There seems to be an impression floating around in companies that serious training happens indoors, and outbounds are for having fun.
While ther is nothing wrong with having fun in the outdoors, I find it disturbing to see such programmes called training programmes.
Somewhere, I find that this reinforces an unconscious desire in participants to resist change and is harmful for the overall learning environment of the organization. Most of the outbound training enquiries I get focus on the “activities”. The more exciting, the better, the more exotic, the more adventurous, the more…. something-or-the-other. Pursuit of adventure is fabulous. I make money from it. But why wrap it up as a self-development programme or management training?
From a very simple angle, you get to save money from the trainer’s fees as well as training session time to invest fully into the desired adventure experience. From a deeper angle, there is no pretense - there is a certain honesty to going after what is really desired.
I suspect some of this is about “We have a training budget….” as an HR professional had candidly explained to me. Stated almost directly in that conversation was the objective that they wish to utilize the training budget so that it doesn’t get cut down, but they really don’t have any training in mind at the moment.
What I find telling in this is the inability to see beyond fixed concepts. This is a rigidity in perspective that is only manifesting itself with me in this way in the first fifteen minutes of conversation. What is this rigidity doing everyday, to the person, to the people who are influenced by their choices and to the organization?
How do I see this rigidity? I see it when an entire document about training is read and the important issues for discussion are about travel, accommodation, activities and food. I see it when outbound training becomes a way of organizing an outing under training budgets. I see it when there isn’t the least curiosity about if an outbound training programme is a new service called thus to provide that utility of training budget, or if it really has any value to deliver.
Of course, not all companies are like that. I have conducted programmes where participants on the outbound actually needed to be told to lighten up and go with the flow, because they were so focussed on learning, that they were almost unable to “be”.
And I have found the perfect participants as well - people who had arrived with full knowledge that they were out on training, and knew that they would be spending time in the outdoors and were fine with seeing what happened with the flow.
Why do I call these the perfect participants? Because they are utilizing their value for money, because they are investing their time actively and because it brings me a glow of pride in being able to work with them, to see their transformations and celebrate being a part of it. It brings me a high to see the changes being wrought still alive in participants when I meet them on some future programme….
It brings me the joy of having companions along on a journey of discovery, and I find few things that are headier than that.
by Swapnil, on June 27 2008 @ 2:16 pm
Hi Vidyut,You misunderstand when you say this. The employees will not come if we tell them it is a training programme, and they can’t have fun.We don’t mind doing training for the people. It is for their improvement. But if they will not come, there is no improvement and no training and no fun also. Nothig
by Vidyut Kale, on June 27 2008 @ 8:28 pm
Swapnil, lol. I’d have guessed it was you even if you didn’t write your name
You are simply illustrating what I said. Is training a popularity contest? While voluntary participation adds value to training, which training intervention intended for a team really allows for individual whims about participation/attendance? This is my entire point. Outbound training is not considered as training, and attitudes of an office picnic apply. This whole fantasy that an employee can get away with refusing training interventions in his workplace seems applicable only to “certain kinds of training”. The exploration is in why those trainings are not as crucial for all members, and why allowing such whims happens with some training and not others.
The other sorrow, of course, is what we had discussed earlier - training is for “their” improvement. Its always about others. We are, apparently perfect. Wanting transformation and working toward it are different things.
by Vidyut Kale, on August 1 2008 @ 1:54 am
Replying to an email comment by Sheeren about this article:
I can only say that until people take the chance, not much is going to happen. As a trainer and avid outdoor person, I am not fussed about luxury and can say the same of my team. How fair is it to simply sweep everything under the name of budget and silence yourselves with luxurious one day events? My experience says that I can do a training programme on some remote fort with bare minimum facilities - this is my commitment to learning. It is people who make an organization. If you don’t like something, you are being part of its continuing. What can you do to see your vision coming to life?
My philosophy is simple. I have one life. Do I want to spend it explaining why certain things are like that, or do I want to go for what I want?
by Sushil Bhasin, on August 13 2008 @ 11:34 pm
Managers who are stuck up with budgets need to ask themselves a simple question. “Whats the return on investment?” and now we talk of ROTI, too. ROTI is Return on Time Invested. If you are ignorant of the advantages or returns of an OUTBOUND Training Programme, you are going to miss something. Some Managers may NEVER realise that. Just too bad!
I ask another question. “Have you ever wondered what is the cost of NOT TRAINING?” Please ponder over that. Dont train. make your team ineffective, de-motivated and outdated. The results may not be visible but certainly devastating.
Choice is YOURS, dear Manager.
by Vidyut Kale, on August 15 2008 @ 1:40 am
Heh. Sushil, to the point as always. This is something I really am going to try asking bluntly - “can you afford not to train?”