I have in my hand the latest ASTD State of the Industry Report, and I found it rather distressing (though not particularly surprising) to find that, on average, people with 1 - 2 years experience are in the same pay band with people who have 10 - 20 years experience. What do you feel this says about our profession?

Well, it say a lot of things to me. The first thought that occurred to me is how appalling this is - especially when we look at so many people on this forum who are new to the field, and know nothing about it. And they expect experienced folks to tell them answers to questions that are phrased so poorly that it's not even possible to understand what they want in the first place. I mean - how basic a thing is that; being able to ask good questions? It is outrageous that their salary should be anywhere even close to that of an experienced person (if it is). Let me pause to say that not every new person is like this. But many newbies seem to have little ability to think critically, do research, do basic problem solving, etc. These are very basic things that ANY employee ought to be able to do.

So this leads me to question why this industry seems to attract such people. An obvious culprit is ASTD itself - and of course, similar organizations in the industry - who are always overselling the latest gadget, the latest buzzword, etc. I can understand that they must make money, but to constantly push training further and further away from the fundamentals of learning and performance just leads to chaos and ultimately to attract people who don't know what they are supposed to do. And it's not entirely their fault. Just take a look at training industry conferences. There is generally very little basic information out there for new people. Instead they are fed diets of the latest and greatest (as defined by ASTD) fads -and a lot of it. When people don't understand the basics, that is inexcusable in my opinion. As evidenced by this forum, people still don't understand how to do gap analyses, determine and then write good objectives, and on and on..............Why are ASTD and other organizations preaching how we must show ROI? First, people need to know how to do the basics! And they don't! Forget ROI!! People become so overwhelmed with what they think they are supposed to do that they spin and spin and create little value. And that in turn gives the training industry a bad name.

The hiring of the wrong people is basically the fault of the organization and the people doing the hiring. The fish always stinks from the head. If the people doing the hiring don't know what learning is all about, they won't hire the right people. Of course, ASTD's influence steps in here too when they actively encourage people to "transition" to the field - to sell more memberships of course. So why wouldn't people who are dissatisfied in their current job or career decide to "transition"? I mean ASTD implies that it's a piece of cake. There's nothing to learn, so just transition over here and "do training." And of course, the hiring organizations hear this too, and buy into the concept that ANYONE can do this job.

I guess what it all boils down to is that people doing the hiring don't always know what they are doing. And that includes what salary they pay people. They apparently have nothing by which to gage knowledge/skills/experience of job candidates. Incompetence hires more incompetence, and so it goes................

So what is the solution? I don't know. Perhaps some sort of certification should be required before being hired. Others, like engineers, psychologists, lawyers, etc., have to have some basic credentials to be hired. Why not learning and performance people? Of course, that does not guarantee that new people won't have salaries that are too high based on what experienced engineers or psychologists make. But it isn't nearly so bad as in the training industry where you literally have people who don't even know where to start!!
And I'm not aware of any organizational requirements to study and earn some credentials once hired. These people are usually just left alone to figure things out for themselves in whatever way they can. Unfortunately a lot of people think that others out here will do their work for them.

I look forward to hearing from others on this topic.

Hi Kal, you make valid points, and I respect that perspective. I do see it a bit differently. I've said my piece(s) on certifcation (against) many times over the years. In a nutshell --Certifying *us* so that *they* don't have to really understand what instructional design is and critically examine a resume, and know what to talk about in an interview with the candidate... that picture seems a bit backwards to me.

In any case -- it's the weekend. Time to relax and get to my homework sooner or later. Have a good one!
-FF

(/me plays Devil's Advocate: )

Is experience necessarily a good indicator of a good WLP professional? Why or why not?

(on to a more concrete response: )

I think it is because experience and good design are not really valued by many companies. I hate to say this, but I've seen some really badly designed, and really poorly taught courses over the years. The thing is, the companies keep using the instructors and designers of these courses. Funny, but those are the companies where people seem to hate to "go to a training". Go figure. Maybe so few compaines have seen good ID/delivery, they do not know it exists.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: travelerjjm,

quote:

Originally posted by Fanatic Facilitator:
I've said my piece(s) on certifcation (against) many times over the years. In a nutshell --Certifying *us* so that *they* don't have to really understand what instructional design is and critically examine a resume, and know what to talk about in an interview with the candidate... that picture seems a bit backwards to me.
-FF

In general I agree. When certifications are used to make hiring decisions, I think it does both company and potential consultant/employee a disservice.

However I think there are uses for certification. I have been watching and participating in computer-industry certifications for many years. I remember asking a NetWare certified whatever to help with setting up a NetWare server. His reply that he'd never actually touched one kinda soured me on the "answer 40 questions and get certified" programs.

Cisco Systems requires a practical aspect to their cert: you have to actually *do* stuff to get certified. I like that. Some other companies require that, too. One reason I spent the time to get ASTD's CPLP cert was that it was both an exam and third-party evaluation of submitted work.

Another reason I did it was to help get an entre into potential clients. I am not famous. I do not have a PhD. Most of the work I do is "work for hire" and "company confidential" to my clients so I cannot use it in a portfolio. I need some way to help externally validate my experience. I have a longer plan for that, but the CPLP is the start.