Training that does not lead to the resolution of management issues is meaningless. However, in reality, I think that this is not the case in many cases.
Ask yourself about the training you are in charge of.
Can you logically explain why the training is being conducted and how it is linked to management issues?
■ Why is training for new managers necessary? How does it relate to management?
■ Why is communication training necessary? How does it relate to management?
■ Why is career development training necessary? How does it relate to management?
I think it is worth considering stopping or reconsidering the content of training that cannot be explained logically.
So why is training that does not lead to the resolution of management issues being implemented?
I believe that the cause lies with both the training provider (hereafter referred to as the training company for short) and the training adopter (hereafter referred to as the adopting company).
Today, I would like to share my personal opinion on this point.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
- Causes on the training company side
Some training companies have separate roles for sales representatives and training instructors, while others have a policy of having sales representatives and instructors.
Either way, if the sales representative is self-centered, they tend to provide training that is unrelated to the customer’s business issues.
Such sales representatives see the implementation of training as the goal itself.
They think that as long as the training is done, everything is OK, so in pre-training interviews with clients, they only ask questions related to the training.
■ When do you want to implement it?
■ How many people will take the training?
■ Is the training in person or online?
They ask about the specifications of the training itself, such as
■ What kind of training have the participants taken so far?
■ What would you ideally like the participants to become after this training?
They ask questions about the participants.
As a result, they will propose the “XX training” that the training company specializes in. And when they explain the contents of the proposal, they don’t talk about how it will solve the management issues, but just introduce the contents of the training program in detail.
They don’t ask the following questions:
● Why is it being done? How does it relate to management and organizational issues?
● Are you considering measures other than training (systems, mechanisms, IT systems, etc.) to solve the issues?
● Who needs to perform what kind of performance to solve the issues?
● What is the current performance like? If the performance is lower than expected, what is the assumed cause?
By asking the above questions to the client, the client will realize the following:
- What they were planning to plan is not connected to the management issues
- There are points to consider other than training
- The training target audience is not the people they had originally thought of
- If you don’t involve your superiors, you won’t get the desired effect
Having a wide-ranging discussion with the client may postpone the business negotiations themselves, or it may shift to a topic that is not the training company’s specialty, resulting in the loss of proposal opportunities, so it’s not all good for the training company.
Human capital management is currently attracting attention. It may seem a little late to say this, but I believe that part of the responsibility for not being able to increase the value of human capital linked to management issues lies with the activities of training companies.
I would like to be careful, as a warning to myself.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
- Causes on the client side
It seems to be relatively recent that Japanese companies have started hiring full-time employees by job type. Until now, large companies have developed the skills of employees hired as general employees through rotation.
Whether or not you will be involved in work related to human resource development is influenced by personnel rotation. Even if you are involved in human resource development, you will be transferred to a different job in a few years, so it is difficult to develop human resource development professionals within Japanese companies.
Furthermore, many Japanese companies believe that “human resource development is the job of the human resources department” or that “human resource development = training,” so human resource development professionals are not developed.
As a result, human resource personnel at the client and sales personnel at the training company work together to mass-produce “training for the sake of doing it.”
As mentioned above, if Japanese companies claim to practice human capital management, they need to have the following mindset.
■Human resource development is the most important role of managers, and the HR department should support them.
■In addition to training, opportunities for human resource development include work assignments and feedback from those around you.
＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊＊
Japanese companies need to have in-house human resource development professionals.
