Recently there's been some posts expressing how trainers or training departments are handcuffed or interfered with by HR, or executives, or managers or other powerful villains, and that trainers do not get seats at the decision making table.

It's ironic that the people complaining most loudly about these issues (which tend to have a grain a truth to them at least) are also unable to see their own contributions to the minimization of the training function, and thus, tend to attract the scorn of organization decision makers. An example:

quote:

All in all, I think that it is pointless to continue with this thread. Most of us have made several valid attempts to help Madelyn with her stated problem. But for someone who comes to this board not having any background in the field, and then proceeding to criticize us, is highly inappropriate, disrespectful, and frankly quite shocking. I would never think of doing such a thing on a discussion forum on a subject that I knew nothing about. She clearly feels nothing but distain for our contributions. And she has stated that she is like a dog with a sock - or some such thing:

In this case a person with no training background (like an HR person, or a VP, or an internal customer) asks a question that could very well be asked of the training department. SO how does the "customer" get treated?

The responses from "trainers" are vague, poorly expressed, in part because the respondents didn't even take the time to read the initial request. Instead, the used words like "You should", and "You have to".

And then, the "expert trainers", who didn't take any time to understand the request, became angry that their off the point unhelpful advice wasn't applauded. They became angry when it was politely pointed out that the original message did not say what the "experts" believed it did (a verifiable issue). Busted!

I've seen this repeated many times in my short time here. It is the same trainers that ignore the requests made, cannot read properly or express themselves clearly, cannot relate to business issues, cannot take on the perspective of their clients (that's a biggie).

...and they feel helpless and powerless about the results, and end up blaming everyone but themselves.

There is no doubt that training does not get the respect we would like it to have. But it's also a self-fulfilling prophecy for some.

If we want seats and the table, we need to earn them. I can say from experience that I've been at the table. To get there having good classroom skills is not enough. To get there requires a large dose of humility, and the desire to hear and understand clients.

It requires a great deal more from us. I am curious about the ideas of others on this.

1. What can a trainer do within an organization to earn greater respect and to be seen as important and vital to the organization?

2) In the same vein what can a training department do to achieve that goal, to gain a seat at the decision-making table?

..and a favor, perhaps. Let's make this a no blaming zone. Nothing is gained by saying that someone "won't let us". If that's how you feel maybe a year as a fry cook would help.

1. I think it's always going to be rare that trainers are continuously involved at the highest levels of the organization strategically. That's because training is a transaction-specific focus. It's like asking the question: "when are facilitators going to have a seat at the table?" or "when are technical documentation writers going to have a seat at the table?" Training, benefits administration, security, logistics, facilitation, recruiting--all important functions. But for most organizations, they aren't one of the 2 or 3 core competencies that distinguishes the organization from the competition or is what the business is about. Rare exceptions might be a training vendor that focuses on a specific type of training.

2. The people that deserve a "seat at the table" are folks who do at least two things:
--they demonstrate value on an ROI basis. I'm not saying training can't do this. But most open-enrollment training does not have a positive ROI. And most trainers would struggle to demonstrate or calculate ROI.
--they are aligned (and I do not mean "aligned" in a soft sense) with corporate priorities. That does not mean that training says "well, human capital is a corporate priority so because we develop people we're aligned." By that standard, so is recruiting, benefits, nearly all elements of HR, probably every line manager, every coach, the Union, the corporate IT department. And suddenly we've got so many people at the table, the question would be "who isn't at the table?" More specifically, to truly be "aligned" that means that if we pick out the top 2, maybe top 3 strategic priorities for the business, not a generic need like "grow people" or "get smarter", but instead something like "boost customer retention by 2% this quarter" than training would be considered one of the key players (not just "a player") in that area and also one of the most strategically knowledgeable players in that area. And let's be brutally honest here--how many training departments would be able to say "we know more about marketing than any other shop in the company"? Or "the logistics folks come to us when they want insight on emerging logistical issues for the future"? It ain't happening. For every trainer who is seen as a strategic resource, there are probably 99 who are comfortable being in a box....delivering training as requested...doing level one evaluations...their idea of personal development is learning more experiential activities or finding out details about a new LMS rather than reading Michael Porter or Gary Hamel.

None of that is intended as in insult. Everyone wants a seat at the table. The custodial staff would like a seat at the table too. But the vast majority of trainers aren't willing to do the things that would make them strategically indispensible and would guarantee them a "seat at the table."

Deserving the seat and actually getting the seat are two different things. Many people are deserving, but still do not get it.

quote:

Deserving the seat and actually getting the seat are two different things. Many people are deserving, but still do not get it.

I've gotten the impression from your posts that you feel you deserve more influence and impact than you have (please correct me if I'm mistaken on this).

The question is, then. Who should we listen to. YOU believe you deserve more. Decision makers do not believe you deserve more, else they would give more to you.

One observation I've had over the years is that people who think they deserve something they don't have often don't deserve what they think they should have and are unable to understand the perceptions of the people who don't think they deserve what the person thinks is deserved.

Too much coffee. Never overclock a consultant.

quote:

None of that is intended as in insult. Everyone wants a seat at the table. The custodial staff would like a seat at the table too. But the vast majority of trainers aren't willing to do the things that would make them strategically indispensible and would guarantee them a "seat at the table."

Thanks for the input. I think it's also the case that trainers may not be capable of doing those things. I find a lot of trainers to be pretty business world impaired, and lacking the ability to step into the shoes of decision-makers.

That said, what pops up in my mind from your post is the question: SHOULD trainers and training departments have those seats (I know these are simplistic questions, but they are interesting)?

I think that training departments that focus on training delivery probably don't warrant powerful influence. I wouldn't want that function at the table, not that it's not important, but I don't know if I'd want building maintenance there either on a full time basis.

I think Organizational and Staff Development functions + training have more power, and thus can be more utilitarian in an organization meeting strategic goals. My experience as being part of such an organization was that we did, in fact, have a fair amount of influence.

Interestingly enough, when the the department moved to the arranging of training, it lost everything (this was after I'd left), not only in terms of influence, but everything. From a staff high of about 20, it ended up with one or two, depending on how you count it.