I have recently rolled out 10 accelerated learning courses in bite size peices to Team Leaders and Shift Leaders. These would include Five subjects on Basic managerial knowledge and Five subjects on production activities. When combined the subjects form a good solid base to take learning forward in their everyday job role, bear in mind this is what they should be doing everyday now. I have discovered that when they leave the learning area they automatically fall back into " What i know already" mode, and tend to forget the intention of the training. Anyone any ideas of how to transfer the knowledge the the shop floor and ensure that the training and skills given occurs everyday, second nature. Is It just a case of coaching and mentoring?????
Thanks Nigel
Nigel Bould
9 Responses
2 things
On first reaction, my perspective would be to say “Yes, it probably means introducing some coaching or mentoring”.
The alternative is to tie some incentive into demonstrable behaviours in the workplace that mean they are actually applying the learning in the real world (and that means taking some kind of measurement such as 360 degree feedback or quarterly appraisal).
For faster response coaching (not mentoring) would seem a good option. Bear in mind that coaching and mentoring are two different things. Mentoring tends to be provided (to a certain degree) by subject matter experts – people who demonstrate exemplary behaviour in a particular way. Coaches do not need that quality – they must, however, be strong at inspiring new behaviour and tying individuals to action plans before gaining commitment to actual application of new skills.
I have a document outlining our perception (and I stress it is OUR PERCEPTION – IE: not definitive) of the differences between coaching and mentoring. If you’d find it useful then please email me and I’ll be happy to provide.
A simplistic view may help?
My experience tells me that the problem here is not about knowledge transfer – this is merely a symptom of something deeper and less obvious.
I wander if a simplistic view might help clarify…
People are falling back in to their old ways because of a combination of not enough reason to change and plenty of reason not to change.
For example, are the measures, systems, processes, policies, equipment, values etc currently in place going to help these delegates apply and embed new behaviours, or do some (all?) of these aspects need to change?
Is there a problem with the change and/or communication process – the delegates may not be resistant to change per se but may see 1 or more of the following:
1 – Change without (apparent/clear) meaning or context
2 – Change that is poorly structured/organised
3 – Change without clear goals
4 – A lack of informatio and support in helping me make new choices arising from the change
They could be so overloaded with work and related pressures that they simply don’t feel they have the space to start demonstrating new behaviours.
Or there may be something in the cultural history that discourages people from exhibiting these new behaviours etc.
If coaching/mentoring is the answer to the problem (and given the points raised above I would suggest that the problem or root cause has yet to be identified) then the next question is WHO does this – a (line) manager or the training department? IMHO it should be management.
I am sure the root cause is not likely to be a broken training process!
My articles on evaluation in the Useful Stuff section of http://www.trainerbase.co.uk may help you shed some more light on this.
Best wishes
Martin
Ask them
My initial thoughts would be to collect data and get the delegates opinions as to why the training has not been implemented. This could be done individually or in a facilitated group.
Who talks to them may be key-it will need to be someone they feel comfortable with and in a safe environment.
Cheers
Pete
Who supports the transfer?
I agree with the points made about surrounding the support of change for the individuals. Everyone needs to have bought into the new behaviours, which means the individuals and their immediate managers. With out the managers’ support the behavioural changes will not occur, as they need to be the coaches/mentors. You need to ask the question “What shadow are the managers casting?” An example of this is, if the higher levels of an organisation display victim behaviour then this is cascaded down through to the bottom levels. When you look around all you will see and hear is victim behaviour.
With your situation if the mangers do not reward the new behaviours then you are unlikely to see a change. The managers will already have job role and task expectations of the individual – the old behaviours. If this is not changed then the managers will manage people to work to the old behaviours and not the new way of working.
My first port of call would be the managers of the individuals with questions around how they expect the individual should be working. What have they done to support the new behaviours? How is it affecting them that the change has not occurred? How will they benefit if the Team leaders/ Shift Leaders start working in this way? What can you do to support the managers coaching the individuals?
I think this would give you a good insight into the motivation for change. Feel free to contact me if any of this is useful
Kind Regards
Ben
Action Dimension
With all our blended learning programmes, we add in an Action Dimemsion (TM) phase into the basic design of the programme, that provides a series of open-ended, but structured assignments, that each participant completes in the context of their everyday role, focussing their minds on applying their new skills and knowledge to real-life issues they are facing and then reflecting upon their first attempts.
Knowledge transfer problems occur more frequently than many trai
Nigel,
Thank you for posing this question – the problem of knowledge transfer from course to work place is a very common one.
I agree with Pete McOnie in that the answers to your question lies in the minds of the trainees and their experience of working for you. Let this guide your next step.
I encourage you to think about the way in which you introduce training into your business. The following is a typical scenario (which may or may not have applied in your case):
“We, the production managers and the Training department believe all our Team Leaders need training in x. We will find suitable courses and send all our guys/gals on it. It will be good for them – they will learn something useful. Many of the problems we and they encounter on the shopfloor will get resolved.” But, this top-down philosophy, (as you suggest) doesn’t deliver.
There is another way. Imagine initial discussions with production management are about their business objectives e.g. volume targets and quality etc. Production managers outline their business strategy and its rationale to the target learning population on whom its successful implementation depends. They also invite each individual to work out what learning they need to do make the strategy succeed. Learners form small learning groups. Their first job with you, and/or an experienced facilitator, is to help each member decide their own personal learning agenda. Each agenda clearly states the knowledge and skills each person plans to acquire in order of priority and the benefits that will accrue to them and those they work with as a result. Some learning agenda items may be common across the board, others specific to one or few individuals. The point is that the individual learner owns each item on the agenda not anyone else. Consequently, his/her motivation to expend effort to learn is dramatically enhanced.
The job of the Training function at this stage is to source learning opportunities for the learning group members as they pursue their agenda. This could mean a whole variety of things from courses to conferences and shadowing internal experts. Additionally each group meets regularly to both challenge and support its members about progress on their learning agenda and its application to the real world. Each group is supported initially by a facilitator.
This “bottom-up in the context of a clear strategy” self-managed approach to learning works. I have used it very successfully with senior business leaders and shop floor supervisors alike.
Roger Martin
01993 813720
Knowledge Transfer
Hi Nigel, trust you’re well! Ensuring that learning is transferred is a challenge all of us working in training and learning face and must overcome, in fact one piece of research into the subject indicated that less than 10% of classroom learning is transferred back into the workplace. The same researchers also found that the biggest single predictor of the transfer of learning is actually the attitude of the learners line manager.
Our natural focus as trainers is to get the learning event ‘just right’, however I have found that by paying at least as much attention to the ‘set up’ and ‘set down’ of the event the transfer increases dramatically. Without these key elements the transfer of learning following even the most outstanding of learning events, will naturally be limited.
I’ve recently written an article on the subject of Tranfer of Learning, I don’t ‘own’ the article but I’ve got a couple of copies so if you’d like one do get in touch.
Best regards,
Richard
What research?
Interested in Richard’s posting & would like to know more about the research – can you post a source please Richard?!
Knowledge Transfer
Hi Martin (and all) apologies for the delay in posting the source of the research. Try this – Transfer on trial: Intelligence, cognition, and instruction Detterman, Douglas K. Sternberg, Robert J (ISBN 0893918253 )
Happy to chat with anyone who’d like to know more.
Best regards.
Richard