How Effective Are Corporate Training Programs?

I think I have covered this issue before but I would like to share something that I came across some time ago.

James Eison in his chapter in the book Academic Leadership (Edited by Robert M. Diamond) listed the following 10 characteristics of what he considers as learning:


1. Learning is fundamentally about making and maintaining connections
2. Learning is enhanced by taking place in the context of a compelling situation
3. Learning is an active search for meaning
4. Learning is developmental, a cumulative process involving the whole person
5. Learning is done by individuals who are intrinsically tied to others as social beings
6. Learning is strongly affected by the educational climate
7. Learning requires frequent feedback if it is to be sustained, practice if it is to be nourished, and opportunities to use what has been learned
8. Much learning takes place informally and incidentally
9. Learning is grounded in particular contexts and individual experiences
10. Learning involves the ability of individuals to monitor their own learning


Most corporate trainers/consultants would have had the question : "How effective is your training" thrown at them. I suppose it is a valid question although I sometimes wish the party asking that question rephrase it into maybe : "What new things will we learn from your program?"

You see, to answer "how effective is your training" puts a corporate trainer or consultant at a no-win situation as what he/she is going to deliver is only as good as the minds that are going to receive it and the environment that is going to allow the new knowledge to flourish. Training at the essence of it is learning and if we take the above 10 characteristics of what constitutes as learning, I think we now should have a good benchmark on whether a training program has been effective or otherwise.

I believe it was Reg Revans who once said that "Learning must be equal to or greater than the rate of change". How is it in your organization? Are you learning enough to face the changes? Are you learning more than you need? Sometimes in my programs, I come across managers who become uncomfortable when they come to realize that they are learning more than what they thought they needed from the program. Their excuse : I can't use all these new knowledge in my present company....its just not ready for this". I think most of you readers would have already seen through the fallacy of this argument.

For any learning to be effective, a host of factors must fall into place. So, how effective are my training programs. Well, they are all ALWAYS effectively developed and delivered. You got to ask the learners for the rest!

The Flattening of International Higher Education

In recent times, there has been a great flattener in the world of international higher education. In one of my previous entries, I talked about how Friedman's the World is Flat assertion has become a catch-phrase in major board rooms of the corporate world. However, the flattening of the world has been going on for quite some time. A good example of this is in the arena of higher education.

It is suffice to say that the idea and concept of the University was born prior to modern times. The Italians, British, French and the Egyptians all claim to be the originator of the University. Going by strict definition, the Indians are probably the the first to have the first tell-tale signs of organised knowldge dissemination (what a univerity is really all about) through the concept of ashram.

Nevertheless for the purpose of this particular discussion, I am going to refer to 'University' as to mean the modern University as per what we are all accustomed to now which is a model created and popularised by the Anglo-Saxons. Enter the world of Cambdrige, Oxford and Havard!

In the beginning (as any Cambridge historian will tell you), there was no University of Cambridge. There was however, a group of colleges that later became known collectively as the Univerity of Cambridge. The same applies to Oxford. While these and many more Universities have been in existence for almost a thousand years, the explosion of Universities around the world took place only after World War 2. In the United States itself, the mushrooming of unversities and adult education coincided with th return of US servicemen from the trenches of Europe. At the same time, many nations gained their independence from their colonial masters. This happened right from 1940s and all the way to 1970s. Countries in Africa, Asia and other parts of the world all scrambled to assert thier nationhood by establishing their national universities. Ironically, this assertion of new found nationhood was modelled after what was existent in the land of the colonial master themselves. Hence, one will hear nationalistic statements of educational freedom vis a vis national freedom and such from an Asian or African university BUT their entire academic and administrative structure will be a carbon copy from the Oxfords and Cambridges of the Anglo-Saxon world. Soon, this model became the only model for what a University should be. In porpular parlance, it was known as the brick & mortar university

The brick & motar Universities held sway throughtout the world and like many things in human history, anything that is often repeated becomes the truth; sometimes the only truth.

Then, the Internet age arrived in the 1980s. Since then, the concept of University has gone through more changes than what it has been accustomed to in the previous 1000 years. As the Internet prompted people to ask questions about their traditional way of doing business, it also encouraged people from the academia to question the traditional way of disseminating knowledge. For the first time, the possibility of providing University education without the need for physical brick & mortar campuses was explored. Hence, the birth of distance education which later morphed into on-line universities.

Since the 1990s, the concept and practice of University went through another dramatic change through the establishment of Transnational Universities which have incorporated the best methods and processes of traditional and non-traditional universities. The distinguishing characteristics of a Transnational University are : 1) Provides its services/products in 3 or more national territories, 2) Multi-ethnic faculty, 3) Distributed decision making, 4) Centalised quality control, 5) 3 or more international affiliations, 6) One Vision and Mission, 7) Non-governmental and/or political.

Like any change, the tansformation of the University and what it should mean to the 21st century knowledge seeker has received much resistence from those affected by the change in the status-quo.

I anticipate more exciting things to come from these Transnational Universities.