Matt Churchward: Is training really worth the trouble?
20 January 2016
Matt Churchward: Is training really worth the trouble?
Mon, 25 Jan 2016 | Matt Chruchward
FROM FEBRUARY 2016'S RECRUITER MAGAZINE
Before this question provokes an external backlash and mass exodus from our company, let me explain myself. My fellow board members and I have spent the past two weeks meeting numerous trainers and training providers, as we plan who and what we want to deliver to the business in 2016.
We value training, and invest substantially — both internally and externally — each year. However, we need to strip away all the hyperbole, ask ourselves the following questions and answer them honestly:
(1) When everything is done and dusted, would the superstars you have worked with over the years have still achieved what they did with no training?
(2) Would those who received training but did not achieve success within recruitment have left the industry anyway?
(3) If the answer to both questions is “yes”, then where is the real sweet spot for training? Clearly, it would be those who would have been lost to the industry had it not been for training. But how do you identify this potential in advance?
What I want to ascertain is where training and coaching are best focused. We would all agree that everyone should be given the same opportunities and training as each other.
But shouldn’t our industry be more sophisticated in how we approach learning and development? Does a generic graduate training programme really help everyone in an equal way? Clearly not.
The fact that every recruitment business I have come into contact with has experimented with modular training, group training, week-long training, hourly coaching and so on only further backs up my point. Deep down, we really have no clue what we are doing.
Nearly every graduate will ask: “What is your training like?” We will proudly elaborate how ours is industry-leading and bespoke. But where is the data to back up these claims? Return on investment is hard to evidence in this arena, yet we are happy to throw money and time at the problem — and this in an industry that is obsessed with figures and facts.
All the training providers that I sat opposite were good in their own way, and I could picture who within our business would benefit best from each approach. The problem is that there is not a bottomless pit of funding to give everyone their own personal coach.
So we have to come up with the best solution for the greater numbers.
Where does this leave us? We have opted for a combination of group and one-to-one coaching. However, when I review 2016 in 12 months’ time, will the same conundrum remain? I hope not.
In conclusion: yes, of course, training is worth the investment. The problem comes with where it goes. It would take some punchy leadership to identify those who you think will succeed only with training, and to then assign them 100% of your training budget.
If someone out there has the answer, then by all means take me to task on my thoughts here. Then patent your solution, and retire in a week’s time as a billionaire.
FROM FEBRUARY 2016'S RECRUITER MAGAZINE
Before this question provokes an external backlash and mass exodus from our company, let me explain myself. My fellow board members and I have spent the past two weeks meeting numerous trainers and training providers, as we plan who and what we want to deliver to the business in 2016.
We value training, and invest substantially — both internally and externally — each year. However, we need to strip away all the hyperbole, ask ourselves the following questions and answer them honestly:
(1) When everything is done and dusted, would the superstars you have worked with over the years have still achieved what they did with no training?
(2) Would those who received training but did not achieve success within recruitment have left the industry anyway?
(3) If the answer to both questions is “yes”, then where is the real sweet spot for training? Clearly, it would be those who would have been lost to the industry had it not been for training. But how do you identify this potential in advance?
What I want to ascertain is where training and coaching are best focused. We would all agree that everyone should be given the same opportunities and training as each other.
But shouldn’t our industry be more sophisticated in how we approach learning and development? Does a generic graduate training programme really help everyone in an equal way? Clearly not.
The fact that every recruitment business I have come into contact with has experimented with modular training, group training, week-long training, hourly coaching and so on only further backs up my point. Deep down, we really have no clue what we are doing.
Nearly every graduate will ask: “What is your training like?” We will proudly elaborate how ours is industry-leading and bespoke. But where is the data to back up these claims? Return on investment is hard to evidence in this arena, yet we are happy to throw money and time at the problem — and this in an industry that is obsessed with figures and facts.
All the training providers that I sat opposite were good in their own way, and I could picture who within our business would benefit best from each approach. The problem is that there is not a bottomless pit of funding to give everyone their own personal coach.
So we have to come up with the best solution for the greater numbers.
Where does this leave us? We have opted for a combination of group and one-to-one coaching. However, when I review 2016 in 12 months’ time, will the same conundrum remain? I hope not.
In conclusion: yes, of course, training is worth the investment. The problem comes with where it goes. It would take some punchy leadership to identify those who you think will succeed only with training, and to then assign them 100% of your training budget.
If someone out there has the answer, then by all means take me to task on my thoughts here. Then patent your solution, and retire in a week’s time as a billionaire.
