On and Off the job training advantages and disadvantages
The Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development (CIPD) admit that it is difficult to be precise as to the amount of on-job-training that occurs in businesses due to the difficulties in defining it and because it is not always recorded. However, they cite the largest survey ever undertaken in the UK on training conducted by the training agency, Deloitte, Haskins and Sells, which indicated that approximately half of the total training delivered across all sectors consisted of on-job-training. There are several advantages to organisations and the learners of conducting training on-the-job. By its location, many of the traditional costs associated with training are not applicable, such as hiring rooms and equipment and provision of refreshments and accommodation.
The training delivery can be timed to fit in with both organisational constraints and requirements i.e. just in time training can take place immediately before the skills are required in the workplace. The trainee has the opportunity to practice their new skills immediately and receive instance feedback and coaching. By using the learner’s colleagues to provide the training, they are able to guide from the perspective of being an expert themselves and the integration of the employee into the team is facilitated, particularly when conducted with new starters. There are, however, disadvantages to using on-the-job training. Quite often it is poorly planned and conducted on an ad hoc basis with little thought or preparation. This can be a particular issue during peak times when staffing levels are low and people are given brief instructions on how to complete a task purely to fulfil a short-term need. Similarly, those that conduct the training are not always expert at both the task itself and the skills of training. On-the-job training may also not allow the opportunity for practicing of the new skills in a “safe” situation. This is particularly true in customer service situations.
Off-the-job training is seen as a more structured method of training using didactic techniques and taking place away from the workstation. Didactic learning is where teaching is “essentially a one-way process, being instructional in character with the teacher or instructor providing information which is then absorbed by the trainee” whereas participative training is where the “primary emphasis is on human interaction as a condition of learning” (Robinson 1988 pg. 117).
Off-the-job training is more likely to be conducted on a group basis, whereas on-the-job is more likely to be on a one-to-one basis. Off-the-job training has its own advantages and disadvantages. In favour of the practice, there are less chances of interruption and disruption of the training event due to where it is carried out and because of the perception of it as being more planned. A trainer can use a variety of tools and training aids that may not be practical for someone training in the workplace. They will usually be able to use a wider range of visual aids such as slides, videos and flipcharts and will generally follow a predetermined script. It should be noted that on-the-job trainers are encouraged to use a script for their training and will be able to show real examples of products and outputs. As more people tend to be involved at the same time, more discussion and sharing of ideas is possible when training off-the-job, but likewise, an individual can also be overlooked and the pace of the training will tend to work to the average rate of the group, thereby leaving some behind and others wanting to move through the material more quickly. Away from the workstation, it is possible to practice skills in a “safe” environment where actions are unlikely to have serious repercussions to the organisations overall performance.
However, it is generally more expensive than on-the-job training, although it is noted that the full costs of on-the-job training are not always calculated. One of the main criticisms of off-the-job training is that it requires the trainees to transfer what they have learnt to their work situation. Classroom training may provide a theoretical approach to how to deal with a situation and this may be supported by the use of role-plays or simulations, but actually putting the skills to use in the workplace cannot be assumed as happening. Off-the-job training is not restricted to classroom based instruction. It can also include reading books and company material, learning through computer based programmes (e learning), workshops etc. For training to be effective, the trainer must possess certain skills. Not only must they be expert at the skill they are training, they also need to know how people learn and be able to present the information in a way that the learner will be able to understand and use. To conduct on-the-job training, the trainer will usually demonstrate the task to be learnt and ask questions of the trainee to keep them involved and make them think. Training incorrect procedures could lead to a spreading of bad habits, so management must ensure any on-job-training is monitored to check it is of an acceptable standard.
There are several theories relating to how people learn. For the purpose of this research two areas of debate are relevant. Firstly, the learning cycle and secondly, individual learning preferences.
Brookfield identifies that “ learners become acquainted with skills, apply these in real-life settings, reflect with other learners on their experiences in these settings, re-define how these skills might be altered by context, re-apply these in other new settings and so on” (Brookfield 1986 pg. 36). This is supported by Kolb’s experiential learning model which also highlights the importance of experience in the learning process. Kolb believes that learning can begin at any stage of his cycle and that it is often a bad experience which leads someone to reflect on the experience and try out new ways of dealing with it. The relevance of this to this report is the question as to whether on-the-job or off-the-job training facilitates the learner to move around this cycle more effectively. It is suggested that this cycle can be used in both training delivery methods. During off-the-job training it is more likely to be enforced by the trainer than during on-the-job.
A training programme can be designed to present new information for individuals to reflect upon and then practice implementing it through role plays or simulations. However, this is more of a trainer-enforced approach and relies on the transfer of training to take place i.e. for the learner to continue practising new skills when they return to the workplace. During on-the-job training, movement through the cycle is seen as being more learner led or even learner initiated with the transfer of training being more likely as the learner has not been removed from the place of work initially. Planned and sustained use of on-the-job training activities can, therefore, encourage a culture of open learning. Paine identified the concept of open learning which he defines as “…both a process which focuses on access to educational opportunities and a philosophy which makes learning more client and student centred. It is learning which allows the learner to choose how to learn, when to learn, where to learn and what to learn as far as possible within the resources constraints of any education and training provision” (Paine 1985 xi).
People have different preferences in the way that they learn. Honey and Mumford built on the work of Kolb to develop their own learning style inventory which gives four styles: the activist who prefers to learn through experiencing new situations and learning as they go along, reflectors who review new information mentally before applying it, theorists who review information and develop a logical, structured approach to applying it and pragmatists who prefer to try things out to see if they work (Honey et al 1986). If this model is accepted, the consequences for anyone involved in the training and development of employees must be able to ensure all learning style preferences are accounted for as effective learning will only take place for an individual when they are given the opportunity to apply their preference (Honey et al 1986). It can be argued that off-the-job training allows more opportunity to utilise methods that appeal to the full range of learning preferences. However, as this type of training tends to be on a group basis, accounting for all preferences during the course of a training programme must mean that at any one time, a large proportion of the learners will not have their individual preference used. As on-the-job training tends to be on a one-to-one basis, it is possible to ensure that the individual’s preference is accounted for. However, on-the-job trainers are less likely to be aware of the concept of preferred learning styles unless they have received adequate train the trainer training himself or herself.
Sloman feels that although on-the-job training makes up nearly half the training undertaken in the UK, it is “under-recognised, under-recorded and under-researched” (Sloman 1989 pg. 187). He feels that when reporting training, managers will often only include formal training events which tend to be off-job as on-job training is poorly defined and can often be indistinguishable from general learning by experience. He goes on to point out that most people who deliver on-the-job training are “neither recognised not recorded” (Sloman 1989 pg. 187). However, a recent report by the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development found that on-the-job training was by far the most popular method training in the 750 companies questioned. They found this encouraging as they feel it reflects many employees learning preferences. The same report also asked about the respondent’s perception of the effectiveness of different types of training. Again the results were positive with 95% rating on-the-job training as either effective or very effective. However, only 35% said that “exposure to challenging work assignments” was frequently used and the writer would argue that this form of development could be classed as on-the-job training (CIPD 2005).
Sloman concludes with five key areas to make on-the-job training more effective. These are: “give on-the-job training the importance it deserves, don’t treat on-the-job training differently, integrate on-the-job training with other methods, ensure you don’t lose ownership of your programmes and train the trainers” (Sloman 1989 pg. 188).
Tags: conducting training, customer service, deloitte, feedback and coaching, haskins, service situations, training on the job
