For example, when assessing company performance the senior team may see the following:

v A loss of market share

v Reducing customers

v Increased employee absences

v Poor customer service

v Bad morale and worker inefficiencies

The most common solution proposed to solve these things is employee training. On the face of it this appears to be an acceptable solution, after all if the employees were appropriately skilled they would enable the company to retain customers and innovate. Employees that receive training that they perceive they need are more motivated, have improved morale and are more likely to enjoy work, reducing their number of absences.

For companies that are profit or cash flow focused then they will radically cut training or cease it altogether. These types of company see training as either a luxury that they can no longer afford or a way to reward high performing employees.

The problem that I see is that businesses in difficult times appear to decide on two things when it comes to training:

v To reduce ‘non essential’ training

v To increase ‘technical’ or soft skills training

Reducing ‘non essential’ training usually means that the company does not implement the learning and development plans agreed with employees at their last performance review. Often how this is communicated to employees is by a mass message that says the company needs to reduce costs and will therefore be putting ‘non essential’ training on hold. It isn’t as common as it should be that this impersonal message is followed up by a personal conversation with the employee’s manager who can put this into context for the employee. This usually means that the employee feels undervalued by the company and is unlikely to trust the company’s future messages when they either relate to them personally (ie ‘next year we will definitely ensure that you get the training that we agreed or there is no money in the budget for a proper pay rise this year but next year we can address your performance properly’) or more generic messaging that ‘our employees are our biggest assets’.

Increasing technical training when reducing ‘employee centric’ training is often seen by the employee as another example of how poorly the company treats them. They can feel that the company is only ‘doing it for themselves’ which often means that there is reduced benefit of the employee attending as their learning isn’t maximised. When increasing soft skills training I see progressively more of a ‘sheep dip’ approach being utilised by companies. This is an expensive misstep as it often increases the costs to the business as the training is not tailored to their particular needs – but has the knock on effect of taking employees out of the business for a day or so to attend the course.

Now more than ever companies need to concentrate on the business and do the right training inventions that will work for them. Expensive gap analysis to determine training needs is often not necessary. An informed look at performance reviews, disciplinaries and grievances, customer complaints and strategic direction can be all that is necessary to determine training priorities. Competent HR practitioners can work with the Operations team to ensure that there is a good match between business need and employee fulfilment.

Training and HR practitioners should ensure that they never buy off the shelf training for their company. One size does not fit all, especially when you factor in company culture, risk awareness and industry setting. All training should be bespoked and delivered by credible trainers that who not only know their subject manner well, but are able to converse knowledgeable on the issues that the employees are facing. Attendees must be chosen carefully to ensure that the right people receive the right training for their needs.

Sometimes the best training intervention for particular employees will be either a coaching or mentoring solution, rather than attendance on a training course. Most companies initially believe that internal coaching or training programmes will deliver best value compared to using external providers. This only holds true in company cultures where the employers are trusted by the employees and that they have good systems in place that match the mentor/coach to mentee/coachee appropriately and where there is true learning and development. Often attendance onto a mentoring/coaching programme is by reward rather than need, which can affect the credibility of the scheme.

Where there are trust issues or competence issues with the company or mentor/coach then an external practitioner is a must. Often timely intervention in this way is more effective than attendance on a course. Where there is little trust the employee will not engage with their internal coach/mentor which means that a solution to their real issue is not found and that the company has wasted the valuable time of two employees.

In times of difficulty there is often a need to ensure that employees are skilled, competent and willing to learn to ensure that the company is one step ahead of the competition and are working within operational budgets. The best way to ensure that this takes place is to be innovative with training interventions ensuring that there is close alignment with the business objectives and training delivery.

First things first

When you are delivering training it’s important to understand not only what your required outcomes are, but also what the organisational goals are, the prevailing context and what the attendees were told about the course before they arrived. You are more likely to have a higher proportion of difficult people on your course if attendance was mandatory and not seen as necessary by them, and/or an organisational environment where major change is happening (eg redundancy).

Understanding the expectations of the attendees and whether they are likely to be hostile to your training intervention is therefore vital. If this is a possibility then it’s important to design the content of the course accordingly and deal with their potential hostility upfront and immediately that the course starts. A ‘safe’ way to do this is when you ask the attendees what their objectives are for the training course. Our experience shows that at this stage the attendees often articulate any resentment to being on the course and how they feel about the organisation. This is a fantastic opportunity to discover their objections, listen to their issues and calibrate them to the need for attending the course. This is why knowledge of the organisational context is important. It is imperative that this section on understanding their objections and you addressing them should be kept very short. The last thing that you want to do is spend significant time discussing their objections as it will have a destabilising effect of the morale of the group and your ability to deliver the course well and on time.

It is very common (and to be expected) that there will be at least one member of the course who will feel the need to demonstrate their expertise and challenge your authority or credibility in running the course. A good trainer would have used the five minute introduction phase of the course to establish they credibility and to flush out the individuals who are likely to be ‘lively’.

Delivering a lively, interesting course – mindful of the attendees behaviour

Some trainers mistakenly believe that delivering training in environments where some hostility is shown means they are entering a battle zone! The problem with this theory is that within every training environment there will be some hostility! The actions of the trainer can therefore make it substantially worse.

A good trainer does the following subconsciously:

• Analyse the attendees behaviour to discover which ones fall into the subsequent categories

• The ‘know it all’

• The ‘sceptic’

• The ‘been there done it’

• The ‘enthusiastic puppy’

• The ‘maverick’

• The ‘follower’

• The ‘academic’

• The ‘life long learner’

• The ‘demotivator’

• Adjust the course delivery and perhaps content to suit the training characteristics of the attendees

• Seek interaction and ensure that all learning styles are catered for

• Deal with each attendee according to their ‘training characteristic’ (for example the ‘maverick’ needs to be treated differently to the ‘follower’

• Are able to smoothly and flexibly shift their own style to meet the needs of the group

• Deliver a course that meets the objectives of the learner and the organisation

An example of dealing with a difficult training characteristic – the ‘maverick’

I define ‘maverick’ to mean wilful independence and it is this training characteristic which is probably the one that causes trainers the most difficulty. Mavericks have a high sense of self confidence and self esteem and believe that they are more intelligent than others. This can be a heady mix when they are faced with a trainer that has not established their credibility or is delivering a course that they consider to be boring or inappropriate for them.

The following are likely indicators that you are facing a maverick:

• You are asked a number of questions that are disrupting and show that they believe they know more than you do on the subject

• You are shown disrespect by the attendee (this can be on a continuum from mild to extreme)

• They show their displeasure through body language and audio clues (eg heavy sighs and rolling of the eyes)

• You are challenged constantly and other attendees or yourself are undermined

• They refuse to participate in the course or the exercises

Interventions to use with the maverick training characteristic

• Establish credibility upfront and immediately

• Discover their objectives/objections for being on the course (and build into the course)

• Find a way to avoid making them look stupid (if you fail you are likely to make running the training course extremely difficult)

• Ensure that you do not lose control or appear uneasy

• Provide boundaries and structure (when you need to enforce your control, do it quickly and do not dwell on it – avoid trying to make the maverick lose face in front of their peers)

• Be clear on the objectives of the course, and how the course will run. What are the components of the course?

• Give them something to do – eg ensure they lead on some of the exercises

• Recognise them (whilst ensuring that they do not dominate the course) and appeal to their intellectual ability

Training courses present the trainer with an opportunity to engage with all members of team, even those who seem to be resistant to whatever you are trying to teach them. Remember that a one size fits all approach is unlikely to be successful as is approaching resistance from a defensive position! It can be easy to spend the majority of the course then fighting your corner, but by using some of the techniques mentioned above, you can be better placed to deliver a lively and interesting course which has benefit for all those in attendance.

Having effective and productive leaders are imperative for an organisation’s success and ability to be agile in competitive and changing environments. This is often the reason that many HR departments insist that leadership training is the way forward to rectify the deficiencies in the organisation’s capability.

When the HR department advises the management team that they need leadership training this is often met with derision and a reluctance to attend, or worse still if they do attend, assessment following the training shows that in the mid to long term there is little to none improvement in leadership competence. This has a long term adverse effect on the business and the ability of employees to reach their potential and add value to the business.

Senior management buying in to the training intervention is essential in ensuring that it stands more than a fair chance of being accepted and embedded into the organisation.

Some of the ways that HR can embarrass itself when sponsoring leadership training

• Buying off the shelf training not aligned to the business

• Leadership training that concentrates on techniques not business

• Over reliance on one type of learning

• Using a trainer that lacks credibility

• Ignoring social intelligence as a key competency

One of the reasons that most managers refuse to attend leadership training is because they do not believe that it is relevant to their needs and they feel that after many years of managing people they are already effective and proficient managers. This perception is probably backed up by years of good Performance Reviews (where leadership ability/competency has never been assessed) and a reward structure that encourages poor leadership and a reliance on task completion over leadership ability.

It can be tempting to just buy in training that has not been aligned to the business – assuming that all leadership training is the same. It is imperative that you assess with the supplier exactly what you need to achieve and how the training can support the business objectives. The provider should also understand the culture of the business and ensure that the training embeds the desired culture and change objectives that you feel is necessary. Determination on whether coaching for junior members of the team or mentoring for more senior members will be more effective than a training course should be considered. It may be necessary to supplement the training with coaching or mentoring depending on the need of the business.

A major flaw in many leadership training programmes is that they concentrate on leadership techniques without considering how it relates to good business practice. For example, is the ability to understand Situational Leadership or Action Centred Leadership the training course or is the training course how you can apply Situational Leadership etc to your business day? It is a subtle although all essential distinction and one that will make an important difference in whether there will be any behavioural change or desired performance improvement.

Some trainers prefer to train in the learning style that is more comfortable for them rather than considering the learning styles of the delegates. This can lead to training courses that are biased and only suitable for a proportion of the management cadre. For example lots of activities like role plays for those that prefer to ‘get stuck in’ or case studies that like to problem solve. Training that relies on only one or two methods of learning will ultimately fail its objectives.

Training can ‘die a death’ if the trainer is not considered credible by the trainees. This often means that the trainer needs to have a wealth of relevant experience and the ability to understand not only leadership but business as well. Over reliance on one discipline (HR or business) will leave a training course ‘off balance’ and ineffective.

I see Social Intelligence as the ability of taking Emotional Intelligence and applying it to social situations. It concerns itself with how you interact with others and how you assess the situations/environments around you, to achieve a win/win solution or best agreed alternative solution. Social Intelligence is also about how you respond to the different situations and environments that you find yourself in. This is the essence of leadership and one that is often missed by leadership trainers!

One of our more successful leadership programmes teaches managers not only strong leadership techniques but also how to build their reputation as leaders, how to generate trust and how to role model change. It is the easiest thing to teach a leadership technique, much harder to teach the behavioural competencies that are required to lead. To ensure that your leadership training course works you must consider the following:

• What do you wish to achieve?

• Is the training course biased in how it expects people to learn or behave?

• Is it tailored to my business?

• What else is being taught other than leadership technique?

• How credible is the trainer and do they understand not only the ‘HR’ but ‘business’ as well?

Judith Germain, Managing Director of leadership consultancy Dynamic Transitions claims that many managers have been managing people for years under a reward structure that encourages poor leadership and a reliance on task completion over leadership ability. Therefore in tough times when strong leadership ability is required, many are falling below the mark and are unwilling to now embrace the training needed to improve.

“Having effective and productive leaders are imperative for an organisation’s success and ability to be agile in competitive and changing environments. This is often the reason why many HR departments insist that leadership training is the way forward to rectify the deficiencies in the organisation’s capability. When the HR department advises the management team that they need leadership training this is often met with derision and a reluctance to attend, or worse still if they do attend, assessment following the training shows that in the mid to long term there is little to none improvement in leadership competence,” explains Germain.

Germain suggests that senior management buy in to the training intervention is essential in ensuring that it stands more than a fair chance of being accepted and embedded into the organisation but in the managers’ defence, Germain says that many organisations make the job harder than it should be by implementing the wrong training strategies in the first place.

A major flaw in many leadership training programmes is that they are bought as ‘off-the-shelf’ solutions which have not been aligned to the needs of the business. Such solutions tend to concentrate on leadership techniques without considering how it relates to good business practice. For example, is the ability to understand Situational Leadership or Action Centred Leadership the training course or is the training course how you can apply Situational Leadership etc to your business day? It is a subtle although all essential distinction and one that will make an important difference in whether there will be any behavioural change or desired performance improvement,” says Germain.

Germain also claims that the over reliance on particular learning styles at the expense of others by the trainer and the trainer’s perceived credibility can also have a detrimental affect on the success of leadership training, as can the ability to embrace Social Intelligence into the programme.

“I see Social Intelligence as the ability of taking Emotional Intelligence and applying it to social situations. It concerns itself with how you interact with others and how you assess the situations/environments around you, to achieve a win/win solution or best agreed alternative solution. Social Intelligence is also about how you respond to the different situations and environments that you find yourself in. This is the essence of leadership and one that is often missed by leadership trainers,” says Germain.

Judith Germain is managing director Dynamic Transitions a leadership company specialising in working with Troublesome Talent ® and improving leadership performance within organisations. Judith provides strategic mentoring for senior executives and business leaders and delivers innovative leadership programmes, leadership consultancy, training, coaching and mentoring to corporate clients. For more information visit www.developing-leadership.com or email jude@dynamic-transitions.co.uk

Ends