Training Verification by Area Supervisors

[Tyler C]

Fellow Covers,

I know there are several training threads, and I have read through all I could find, but I did not find my specific question.

I have a concern about our training. For reference, when employee A gets trained in area 1, that training needs to be verified that it was effective. In our production procedure, it lists the area supervisors as being responsible for verifying this training, which is fine.

We did run into problem where an employee was trained by a co-worker in the area, and then verified by the area supervisor. When this was put into our training records, we realized this area supervisor was not trained in the area.

So the question is, if the area supervisor is not trained in the area, can that supervisor really verify the effectiveness of the training given to the subordinate?

 

[Ron Rompen]

Re: Training Verification

IMHO, if the supervisor is not trained in the area, how can he be determined to be competent to assess the performance of another employee?

Although your process is (in general) a good one, and the same that many other companies use, there is at least one hole in it.

 

[Tyler C]

Re: Training Verification

Thank you Ron Rompen. This was my thought too but I wanted to verify that I was heading down the right direction.

I think "if the supervisor is not trained in the area, how can s/he be determined to be competent to assess the performance of another employee?" may be the exact question I use in the next training audit. Thanks for that as well.

 

[E Wall]

Additional food for thought, a lot depends on the nature and size of the organization, as well as structure. So I'll speak very generally here.

Most managers/supervisors evaluate staff which is part of the organizations continued verification of employees/staff effectiveness in performance of their duties. However, the manager would be very hard pressed to be a subject-matter-expert for all the personnel they govern. Supervisors are typically closer, but may be over several areas which also have their own lead men.

I would expect, if the supervisor can compare this employees effectiveness against quantifiable metrics, they don't need to hold the same qualifications (or area training).

 

[normzone]

Here's how we address that in my current theater:

The training record shows who conducted the training, and has a place to reference any appropriate documentation used in training (if any)

At the bottom of the form, there is a three-option spot for the trainer to attest to how they verified the effectiveness of the training:

Test - there is an actual record of the quiz
Question and answer - no details required
Observation - again, no details required. You showed them, then watched them do it

 

[gpainter]

IMO it depends on how you have it written and what is effective. On OJT we had it written that the supervisor was the one to sign off for OJT. That could be the direct supervisor, the area manager or the plant manager with a preference to the direct as s/he is directly responsible for the individual.