Failures of management training and the arm bands theory

Let me ask you three questions. If you answer 'no' to any one of them, then you should continue reading this blog to the very end. 

First, can you learn to ride a cycle by reading an instruction manual?

Second, can you learn to swim without drowning by watching a how-to video?

Third, can you replicate your grandmother's cake by listening to her recipe on the phone?

I certainly couldn't do any of the above without trying it out myself, getting it wrong, learning from my mistakes and practicing it again and again. Of course, It certainly helps when you have someone to coach, guide and encourage you through the learning phase. My husband and I were recently trying to teach our three year old son to swim. As I saw him get used to being in deep water, struggle through becoming independent in water and gain confidence, I realised two important things: 1) what are the failures of most management trainings and 2) the theory of arm bands. In this blog, I explore the common problems with management training programmes and share a new outlook on the role of management training. 

Before I get into the details of the issues of management training, let me give you a brief background in what makes me qualified on making this generalisation. I have been on all sorts of training - from short two day management training tasters to week-long, six week long, a degree in business management and a masters in human resources management. Aside from the degree programmes, which are a lot more comprehensive at explaining various models and approaches and giving opportunities too practice them (It still doesn't teach how to be a good manager), all the training programs have fundamental problem with the way they are structured as highlighted below:

Prerequisites for management training

In most organisations where staff members are provided management training, it usually comes with a prerequisite that either you be managing a team, be of a certain grade having certain responsibilities or anticipate being in that situation soon in order to qualify for the training. The very premise is that organisations usually invest in those managers who already are or very soon becoming managers. There is an issue with this in that those who are already managers have been doing the job and learning as they go along (so training doesn't necessarily help) and those who are soon to be managers will attend a course and then not be able to make the most of it as there are no ways to practice or try the theories.

Obsession with labels and categories

Almost every management training I have been to begins with either a self assessment, psychometric or personality test, or a session at defining what management is. As a trainer, I can empathise with the need to do this and can justify that defining the parameters is a good thing, however, the trainee in me is supremely annoyed by the obsession to label or categorise the trainees - whether this is by personality types or the management styles or the psychometric outcomes. The most annoying aspect is that as soon as the little exercise is done, the trainer will say that people can usually adopt the other styles through acquired learning. If people were defined by these labels (which they aren't) and if people use all types based on the situation, and there may be one dominant style yet all styles can be learnt and applied, what is the point of categorising and then clubbing it all together? 

Trainers question their own training

With all due respect to the trainers, who often have both the theoretical and practical knowledge of their subject area, it doesn't take more than a few counter questions for them to say 'there are some exceptions' to what they our teaching/ preaching. Going back to the previous example, once the trainer has categorised the trainees into their dominant styles, and should one of the trainees disagree or ask further deeper questions, most trainers often concede to say, people don't necessarily use their dominant style at all times. Most trainers also, perhaps because they may be jaded by various times they might have been challenged on their training content, have a take "it or leave it" approach. Management trainers tend to show and share various theories and perhaps the pros and cons to it, but aren't wedded or passionate about any one over the other. Consequently, it becomes hard to believe or trust when the trainers own beliefs are under question.

No way to measure the direct impact

Let's be honest here... No management training, despite its smart or smarter objectives  for the course, can realistically be measured. While the attitudes and knowledge of the trainees can qualitatively be measured, it is practically impossible to measure the direct impact of the training. It is very hard to say whether the content of a training session has had any outcomes for the trainees back in their own workplace. Despite the millions that get spent each year by companies on such training programmes, there is very little evidence of its direct impact. Don't get me wrong, I do think agree that people on these programs learn new things, enjoy the opportunity to reflect on their behaviours and can get ideas to try new things based on the strategies that their co-trainees use. The reason for my skepticism is that in the long run, managers evolve and learn on the job and become better or worse, but there is a lack of a direct link between the management training programme and the behaviours.

So, if this is the case, why are they still so popular and successful? Well, it's because, management training programmes are like arm bands! They provide a sense of security (perhaps false, perhaps not) which makes the managers who go on it feel more confident in deep management waters. Just like my son, with his arm bands on, felt more confident in experimenting in water, getting accustomed to the currents, and began to have faith in the his own abilities. Management training provides a similar safety net to the emergent trainees.  It gives those who have been on the training an opportunity to try and experiment with new and old theories, it gives confidence in their abilities, and most importantly, it gives them some validation too what they were or weren't doing, that was or wasn't working - the ability to learn on the go.

Management is literally all about getting things done through other people. If you keep the people at the forefront and think about treating them how you would like treated, half the battle of management is over. However, like with every other aspect of being a mum or a manger, this is easier said than done. If you enjoyed reading this blog and would like to know of other weird and whacky parenting inspired management theories, do read the other blogs at School of Mumagement.