I recently heard the following argument about the value of training delivery. It lingers in my mind for long.
“..… for a learning or training department, the quality of its classroom delivery is of course important. But its marginal contribution to the department’s well being is diminishing. In other words, our trainers should work hard to improve their delivery skills from average to good, but it does not make sense to spend resources to move into great. The additional resources should be spent on communication, perception management…. etc… “
I think the same logic also applies to individuals, in particular those who want to climb up the corporate ladder in a learning / training department – After a certain point, focus your attention for stuff rather than training skills.
Do I agree? It is complicated.
I agree. But it depends on how good the ‘good delivery skills’ means. It is sad if the mindset is ‘It is OK so long as there is no complaint from the learners…… hm….
And it also implies that the world is not simple. For the trainers, it is stupid to hold the simple motive of ‘I will devote all my energy to make the learners learn better.’ Such motive may only be possible when they are inside the training rooms (assuming that they do not have to respond to email and sms during breaks….)
Or we can see it from the ‘whole system’ perspective?! If the trainers do not manage the perception and do the communication work, the stakeholders may lose interest in the training gradually…. The latter may then not pay for the training, and the learners cannot learn. So, doing non-course delivery work is still about helping learners learn….
…. allow me thinking out loud… and then appear unstructured….
