I think perhaps there is an incorrect assumption that if there is a "buddy" system that it cannot have structure. Why does one assume these are mutually exclusive?

LoveLearning and John,

Basically. there are 6 recognized differences between the degenerating buddy system of OJT, and structured OJT.

The buddy system consists of the following:

1) the on-the-job "trainer" is not a trained trainer and does not know anything about good instruction. This person is a novice when it comes to instruction of any kind. The buddy sometimes does not know the subject matter any better than the learner.The "buddy trainer" is just that - a "buddy" - either literally (i.e., a friendly co-worker), or someone "on the floor" or near the learner who has been designated by the manager or someone else to "show Tom or Jane how to do it-----whatever "it" may be.
2) the buddy system does not include any written materials, training plan, outlines, goals or objectives of the training, etc. - nothing to help the poor buddy do the "training." The buddy usually tries to train from memory. The learner is at the mercy of the buddy's knowledge, skill, and ability to "teach."
3) there are no performance objectives - and the buddy trainer is not necessarily concerned with performance anyway. His/her sole goal is to "show" the learner something. There are no standards.
4. the buddy system of on-the-job learning is not conceptualized in, nor conducted from within, a systems framework. The buddy tries to "teach"someone something totally out of context of anything else. There is no plan or purpose to the training
5. there is no consistency from "buddy" to "buddy." Every buddy teaches the same task in completely different ways with no standardization in either delivery or performance. Mistakes are perpetuated, and errors creep into the way people do their jobs. And usually, no two people will do the same task the same way. Thus every learner learns something different.
6) training sometimes occcurs away from the actual job site and actual equipment.

Structured OJT is just the opposite:

1) the trainer is trained to deliver on-the-job training - (which is different from classroom training). There are 5 essential steps in the delivery process that must be conducted.
2) the trainer has clearly defined training plans for each task and any other pertinent information necessary to conduct the training - includes training modules, list of pre-requisite tasks, equipment needed, safety hazards, etc., etc. - whatever is needed to teach the task.
3) There are clearly written performance objectives for each task - performance statement, criteria, and conditions under which the task must be accomplished. Learner evaluation is defined in the delivery process.
4) The training is designed, developed, and implemented from within a systems context. Learners know how the training fits into the overall picture. And successful task accomplishment is based on consideration of all job-related events and/or conditions.
5) There is consistency in training delivery from trainer to trainer. When processes or procedures are trained, each trainer teaches from a written guide so that nothing is left out. Each trainer follows the same process so that all learners learn the same things.
6) Training occurs at the actual place the work is carried out.

To answer both your questions, terminology is the problem here. People who do structured OJT can easily define the "buddy" system, and all agree that it is not the way to go. However, others in the profession don't think of it in the same negative light and don't define it as above.

LL, if your "buddy" system has structure, I probably wouldn't call it a buddy system of on-the-job training, but something else.

Apprenticeships should follow the same structure outlined above for structured OJT. In my experience though, they sometimes don't, and tend to be a combination of the two methods.

As for one-on-coaching, it depends on how structured your coaching is. Ideally, it will follow the same structure as for structured OJT. Otherwise it is suseptible to the same problems inherent in the buddy system. Unfortunately, there are many, many different definitions of coaching. The only way to get around that is to hope that the author clearly defines what he/she is calling coaching. Otherwise it can literally mean anything, including the buddy system. Or it could be more like structured OJT. Most of the coaching I have witnessed though, is more like the buddy system - unfortunately.

Thanks, KaliKo for the enlightenment.

After re-reading this thread, and in light of the OP's question. I think I see something: probably learning style his less to do with culture than a) personal brain "wiring" and 2) familiarity. Most WLP pros agree thatindividuals have different learning preferences. These are sometimes called learning styles and seem to deal with, or are purported to deal with, brain "wiring". Many of us structure learning interventions to try to appeal to each of these styles.

Different cultures may have different differing educatoinal systems and social structures. These can impact how participants respond to different "learning situations". For example, as a North American of Celtic and Germanic heritage, I find it difficult to create an aenvironemt for intense personal discussion when I teach in Hong Kong. I have no such problems when teachig in the US. Might the specific techniques used by trainers in SOJT as KaliKo prefers need to be different it Africa than in Mexico? Isn't that the real question that started this?

O.k., I think I understand a bit more...let's say that for example, while "demonstrating the job" you have to adapt a few things to accomodate someone in Eastern Africa for example.

Perhaps there are certain gestures, words, or body language that we need to be careful with. Bodily contact is forbidden in the U.S. Not so in other countries. I can grasp a woman's hands and position them on a fixture or lift her forearm up in order to demonstrate the right posture when lifting for example.

I may have to demonstrate in different ways as well. Illustrating may be required. Perhaps having the person read through the material first, in their native language, would be helpful. Perhaps I need an interpreter and have to slow everything down.

I can certainly imagine many different things I need to do to adjust. In fact, I have had to do these things in experience.

But that doesn't mean I shouldn't demonstrate. I still have to do that. I'm still not sure what I would fundamentally "change" due to cultural differences, as implied by the OP. The systems defined and described in training are systematic, based on good planning, support and execution, and I don't think I need to remind anyone here, proven time and again, all around the world. It isn't as if good training has been only happening in the U.S., is it? Since people are people, good planning (PDCA) is fairly universal and has been for some time now.

I think what we are really talking about here for the OP is whether or not there is a cultural awareness process that we need to be aware of when applying all of the methodical steps of a good training plan. From Job Analysis to Follow-Up, what special steps should we take along the way to determine if their are cultural considerations we must account for in our designs? For example, in Job Design, there are certain religious considerations one must account for in Malaysia. How would I know that in a largely secular country like the U.S.? However, I'm not going to build into my standard Job Design module anything about religious considerations as standard procedure.

This is why my recommendation to foreign training professionals seeking counsel from the US on such matters: ADOPT the methodology and ADAPT it to your environment. You are better suited to do that than we are!

Am I off target here?

quote:

Originally posted by Lundbird:
Am I off target here?

I don't think so. For me it's different, though. Most of the time I am trying to teach people to think differently. Whether it's programming in C or computer security, I'm trying to convey a mindset change. Because the US (where I live and do most of my teaching) P-16 edusction system relies so heavily on regurgitation, getting participants to think about issues here is often difficult.

So when I teach outside the US, or in some corporate environments, I have to consider those cultures when designing activities.