is going to be swayed by your argument.

How does this work in training?

I overheard some training yesterday in a role that I’m familiar with The student fell into one of those ‘traps for young players’ and the trainer handled it rather ineffectively, requiring them to get things ‘back on track’ later on in the training.

The trainer gave the student feedback with one of the following statements;

1. “You did it wrong again”
2. “Don’t do that again”
3. “If you do that again we are finished here”
4. “When you do that, it sounds like we are finished with the customer – they may hang up prematurely and we don’t want that to happen”

Each statement suggests that they alter their behaviour. Each uses a different style and tone (level is about the same). Now your next question may be; well how far are they through the training and what do they respond better to?

Very valid questions because communication is about the audience. In this case, the student was still early in the training, day two of sixteen and customer control is what you would consider one of the advance topics because the student was still learning the system i.e. how to serve the customer.

My point is that when we are in a training environment, our responsibilities differ in such that:

• We aren’t the boss, even though we may be in charge.
• We do not know everything, even though we know more about this than the student.
• They do not know nothing, even though they do not know enough about this.
• They are human, even though we may feel like we are ‘deities’ in this role.

I’ve seen student’s treated like idiots, enemies or with complete indifference. Remember, these are our future co-workers and team members. Your performance may end up in their hands further down the track and if you choose use your position to bolster your confidence, authority or agenda, you may just find yourself working for them one day.

You can probably guess from my angst that the trainer had chosen number three.

---

Download my free e-book “THE WORKPLACE TRAINER’S TOOLKIT” Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “IMPROVE YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN”Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

The post-training review

The post-training review (PTR) is a meeting with the student to discuss their progress since they completed their training. Although the formal part of their development is over, the learning is far from complete. The overall purpose is to ensure that the student continues developing at an acceptable rate and avoids stagnating or regressing when left without a dedicated mentor. Although already judged competent, we still need to ensure that they are progressing towards expertise.

When?

The PTR is delivered six times, at various stages after training to target their changing perspective on their role, their capability and their confidence. Initially the learning curve is steep as they encounter new challenges, but over time the student becomes familiar with most situations and can focus on honing existing skills into precision. Supervision, motivation and support needed will also change throughout this developmental process.

The first PTR is delivered immediately after the final assessment, but before commencing solo and can be part of the debrief. We then use a growing time frame between each of the following sessions to target the specific needs of the student at that particular time. The next session is after one week, then one month, then three months, six months and finally, twelve months. That’s not to say that we cannot do these more often and if the former student benefits from additional assistance, why not provide it?

How?

Once again we us a structured approach to delivering the meeting with the student. This post is just an introduction to the concept, so I’ll publish this information a little later. The key to success is looking at the student’s current needs and tailoring your service to meet them.

Zero day: Offer Support

• let them know you are still there for advice and support
• Explain what other sources of assistance are available; e.g. other resources, mentors, guidance, dispute resolution etc.
• Don’t worry about assessing training at this stage, the Hot Wash is coming up shortly
• Don’t worry about goal setting beyond basic skills

One week: Evaluate Training

• Ask them what didn’t they know and what they had to relearn to do differently?
• Find out what helped them to prepare most, what didn’t they need and what would have helped more?
• Find out what was inaccurate, misleading or misunderstood during training?
• Start to set some goals for their one month review -  Focus on performance and experience targets
• Advise them that you are still there for support
• Reiterate available assistance

One Month: Expand their knowledge

• Still a good opportunity to discuss training, bearing in mind that it is slowly becoming a distant memory.
• Assess performance goals from week one to establish expertise in basic skills
• Use student curiosity to expand on understanding e.g. why this way and why not this other way.
• Create a development plan, with three month, six month and twelve month goals.
• Expand student horizons by implementing on-going actions.

Three months: Invest in themselves

• Review three month goals from development plan
• Re-assess the student (to establish growth and target areas for improvement)
• Implement a self-investment strategy (this is the usual consolidation period for most new roles; what training is next?)
• Review development plan – adjust goals for three months, six months and twelve months.

Six months: Introduce new challenges

• Re-assess the student, but also have them assess themselves
• Review three month goals and initial six month goals – this will help the their own planning process
• Increase their responsibilities
• Review development plan
• Reiterate available assistance

Twelve months: Transfer their skills

• Reassess the student, but also have them assess themselves
• Assess them delivering training in the role
• Review goals
• Increase their responsibilities more
• Review development plan
• Reiterate available assistance

Conclusion

The post-training review is your opportunity to meet with the student at scheduled intervals to assess their development since training. The time-frames aren’t set in stone and will depend on the type of training conducted and the length of the training period. The actions that you take are also only guidelines because these will vary with student experience, confidence and ability.

What is important is that you don’t neglect that fact that training is only a single step in their learning journey. Don’t underestimate the value of the assistance that you can provide afterward. Not only that, there is a whole range of benefits that arise just from your interest in their progress. Your actions can improve their rate of growth which adds to the effectiveness of your overall training program, for minimal cost and enhances their entire training experience.

Great results and a favourable review, what more can you ask for?

---

Download my free e-book THE WORKPLACE TRAINERS TOOL KIT Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “IMPROVE YOUR TRAINING FROM WITHIN”Using the ‘hot wash’ to refine your training program.

The problem with check lists

I posted earlier this week on check lists and my affection for them as a memory prompt, job guide and decision making tool. I love them.

Many a time has a check list got me out of bind by letting me know that I had erred with time enough to fix the problem before it became a really noticeable one.

However….

Check lists aren’t the ‘be all and end all’ for every circumstance and certainly will fail to help if not use properly. They are best used for standardised procedures where a single (or very few) correct or best method approach is prescribed (safety checks, start-up procedures, evacuation etc.) and the task can be finished by completing multiple simple actions.

For these types of tasks they are, a useful and effective assistant, but when we stray from these guidlines, they can actually impede the operational process that they attempt to streamline. This is because check lists:

• Need training to use
• Restrict focus
• Discourage ingenuity
• Hamper re-evaluation
• Increase in complexity disproportionately.

Need training to use: You need to be taught how to use the check-list before it becomes useful. They are not a training package in themselves and work best when they draw on existing skills and motivation to succeed. That’s not to say that cannot be new instructions – we may never have been taught how to flee a burning aircraft but with the assistance of an aircraft emergency card, we can quickly use our knowledge of doors, hatches, slides and survival to egress the flaming vessel with great haste.

Restrict focus: Like a sniper’s scope, they sharply outline a solution, but in doing so, they obscure they periphery of your vision. You tend to look for the problems that are only outlined by the check list and it is a common assumption that what is covered, is all that is needed to be analysed. The problem that rears is coverage; is our problem or circumstance covered within the scope of this tool? The reliability in recommending the appropriate response is then determined by how much foresight there was in its creation.

Discourage ingenuity: By there very nature, check list offer solutions or actions to be followed. When an alternative solution may be a better option, the user will typically follow what has been prescribed by the tool as the preferred choice. That’s not to say that the check list will preclude the use of alternative solutions, just that when a workable solution is offered, there is less incentive to look for more effective ones.

Hamper re-evaluation: Typically a check list has been tested over time and the solutions are generally well thought out, effective answers for the likely problems that occur, however, when you follow check lists closely, you tend to be looking at how well the problem fit’s the model, not necessarily the solution. Unless you regularly review the solution, you can succumb to the problem of the previous point and assume that once a problem is solved, it will remain so.

Increase in complexity disproportionately: Very complex problems require decision branching, wait delays, alternative solutions and multiple iterations of activities to ensure that they are solved. This becomes very difficult to depict in a suitable format and will actually increase the task complexity by trying to produce an accurate guide. Additionally, any interruption to the process becomes more difficult to overcome (e.g. was this the 46th or 47th time we through this leg of procedure). Encumbering someone with a check list may slow the task considerably and interject more room for error, whilst taking valuable attention away from the task just by trying to decipher the methodology of the instruction.

Conclusion

As I said earlier, check lists are a great tool if used properly. I live by them; something that my pantry can attest to every grocery day. Unfortunately they fail far to often by trying to be something that they are not. If they are not simple, then they are a hindrance. If the aren’t relevant, they are a distraction.

A check list is only a tool, not the entire tool box. You must know the procedures for them to be valuable and they still need experience to be used well. Even if the humble check list was the panacea of techniques for professional prowess, they are still only as effective as the hands that wield them.

---

Download my free e-book “THE WORKPLACE TRAINER’S TOOLKIT” Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “THE POST-TRAINING HOT WASH” – Improve your training from within.

10 tips to make check lists work for you

I love check lists. They are an outstanding tool for prompting memory or offering a brief description of a task or process. They aren’t a substitute for training, but instead recap on existing skills or describe alternative applications of current knowledge. If used correctly, they can enhance the process by increasing the chance of successful completion to a defined standard.

Check lists are a common part of life. Most of us have thrown one together before heading out to do some shopping, going on vacation or getting to those elusive chores that you have been putting off for the last few weeks. They are used extensively in aviation, emergency services (call an ambulance a couple of times and you’ll begin to notice the trends) and the medical profession (Kishore Visvanathan posted recently in his Plain Brown Wrapper blog about the value of check lists before surgery).

So why would we use check lists in our current work practices? Well, check lists ensure that:

• Nothing gets missed
• Things are done in the right order
• Things are done at the right time
• Everybody does the same things (standards).

In other words, by following a check list, we do all the right things, in the right order at the right time.

So if you have any jobs or tasks that could that meet these requirements a little better, a check list may encourage a standardised approach, all items being covered, in the correct order and when they need to be.

Types of check lists

There are multiple types of check lists that we currently use as memory prompts or procedural enhancers. This can be reduced into four main categories.

The most common is the bullet list, which is a list of actions that can be completed in any order. This could be a shopping list or things you need to do before you leave the house (e.g. Shut windows, turn of iron etc.).

Despite the ‘list’ in the title, they aren’t restricted to this format. For example, this HAZCHEM placard to the right is also a check list. With this guide, the attending fire fighter knows that he needs to use foam, wear breathing apparatus and will need to evacuate surrounding people. He can also identify the type of substance involved (petroleum fuel in this example).

The next is the numbered list which must be followed sequentially, only skipping or returning to steps as described by the list itself. You will see these in any instructions that you use, whether it be for building a plastic model, assembling a piece of furniture from Ikea or cooking spaghetti.

The instructions on this fire extinguisher is an example numbered list.

The third is the diagram. These can be simple, such as an exit sign or more complex like the procedure for exiting an aircraft in an emergency. Similar to both bulleted and numbered lists, they graphically depict the process that they are trying to explain.

On the right is an example of a personal protective equipment check list diagram.

Finally, we have the flow chart. This is a complex variation of one or more of the three check lists described above. Usually graphical in nature, it explains the task or process with diagrammatic flow, decision branching and multiple end points. Simple charts exist and can be used quite quickly, whilst the more complex ones require some familiarity to avoid being cumbersome and slow.

The example of the left shows a simple flow chart.

For these types of tasks (requiring multiple simple actions), the check list is a great tool for reinforcing the valuable content that you so desperately tried to impart during training. Providing you follow a few simple rules, the rest of the team will embrace them with the enthusiasm the you do.

• Keep it simple: They must be easy to read and easier to follow. Common jargon and well used acronyms are Ok but there is no substitute for plain English
• Make it all relevant: Only include what is necessary to complete the task, no extraneous information or background knowledge unless it involves altering the usual actions for this problem solution e.g. exceptions to the rules.
• Make it big, bold and blatant: Make it stand out. No need to reach for glasses or squint to make out the fine print, you want everyone to see every detail. Use colour, images and diagrams to draw attention to critical points.
• Extend existing knowledge: make it an extension of what they already know and do. This is a guide only, not an instruction manual or training package. They should not be learning anything new when they pick it up, but it should help them do their job by offering that little bit extra.
• Make it action based: Have it tell you what to do, not just what to think about. Sure it is a memory prompt, but give more than just a hint of what is expected. Use nouns and verbs (e.g. “Windows” could mean a variety of things and may confuse the issue even more, but “Check all windows” is an action to complete). Obviously this isn’t always necessary (e.g. grocery lists – the action word can be assumed to be – “Buy”).
• Include a bench mark: This sets the pass mark for completing the step in the check list “Check all windows” implies that the action is completed by looking at them, whether they are open or not is irrelevant, but “Check all windows are locked” actually states what needs to be achieved by the process and provides the remedy should they not be in the correct state (i.e. lock them).
• Keep it concise: This is not a grammar exercise and brevity is important. Convoluted messages become more difficult to read, are harder to interpret and mess up the format. Once again, this is a prompt, not a script.
• Clean it up: Processes change with new equipment and finding better, safer ways of doing things. Don’t be tempted to just annotate the changes with a pen stroke here and there and instead, reproduce a whole new a check list with the amendments incorporated so that it is neat and tidy. By all means highlight the changes so that anyone using the check list can immediately see what is different and adjust their actions accordingly.
• Authorise it: Endorse the check list as an approved procedure to give team members permission to use them. Include them as part of workplace practices by annexing them to the documented procedure. This means that failing to use them breaches the work instructions and leaves the team more open to errors. The tools are there – ensure they get used.
• Control it: Simply put, number them and ensure that you know where every copy of the check list is promulgated. This way you can destroy out of date material and ensure that when a change occurs, every check list in the area will be amended.

I love check lists. When they work, they work exceedingly well, but when they fail, employees begin to take matters into their own hands and start adjusting the procedures the suit their individual needs within the organisation, not the needs of the organisation itself. Follow these rules and your check lists will be more valuable, more readily accepted and actually give the team member the tools to do the jobs that they already do well, even better.

---

Download my free e-book THE WORKPLACE TRAINERS TOOL KIT Eight models for effective on the job training.

New e-book coming soon: “THE POST-TRAINING HOT WASH” – Improve your training from within.

Weekly wash up

The weekly wash-up is a meeting at the end of the training period to update the training team on what occurred and outline the plan for future training efforts. This regular get together is an opportunity to co-ordinate efforts, learn from each other’s endeavours and obtain advice or direction from from the training manager.

Individual advice, performance management or personal issues are best dealt in a one on one environment. Typically it will take around 15 minutes to complete and covers only pertinent information relevant to the training team as a whole.

There are four parts to the meeting:

1. Planned and actual training
2. Opportunities and setbacks
3. Progress and proposed actions
4. How you can help.

Planned and actual training: In the first part of the meeting we are concerned with whether or not we completed all the training that we set out to do. Did we training the number of hours, days or sessions that we anticipated? Did we cover all lessons or topics? Where all competencies achieved? If not, where did we fall short and were any additional or other achievements made?

Score it as a percentage of training undertaken or goals obtained. Why produce a score – it is a metric that we can use, with some additional information, to determine what actions or situations gave us the most learning opportunities. Over time this measurement can be be a great predictor for future training results.

Opportunities and set-backs: Regardless of whether we were successful or not, did we have any unexpected challenges that needed to be overcome? What about unexpected opportunities – did we take them and did we make the best of them that we could? Can we predict or identify when these are likely to recur? Did we make our own opportunities by undertaking additional or alternative training efforts?

This step helps us explain why planned training didn’t equal actual training and what else we did or used during the training period to make up for it.

Progress and proposed actions: Take a quick snapshot of the training being conducted – are you ahead of the plan, behind or traversing along a completely different path altogether? Do we need to amend goals or assessment dates? Do we need to change our strategies or the planned resource usage? What are we going to do next week; follow that current plane, ramp it up or try some additional / alternative strategies? What will you need and who else needs to know we are proposing?

How can you help? This is the crux of the meeting. Everything up to now could have been achieved via reporting and we, as the training manager, now add our advice and assistance to the training team. There are five things that we can offer to help:

• Advice: What suggestions do you have? Typically the manager has experience, additional support available from above or a least a view of the ‘big picture’.
• Assistance: What can you do to help, physically or in support of the training effort?
• Resources: What additional resources can you offer or obtain for the training team?
• Coordination: Who can you talk to and negotiate with to smooth things over or obtain additional assistance?
• Approval and direction: Approve their proposed actions or decide the best course if alternatives are available. They are after you to make a decision and manage the training team. You are their leader, lead.

Conclusion

In most environments, OJT trainers work alone, rarely get the opportunity to meet with other trainers and usually only chat to the boss when they have a problem. The weekly wash-up is your opportunity to meet with your team to see how they are going, disseminate your decisions and standardise practices. For trainers, it is a chance to fill you in on the week’s events, co-ordinate their future efforts and elicit your help in the process.

---

Download my free e-book “THE WORKPLACE TRAINER’S TOOLKIT” Eight models for effective on the job training.

It’s all in the delivery

Why do some people tell jokes better than others? Why is it that some presenters can capture the hearts and minds of the audience whilst others would be better at curing insomnia? Why is that when some people speak, the room goes quiet in an anticipation, but for the less effective orators, the deathly silence that follows is for a completely different reason?

The answer may be obvious (for the formers in my examples, maybe not the latters) – It’s all in the delivery. We all know that communication is not just about what we say. It’s how it is said, the way we act and reputation that precedes us that has a significant impact on the all important message that we are trying to get across.

So whether it is delivering a presentation, demonstrating a task or explaining a new procedure to the student, there a few things we can do to help the information remain intact.

Engage the student: Involve them, elicit their assistance, have them solve problems and fire up their emotions. Use colour, interesting facts and stories, suspense, intrigue or even cliché’s to make them part of the situation. Challenge them, test them and question them to check that they are taking part. Acknowledge them, praise their efforts and reward their successes.

Be sincere: Your credibility will be affected by you truthfulness and conduct. Say exactly what you mean, mean what say, admit you are wrong, and don’t pretend to know what you don’t. It is not wrong to not have an answer, but to bluff or lie to the student will leave you with a reputation that will be difficult to overcome. Make promises, keep them and hold yourself accountable.

Be objective: Show all sides of the argument. It is OK to have an opinion, but it is not right to force it onto your student. If it is a standard, enforce it, if it is a technique, encourage it, but if it is personal preference, state is as such. Explain why you do what you do and if your arguments are solid, then they will speak for themselves. If you do something and don’t know why, who is to say that you know best. You may have been here longer, but time alone is not experience (it’s what you do with it that counts).

Be relevant: This doesn’t just mean stick to the topic (although that is exactly what it means). Also explain the relevance to the student unless it is convincingly obvious. Why is this important, how will it help me, the team, the organisation and where do I fit into the operational process?

Have a purpose: Start with the end in mind; you are speaking because you want to persuade the student. Don’t speak for the sake of speaking alone, it is distracting. Side stories are only useful if the they explain why we do it, how we do it or when we do it. Incidentally, providing that you can do it competently, the student doesn’t care how well you can do it, how often you have done it or about the time you did it with one hand, drunk and whilst juggling as basket full of rodents. Remember the purpose.

So with every delivery you make to your student, think engaging, sincerity, objectivity, relevance and purpose. Regardless if it is a lesson, a practical exercise, a debriefing or training report, think ESORP. Of course you could reverse the order of the letters (i.e. PROSE), but that would be so cliché.

---

Download my free e-book “THE WORKPLACE TRAINER’S TOOLKIT” Eight models for effective on the job training.

E-book – Workplace trainer’s toolkit

My second e-book is now available for download. “The Workplace Trainer’s Toolkit” contains 8 models to improve the effectiveness of your training and covers:

• The pre-training brief
• The debrief
• Student education,
• Trainer Intervention
• Trainer actions after student assessment failure
• Reporting
• The SCORE card (a tool for coordinating multiple-trainer teams.

Each model is a step-by-step guide to implementing these valuable tools into your training program.

It is free, no strings attached and you can download it here.