The Football Defense That Didn't Work
The General Manager of a professional football team was having trouble with his defense. The team was losing games solely because the defensive system was not getting the job done. So, he decided to conduct a defensive training session. He had every player travel to a meeting facility out of town for a three-day seminar about defense.

At the seminar a state of the art an independent expert presented defensive system to the team. The system suggested a defensive methodology that the team would plan to employ. It consisted of tactics and strategies developed from research about various successful approaches. This methodology represented state of the art best practices in defensive play. The team's coaches got a briefing about the session but were not required to attend the training seminar.

During the seminar the only practice the players got was in the classroom when they discussed "What would happen if" scenarios based on whether a certain offensive play was made. Of course the players knew which defense to use based on the information they learned in the seminar. It was easy for them to see which defensive tactics applied and why they would work in a given situation.

The players were even asked to come up with defensive strategies for "real" situations they had faced on the playing field. Again they realized the potential mistakes that could be made and how to prevent them.

When the players got back on the playing field, although they remembered some of what they had learned, they found that the new defensive methodology was hard to put into practice. It was new, uncomfortable and awkward. It represented change and challenged many of the player's abilities. They did a poor job of actually implementing what they had learned even though they clearly understood its value.

The coaching staff was busy with the team's overall performance and their administrative responsibilities. They were focused on how they were going to win the next game and felt that any interference with this objective was counterproductive. They realized that in the long run, improved defensive practices would help win more games, but focusing on this might cost a few games in the short term.

The coaches didn't feel qualified to implement this new system since most of them hadn't even attended the seminar. As a result the coaches tended to reinforce the methods they were already comfortable with and the players went along. It didn't take long before they weren't really using the new defensive methodology at all and had reverted completely to their original approach. The team continued to lose games.

At the end of the season, the team hired a new General Manager, traded several players and fired some coaches. The new General Manager had used another defensive system with a former team. So, he decided to send the team to a seminar about that system.

The team went back to the classroom and learned about this new defensive methodology. This methodology was like the first in many ways but did approach some elements differently.

Everybody was excited at the end of the seminar and went back to the playing field inspired and hopeful. But, like the prior season, other considerations prevented the coaching staff and players from implementing the new practices and the team's results stayed the same.

At the end of the season, players were traded and coaches were fired and a new General Manager was hired who knew about an even better system.

Teaching, Training and Implementation
There are three elements involved in typical organizational training. First of all it is important to understand that there is a difference between teaching and training.

The function of teaching is to get people to understand ideas and concepts. The focus of teaching is the transfer of knowledge. If teaching is good, the students learn how to think or conceptualize more intelligently about a particular subject.

Training includes teaching in that knowledge transfer takes place, but also addresses the element of behavior. Training not only offers knowledge but also requires that certain behavior is necessary to achieve the objectives of the system.

The third element of what we commonly call training in the organizational world is implementation. This is the element that causes the user to put into effect what they have learned and been trained to do.

Let's review:

• Teaching - to give instruction to; to cause to understand
  
  
• Training - to make a person efficient in some activity by instruction and repeated practice
  
  
• Implementation - a thing or person serving as an instrument to carry into effect
  
  

Teaching and training are different and distinct. Teaching requires the memorization of facts, formulas and concepts, which can be mentally manipulated to create thoughts, ideas and solutions. Teaching allows the student to apply internal and individual mental processes to achieve learning. The teacher provides the discipline of a system of thought to enable the learner to do this.

Because training involves the physical discipline of behavior it demands an additional level of involvement by the learner since they must demonstrate new behavior in addition to adopting new ideas. Top athletes train by learning techniques and practicing them repeatedly to improve their performance. But the world's best Professional and Olympic athletes go one step further to achieve the highest levels of competence. They employ the use of coaches. These coaches don't just teach them and help them practice. They also go to the games with these athletes to help them perform more effectively under actual field conditions.

Training differs from teaching in one all-important aspect. In addition to learning facts, formulas and concepts, training emphasizes the discipline of behavioral change. Training is not merely about changing the way the learner thinks: it is about changing the way the learner acts. If this element is ignored, it tends to nullify the impact of training because behavioral change doesn't occur.

If the football team, in our earlier example, had used what they learned in practicing for their next game and coaches would have insisted they use the new techniques in actual games, the results would have been different. On the other hand, since they didn't, there was never any chance that they would succeed because behavioral change was required to create a different result.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The organizational training community has come to define implementation as teaching classes. Is it any wonder that even with more sophisticated methods and practices the results of training are still difficult to measure?

Rolling out classes is not implementation! The successful implementation of training means that some kind of support activity must take place after the instructional phase is complete. These activities may include but are not limited to:

• Coaching· Reinforcement
  
  
• Real time support
  
  
• Repeated practice of new behaviors
  
  
• The achievement of specific performance improvement goals by individual users
  
  
• Certification of competence
  
  
• Assessment, evaluation and continuous improvement
  
  

The bottom line is - no matter how good the training system, if it does not include these elements, even a better system will not succeed in its place.

It takes a minimum of six weeks to change a habit - and that's if you practice everyday! Try putting your coat on the opposite of how you do it now. If you put the left arm in first, try putting the right arm in first. It will take about six weeks to learn this new habit. Conducting training classes for a few days or even a week will not cause participants to change their behavior. You would get much the same result if you gave them a book, told them to read it and didn't conduct training at all.

How Effective Are Training Systems?
One of the biggest challenges faced by training professionals has always been how to demonstrate the results of training. The conventional model of instructor led or online training unfortunately makes meaningful measurement impossible.

Conventional classroom and online approaches are like saying, let's put some pilots through classroom instruction, let them fly the simulator and give them their wings. If there is no certification process observed by an experienced professional there is no way to assess the users ability or competence after the training phase is complete. This approach makes training a redundant and ineffective exercise. Nobody in their right mind would get on a plane that was piloted by such an individual.

Yet, in the organizational world, we send people to perform tasks everyday enabled only with classroom instruction and expect them to achieve competence on their own. This is absurd theory and practice.

Most advanced training systems are taught using a method known as instructor led training. Following class, the participant materials, which are usually printed in hard copy, are the only potential form of reinforcement available to the user. Because access to these materials is inconvenient, the recidivism rate is alarmingly high. By their own admission, the vast majority of training participants abandon the use of training systems within a short time following their classroom training simply because there is too much to remember and it is too difficult to implement on their own.

Line mangers will tell you that most of their people don't use training systems consistently. Furthermore, line managers are in not position to help. In todays do more with less environment managers don't have the time or the mandate to enforce the use of training systems and methodologies.

Among the best training systems taught to today's sales and client management professionals fewer than 10% of participants end up being regular users. More importantly, mere knowledge of the content of training has little or no impact on results. It's the behavior change the system attempts to create that brings about the desired impact on performance. If this change does not occur, it is unlikely that a cause and effect relationship can be proven between any training and its expected results. This is why the impact of training is so difficult to measure.

Do Methodologies Improve the Chances of Success?
Methodologies are systems of rules, methods and procedures. None are perfect, but their content is not what's flawed in the training process. Methodologies offer some hope of reinforcement by proposing a consistent approach and common language to be imposed to support use of the system.

The problem with methodologies is that organizations do not have the means to enforce the behaviors required to adopt the use of a methodology. Organizations do a poor job of executing methodologies beyond the classroom. So do training purveyors. The support mechanism of a consistent structured approach and a common language is simply not enough to enable most users to implement what they learn on their own. The result is that those who are expected to employ methodologies are unable to achieve their behavioral objectives.

A New Role For Training Professionals
In reality, the field managers who are relied upon to enforce methodologies have neither the time nor the skills either to instruct or provide reinforcement to users. Many times, managers are not even required to attend training but are expected to reinforce it. They are not subject matter or behavioral change experts. Many don't even support particular training initiatives. Nonetheless, they are expected to implement (i.e. be an instrument for carrying into effect) training; something they have neither the time or mandate to do.

Training professionals are given the responsibility to implement what they teach in the classroom. As a result they have accepted the role of teacher and redefined what they do in the classroom as implementation. In truth the responsibility of training must go beyond the classroom if its behavioral objectives are to be achieved. Trainers must serve as the implementation resources and coaches who focus on enabling the users' behavioral change thus relieving line managers from this responsibility.

Coaching and managing are not comprised of the same skill sets. For years, organizations have relied on managers to be coaches but most managers are not given the incentive or training to perform this vital function. Managers are overwhelmed with administrative duties and the responsibility for delivering results. They are not a logical choice to perform the coaching function. In addition, managers are not subject matter experts in regard to most training or its application.

The Dilemma of Training
Organizations seem to have adopted the attitude that, "If we train them they will change". This is not the case. If training is not accompanied by properly managed and thorough implementation, the organization may as well not invest in it at all. At best, fewer than 10% of those trained will get any value at all from this non supportive approach. Training per se is not an effective way to improve productivity.

When the results of training aren't what's expected, management conveniently perceives that it is the fault of training content or delivery. In point of fact the failure of training results from the absence of the resources necessary to insure implementation and not from poor content or delivery.

Organizations have plenty of excuses for not insisting on proper implementation and a convenient source to blame when training doesn't work. It's the perfect out for them. The bottom line, however is that people are not getting much benefit from training and the organization suffers because productivity doesn't improve.

Organizations typically respond to this dilemma by first defending an existing system out of loyalty or familiarity. Ultimately however, they will replace it with one they believe is better. This is referred to in training circles as the "flavor of the month" syndrome.

Resolving The Training Dilemma
Organizations that want results must allocate training resources to insure behavioral change. Ironically, technology has provided the ideally cost effective tool to achieve this objective. Training professionals will still be needed but they must assume different roles than they have traditionally.

Technology offers an effective and efficient alternative to the primary expense traditionally associated with training, that of learning in the classroom. Instructor Led Training is inefficient and, outside of the classroom, ineffective.

The training model should be changed to accommodate a more user-focused approach. It should work something like this. The user (i.e. participant or learner) could learn what they need to know online and at an individual pace. When the user needed help they would be able to access a Professional Development Coach© online to get answers about specific problems and applications of the training. Technology allows these functions to occur without excessive expense or inconvenience and at a time that is convenient and necessary for the user.

There is a problem in that the training infrastructure has been built around the classroom model. Training professionals need to consider how they will adapt to an alternative model serving as coach and implementer versus instructor. Many good instructors may find that their platform skills don't transfer to this other application-oriented role. These folks will need to be retrained. Others may not possess the necessary credibility or skills to coach experienced people on the front lines. Therefore, out sourcing or restructuring the primary functions of training may likely be a priority in a technology driven world. This is a restraining factor in the implementation of more technology enhanced training systems.

Technology Enhanced Professional Development©
Some may say that the classroom cannot be replicated through technology. First of all, who says that the classroom is or should be the standard? Secondly, this is already being proven false in institutions of higher learning. Many colleges, universities, technical and secondary schools are embracing the technology revolution in teaching.

Technology offers the same collaborative environment as the classroom without walls, time restrictions or travel. It utilizes threaded discussions, bulletin boards, chat rooms, email and other advantages that cannot be duplicated in the classroom. Furthermore, learning with technology can be as enjoyable and engaging as watching your favorite TV program with the added benefit of interactivity.

Managers get benefits from technology enhanced training because it can generate progress reports by individual user and easily rank those users based on their performance during the training cycle. This is a great way to gather objective information about the performance of employees. In addition the manager can interact directly with his/her users.

Many skills based training providers are adamant that certain types of training will not be as effective online. There are, however other underlying reasons for them to assert this position. Classroom training is very profitable and the key element in holding together a well established infrastructure. Many members of the training and development community are understandably resistant to this kind of change, but the technology now exists to conduct face-to-face, real-time, interactive distance learning if that is what's required.

Furthermore these hold outs would be right if the classroom comprised the entire training experience, but is only one phase of the training process. Even classroom training purveyors do a lousy job of follow up and reinforcement. It is usually not an integral part of their offering. Classroom training is by nature, instructor focused and the communication is one to many. The fast learner gets bored and the slow learner can't keep up. It is problematic at best.

Benefits of Technology Enhanced Professional Development©
The widespread adoption of technology is going to force the training function to assume a new approach. The benefits are too great for users to ignore, including:

• Line managers won't be expected to become experts at implementing training. Instead an independent or internal trainer/coach can report to the manager about the progress of individual users. This enhances the manager's ability to make good decisions about how an individual is performing rather than looking at the numbers and making rash assumptions about their potential.
  
  
• The results of coaching at the user level can be tied directly to individual performance. Those who use what they've learned will show improvement and those who don't, won't. Remember, it's not the methodology that's the problem, it the lack of its use. The coach's job is to observe behavior and recommend changes that will enhance performance. Results follow behavior.
  
  
• If there is a weakness in the training, the coach will be able to identify it and recommend the appropriate changes. Continuous improvement requires that the application of methodologies be constantly evaluated in order to enhance what was originally thought to comprise state of the art best practices. This is not possible without a methodology expert like a coach being involved with implementation. This is a person who is a subject matter expert and understands the cause and effect relationship between behavior and results.
  
  
• The classroom (i.e. content and knowledge transfer) portion of training will no longer be the ecliptic event of training. It is merely an early step in the preparation for implementing behavioral change. The investment to train people by flying them all over the place and paying for their expenses can be eliminated with technology while still being able to maintain the collaborative environment of the classroom. It's the best of both worlds. In addition, the budget for classroom training and travel can be allocated to implementation where it will insure the use of training systems.
  
  
• The return on investment from training is enhanced when the learner is not forced into a time and space continuum and fire hosed with new information and approaches. Anybody who has taught or trained will tell you that retention improves when it is presented in easily digestible quantities. The ideal pace for learning is different for everyone. Therefore, the pace of learning content is best left to the individual learner. The return on investment in training is further enhanced when the learner is not required to add the stress of travel and an alternative environment to the demands of adopting change.

Many methodology developers have a strong belief that the most effective way to transfer knowledge is in the classroom. Based on the recidivism rate, this assertion is difficult to support. Even the best methodologies are used by fewer than 10% of those trained to use them. The greatest chance for improved behavior is reliant on coaching and reinforcement, not a good presentation, content or even a motivational presenter. The key to successfully implementing a methodology is not in the content, it is in the execution.

Training is not merely about learning. It is about changing behavior. Successfully changing behavior requires resources that are dedicated to coaching and reinforcement. There are alternative methods for knowledge transfer, but there are no superior alternatives to good coaching and reinforcement by someone who is knowledgeable in the subject matter of a particular task and how it is best performed.

The Automation Solution
The training professional's role will change but it will not be eliminated by technology. Those who propose that automation alone is the answer to reinforcement should consider that it takes more to

coach than information or the availability of data. Coaching involves the element of relationship. The fact that a methodology appears on an individual's computer screen doesn't mean they will understand it or even use it. The opportunity to interact directly with subject matter experts offers real time advantages to the user of training systems. Automation can't build a database large enough to individualize responses to every specific situation or application. Good coaches can.

Automation may help, but it is only part of the answer. If training is to become both effective and cost effective, the face-to-face aspects must shift from the classroom to the field and provide more individualized learning and application. This is where productivity always has and always will be most profoundly influenced. Strong coaching and supportive relationships are the heart of behavioral change.

User Focused Training
Organizations benefit when the emphasis on training shifts from the classroom to the user in the field. This however represents a paradigm shift for the training function. Technology is the greatest learning tool since learning itself was conceived. It provides the opportunity to learn what you need, when you need it without regard to where you are in the world. All that is necessary is access to the source of information.

Most learners understand this. They realize that they can learn what they need without ever having to leave home and can do so at their leisure. Technology is the ultimate learner focused environment. It also provides a 24 X 7 platform for coaching and reinforcement.

Those who don't think they are ready to try their hand at technology based learning or fear the change it represents need only surf the web to overcome their concern. Learning is as easy as going online. Organizations and individuals are presently a world of connected learners who chat, gather information and even make purchases using the same technology that can be used for training. In a few years this issue will not even be discussed.

It is no longer a giant leap for mankind to conceive of learning through technology. It is incorrect to assume that any competent businessperson is not ready for such an approach. Technology is here to stay as an instrument of learning and training.

The notion that skills must be learned face to face is out dated. Most business people know how to read, write and follow instructions. They have computers and are motivated to learn. Organizations and their constituents have come to believe that life long learning is part of succeeding in today's world. The practicalities of classroom learning make this objective unachievable.

Life long learning is not enabled by conventional training mentality. If coaching and reinforcement are not available learning stops when the student leaves the classroom. Knowledge transfer through the Internet, the web and other technology enhanced means are the most effective and cost effective ways to prepare people for the rest of the training cycle: that portion of training when they experience how to apply what they have learned. If these learners get only the knowledge and don't get the necessary coaching or reinforcement to employ new methodologies, training is a poor investment indeed.

Case Study - The Software Company Business Partner Implementation
The following account is based on an actual consulting engagement with a training solution provider
and an ERP application software provider.

A $1 Billion Enterprise Resource Planning Software Developer had a Business Partner who represented them in Australia and New Zealand. In 1997 the Business Partner had concerns about their lack luster sales. They engaged a training consultant to them improve their sales results. The Client was a $150 Million operation and employed about 250 people.

Since the Consultant was based in the US and the client was in Australia and New Zealand there was concern about cost effectiveness. The Client had formerly trained their field sales people in at least two other sales methodologies prior to this time but was unsatisfied with the results they achieved from either. The sales force consisted of highly experienced sales and pre-sales professionals, but they were not employing the methodologies that they had learned. At the same time the Client was concerned that the distance and expense of utilizing a foreign resource could be prohibitive.

The Client was planning a sales meeting in Auckland, New Zealand for March of 1997. The Consultant was invited to deliver training about a new sales system but was given only one day to present the methodology.

The Consultant devised a customized version of their leader guide, which included self-testing and application exercises. It was distributed via the Internet to the sales force a few weeks prior to the session. Each sales team member and sales management person was required to read the materials and take the test prior to attending the meeting.

Part of the "read and study" material required sales responsible people to complete a formal sales plan regarding a sale in progress and have it ready for the training day. The Consultant was available to address any problems or questions via email.

When the training day arrived, the consultant conducted a final two-hour question and answer session about the sales methodology. Following this the sales plans were presented and evaluated by the Consultant, field management and the participant group using a formal account review process. This process enabled users to determine the chances of winning a sale in progress. The group presented and reviewed several plans that day.

Over the next 6 months the Consultant visited each branch of the company three times. The Consultant was also available to sales reps and mangers via the Internet. Together with the Branch Managers, the Consultant conducted account review sessions in each branch on each visit.

The Branch Managers established absolute rules regarding the allocation of sales resources. No resources would be allocated to a sale without a formal sales plan completed for an opportunity. All sales reps were required to present at least one account at each review session. The reps were allowed to present the same account at more than one session if the sale was still in progress.

This was a year in which the Company the Business Partner represented introduced a new product suite. Company sales lagged far below their normal annual growth falling into single digits in some areas. The Business Partner however stuck to their plan of bi-monthly account reviews through third quarter and their sales reps maintained contact with the Consultant via email.

At the end of the fiscal year the Client's sales results earned them the honor of being named Business Partner of the year. They had succeeded in selling more new product than any other Business Partner or Company Branch anywhere in the world. For the first time in their 10-year history, this Business Partner's revenues for software sales exceeded their revenues generated from service. Their sales increase was more than 50% over the prior year. 75% of their sales force and all four branches made quota. In the first quarter of 1998 sales were up 276%.

In a company wide accolade to the sales team to and the Consultant the CEO wrote the following: "The reasons for our success were three fold. We had the right people, the right product and the right process to win".

Coaching Intensive Training©
This actual engagement proved the concept that focusing on implementation would deliver results, even when market conditions indicated that the odds were against it. Results are a function of changing behaviors, something that nearly every manager and sales rep was able to achieve in this example. Achieving this behavioral change was the seed that germinated the Coaching Intensive Training© Model.

Coaching Intensive Training© represents a fundamental change in the way training has been conducted. Users of this approach get beyond the transfer of knowledge and the automation of Productivity Tools© and focus on implementation. Implementation, in this system focuses on the behavioral change proposed by the training. The knowledge transfer portion is completed using technology so a more significant share of the training budget can be devoted to implementation.

Coaching and support is available online so the budget can be further stretched to promote reinforcement and coaching over longer periods in order to provide users with the opportunity to confer with a coach in real time about actual situations in which they are involved. Coaching Intensive Training© significantly enhances the probability of behavioral change and performance improvement, which is the objective of training.

In the design model for our programs there are many points at which documentation of an individual's progress toward performance goals can be reported to management. One of the coach's responsibilities is to insure that this data is provided to management. This gives managers the information to make more objective decisions about the rewards or discipline attendant to employee performance. Everybody wins.

• The organization gets what they expect from training - measurable results
  
  
• Management gets objective information and can make more informed decisions about the performance and potential of individual employees
  
  
• Users get the support they need to achieve the behavioral change necessary to improve their performance
  

Coaching Intensive Training© is the next generation of training and development. It provides the advantages of technology with one-on-one individualized instruction and support. It is high tech and high touch enabling the user to get what they need when they need it.

The Next Generation Of Training And Development
The next generation of professional development combines best of breed technology and one-on-one coaching and individualized instruction. This effective and efficient training and development approach is now available through the latest advancement in training technology and application like Technology Enhanced Professional Development© and Coaching Intensive Training©. These methods insure that users of training systems implement what they have learned resulting in the best possible outcome from their own and their employer's investment of time and resources in training methodologies.

The knowledge transfer portion of training is now achieved using a variety of highly engaging multi media deliverables which can be completed by the user at his/her own pace without the need for travel or time out of the field. In addition the user is linked directly with a Professional Development Coach© who is able to provide instruction, support and reinforcement both during and after the knowledge transfer phase of training.

For the first time the training and development organization assumes the responsibility for Implementation: the process of assuring that the user will carry into effect and employ what they have learned.

Whether training is delivered in the classroom or using technology, focusing on implementation following knowledge transfer greatly enhances the potential for creating behavioral change resulting in observable and measurable performance improvement.

Coaching Intensive Training© is an approach that employs technology to address the biggest draw back of any training system: the fact that people do not use what they have learned. This approach uses technology to provide instruction and support to individual users by connecting them with a Professional Development Coach©. This Coach is not only a subject matter expert in the methodology but is able to help users apply what they have learned in actual situations at the time they occur.

Focusing the use of training and development resources on insuring behavioral change in turn, solves the one problem common to all previous training solutions: the adoption by users of the methods they are taught. Coaching Intensive Training© provides the critical resource necessary to achieve this objective.

This approach also removes the burden of behavioral change from line managers and places it in the hands of the methodology experts where it belongs. Line managers are not trained to perform certain aspects of the follow up function since they are not subject matter experts nor are they usually experts at the implementation of behavioral change. Line managers are responsible for administrative duties and delivering results.

With Coaching Intensive Training© line managers are relieved from the responsibility to implement training, yet they are provided with valuable support resources and timely data about their employees. This enables managers to make more informed decisions in regard to the capabilities and potential of their employees. Coaching Intensive Training© provides a pipeline to management about the progress of individual users throughout the training cycle and beyond.

Increased contact directly with users also creates the opportunity to document client specific success stories and case studies that can be included in future training programs. Furthermore Coaches can observe, first hand whether needs exist for additional skills development on the part of any individual or the overall group or client organization. In short, the Professional Development Coach© becomes an integral part of performance management for the client.

Most importantly, clients will experience better results, because the focus on implementation means that the behavior of user changes. Rather than buying more training classes, clients are investing in structured behavioral change and measurable results. The focus of professional development shifts from training to performance management.

Today's market demands effective and cost effective professional development solutions. Organizations want the best return from their investment in training along with measurable results. Coaching Intensive Training© offers the first solution that gives Clients the one thing they can't get from any other training provider: a resource on call that can provide one-on-one instruction and support direct to the user when he or she needs it.

Subscribe
to our email news list. Stay informed on our products and workshops.