Article : Are You Building Your Team's Competencies . . . Or Just Training Them?
It's a common mistake made every day by managers who seek to develop the skills of their team and mitigate performance issues. Got a skills gap? Training. Got a development need? More training. Got a performance issue? Training . . . training . . . and still more training. Training is defaulted as the solution to every problem with little thought given to whether its the right solution to the problem or the right fit for the current development need.
This may seem rather odd coming from someone who is part of a training and development company. But as an Organization Effectiveness practitioner, I'm really not saying anything new. Nor am I suggesting that training is not within the purview of a solution. But when it is part of the solution, it is always only the beginning of the development process, never the end game. Training is not development, and the sooner we come to terms with that the sooner we will rid ourselves of the false expectations and attendant frustration we create when we rely too heavily on a training class to enhance competencies or cure performance woes.
2018 Top Ranking Performers Present:
CONTACT CENTER & CUSTOMER ENGAGEMENT
BERLIN - ORLANDO - MACAOFIND OUT MORE!
This has no better application of this principle than in the area of competency building. Let me restate for the record that training is not development, and no training class can build a competency. A competency is a combination of SKAs, or Skills, Knowledge and Abilities. A training class can impart rote knowledge, a change in thinking, and a call to commitment to do something different or improve a current practice. It can even build some initial rudimentary skills around that knowledge, and provide tools for applying it to a post-training environment.
But ability comes only when skills are consistently applied and developed in a real-world setting. All too often there is an initial spike in performance following a training session as the graduate begins to try out the new skills he's learned. But then real-life takes over--the demands of the job, emerging issues, upcoming deadlines, general stress, etc.--and the graduate puts the new skills on the shelf and reverts back to the old familiar way of doing things. Once the crunch time is over, the initial "buzz" of the training has faded and is no longer strong enough to sustain further development.
That's why training should be viewed only as the initial step toward a competency. It needs to be followed (in a timely way) by a systematic development program that includes a competency model (the desired outcome), on-the-job training, performance observations and coaching, and some form of performance test that validates the SKAs of the graduate against the competency model.
Hopefully this helps to explain why development goals for your team should be performance and outcomes based, and why stand-alone "training" classes without a built-in competency-based development process are largely ineffective. Such an approach is directionless and transactional, and has no place in the world of learning and development.
Today's Tip of the Day - Answering Customers’ Questions
About Eric Svendsen:
Eric Svendsen, Ph.D., is principal of SCInc., a learning and development consulting company. For over 20 years Eric has been personally involved in the development of certification standards, competency models and training for the customer-support and technical-support industry, and headed the creation of SPC, a performance-based industry certification.
SCInc. is an outcomes-based learning and performance company that specializes in organization effectiveness, high-performance culture change, professional skills building and leadership development of call centers, contact centers, help desks and customer-support centers, and service desks. Our SPC certification and training is the only performance- and outcomes-based certification in the industry. Learn more and see our demo at our website.
Published: Tuesday, August 2, 2011