Training requirements - Trainers have to be certified to train?
Elsmar Forum Sponsor
That is what organizations often do, yes.Alpacs said:
I would like to add that being technically proficient does not ensure a trainer will train effectively. I have seen many internal trainers that drone on, reading from materials, and/or show little understanding of how to teach to adults--particularly where there are very different learning styles and incoming skills in, say, reading and test taking. Also, what is the testing used--who makes it, and how do they know it's appropriate and effective? Will the trainer know if the assessment is accurately identifying understanding and skill levels?
When I think of "certified to train" I think of these things. I encourage you to therefore consider a "train the trainer" course, that focuses on delivery in addition to content.
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
Let me add:
Over the years, I have seen many practitioners and trainers. The overwhelming majority of trainers try to impose THEIR methods of learning on their students - this holds true in the academic world as well.
When some trainers and teachers learn and are personally comfortable with rote learning, for example, somehow they get blinders on and disregard that some folks may understand the material almost immediately and easily get bored or frustrated with redundant exercises in a classroom setting.
I spoke to the trainer in private after witnessing a two hour session of drills which were roughly the difficulty level of adding and subtracting single digit integers. I suggested maybe he could move on to the next level in the course sooner, since all the students were producing perfect scores on the drills and were doing a lot of mumbling and grumbling about the "stupid repetition."
His response stunned ME into silence:
"In Quality, we do a lot of repetitive work. These guys better get used to it!"
It's been years and I still haven't come up with a "diplomatic" response. How about my colleagues here in the Cove? Would you agree with the trainer? Do you have a suggestion for an answer if you disagreed?
Over the years, I have seen many practitioners and trainers. The overwhelming majority of trainers try to impose THEIR methods of learning on their students - this holds true in the academic world as well.
When some trainers and teachers learn and are personally comfortable with rote learning, for example, somehow they get blinders on and disregard that some folks may understand the material almost immediately and easily get bored or frustrated with redundant exercises in a classroom setting.
I spoke to the trainer in private after witnessing a two hour session of drills which were roughly the difficulty level of adding and subtracting single digit integers. I suggested maybe he could move on to the next level in the course sooner, since all the students were producing perfect scores on the drills and were doing a lot of mumbling and grumbling about the "stupid repetition."
His response stunned ME into silence:
"In Quality, we do a lot of repetitive work. These guys better get used to it!"
It's been years and I still haven't come up with a "diplomatic" response. How about my colleagues here in the Cove? Would you agree with the trainer? Do you have a suggestion for an answer if you disagreed?
Wes Bucey said:
Sigh. I relate to your moment of stunned silence. I won't go into mine now, I'd digress.
In the past year I have seen something that organizations may not be aware of: this upcoming work force isn't like what we're used to dealing with. It isn't your uncle's work force anymore.
What does this mean?
1. They are becoming aware that it's an every-man-for-himself environment. The media shows little to no loyalty to the work force. The adult work force has been running on work ethic and the knowlege that choices are few; they buck up and make the best of it. The youngsters are not of this mind set; they are less inclined to stay for mindless, thankless work. They make poor plow horses and worse mercenaries (unless the compensation is really good, which it seldom is). Employers, when these employees do not perform well or quit, are complaining of a poor work ethic.
2. Learning disabilities, mental illnesses, and physiological problems like ADHD and autism are steadily rising (Maine is recording a 15% rise in autism each year). Boys in special education outnumber girls by between 7 and 10 to 1, depending on the school. This not only shrinks the labor pool of mainstream performers; it makes teaching challenging for all groups because some of these people are certain to be included in our labor pools; it complicates training delivery and assessment, especially when these diverse learners are mixed.
3. Industrial Revolution solutions will not work for Nuclear Age problems. I do not know that person's organization, but it sounds like it is in for a shakeup that the trainer will likely find uncomfortable. Of all people, we must be sensitive to hints and be ready to respond with inspired suggestions for personnel performance improvement. The trainer is uniquely positioned to help his or her organization understand its intellectual capital. This opportunity should be exploited.
Saying things like "In Quality, we do a lot of repetitive work. These guys better get used to it!" tells me the person doesn't understand the new reality very well. Repetetive work is the kind that is often targeted for productivity cuts through automization or streamlining. While I agree that it is necessary to be capable of performing the mundane with accuracy and devotion, it's not enough to simply dictate that it be done. The employee is invited to apply a sense of craftsmanship/task ownership when (s)he knows why the function is important.
As a response, I'd distill the last paragraph as it best fits; understand, however, that with the mindset this person has already displayed, he may not ever get it.
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
Very perspicacious!
I said nothing because I was pretty sure only one of two outcomes (both bad) were possible, no matter what I said.
If I had tried to point out the obvious future - i.e. "employees will rebel at mindless repetition."
I said nothing because I was pretty sure only one of two outcomes (both bad) were possible, no matter what I said.
If I had tried to point out the obvious future - i.e. "employees will rebel at mindless repetition."
- The answer I would have expected would have only been a variation on his original comment.
- The answer I would have "feared" would have been a dull, blank stare of noncomprehension.
W
WALLACE
Alpacs said:
Ove,
I surmise you're trainers are employees of your company. If this is so, I would expect your trainers to go through a "Train the trainer course" as Jennifer suggested. It just makes sense to do this as, your third party auditors shall be looking for evidence of training as being part of your Business management system. You can indeed certify your trainers internally regarding their ability to train and deliver the training materials. Of course assessing your training capabilities may be something you already perform as part of your system capability measures.
Wallace.
Wes Bucey said:
Heh, yes, the ability to do this (swallow deeply and change the subject) is a hallmark I have found in successful people within this field.
Alas, I have not always been so patient. I fear it has become my undoing. I've always wondered if that is why I didn't get hired by any of the people I interviewed with.
Q
qualitygoddess - 2010
Alpacs said:
I advocate that someone doing the training know the best way to train the people in the class. This is a combination of a high level of proficiency/knowledge for the topic and the capability to deliver the training materials so the students in the class LEARN it.
So, the trainer should know the material. If that takes a certification class, then the trainer should attend it. There should also be some practical experience. For example, I would never assume to teach internal auditing without having done it myself. I also think a train-the-trainer course (as suggested in an earlier post) is an excellent course to help the trainer learn to provide course content in a correct way to the type of students in the class.
--QG
I guess I'd ask "training of what"?
If it was to train someone to be NASA certified in soldering, for example, I'd probably want the trainer to be NASA certified.
But if it is training someone to perform a company process -- like running a lathe to produce one of your parts or training an inspector to inspect your parts, I'd say the trainer doesn't have to be "certified" by any outside organization. A generic "train the trainer" course might be nice, or necessary in some cases, but otherwise what I've done is define in my QMS who in my company is authorized/certified to be a trainer. This usually means something like the trainer has to be themself "certified" (internally) to do the task for a certain amount of time (experienced) and approved by the responsible department or process manager.
Do what works for you w/o worrying about formal, outside certs unless you need to.
If it was to train someone to be NASA certified in soldering, for example, I'd probably want the trainer to be NASA certified.
But if it is training someone to perform a company process -- like running a lathe to produce one of your parts or training an inspector to inspect your parts, I'd say the trainer doesn't have to be "certified" by any outside organization. A generic "train the trainer" course might be nice, or necessary in some cases, but otherwise what I've done is define in my QMS who in my company is authorized/certified to be a trainer. This usually means something like the trainer has to be themself "certified" (internally) to do the task for a certain amount of time (experienced) and approved by the responsible department or process manager.
Do what works for you w/o worrying about formal, outside certs unless you need to.
Wes Bucey
Prophet of Profit
Mike S makes a good point. Keep things proportional to importance and cost within your organization. You may need a lot higher topic skill and teaching ability to train someone to perform welding on a submarine or space ship than to train someone to perform fork lift driving. Overkill on training costs can be as big a money waster as no formal training at all (for example, just using OTJ training), depending on the skills involved.
Similar threads
