Corporate Training Revisited

The face of corporate training is changing rapidly as a result of business streamlining. As clients move towards strategic outsourcing, HR managers are increasingly expectant of a more comprehensive set of training services. And there is good reason too. The purpose of calling in the experts in lieu of paying for in-house training is to be able to harness the expertise of the professionals, without being dragged down by structural costs that can be better expended on the core business.

Because corporate trainers are now taking the place of previous employees of the firm, there is an immediate albeit inevitable downside to this move. With in-house trainers, there is an established route of communication as well as familiarity with company policies, regulations, philosophy and even problems. The people who train their colleagues are well-acquainted with the potential organization shortfalls, and it is their job to bridge any gaps between work ability and knowledge.

External corporate trainers are, however, stripped of this benefit. They come into the company as professionals, yet without a firm grasp of company procedures. There are two sides to this coin: coming into the picture without preconceived notions of company shortcomings and problems can bring forth a sense of objectivity that can be advantageous to the training process. However, relying heavily on the diagnosis of HR representatives and/or managers, themselves not experts in this field, may give a limited perspective that does not precisely identify root causes.

It is with this perspective that we feel that professional corporate training should encompass research philosophies to be effective. A case study (heavily disguised) will make this clear.

A pharmaceutical set-up has witnessed below-average sales figures, the performance raising shareholders’ concerns. As is expected, sales teams are quickly rounded up and a customer service programme proposed by internal managers. But rounds of training have yielded little improvements. An internal audit is warranted, corporate trainers changed but the problem persisted. Eventually, a company audit of internal processes had to be conducted, and only then did findings reveal that distribution channels were out-of-sync with production and sales.

The case study exemplified the opportunity costs of ignoring the critical stage of foremost research in a haste to rectify an urgent issue. The danger in this is to delay closure, and the hidden costs of such mistakes, as evidenced by the case study, is all too apparent.

The research process is therefore critical in mapping out a definite blueprint of genuine training needs. This process should involve concrete quantification in terms of statistical justifications and/or qualitative analysis. As corporate research evolves, this process is increasingly simplified by technological aids such as internet and email surveys. At the same time, the value of traditional research methods, in focus groups or mail surveys, continue to be viable alternatives. Methodology, after all, is contingent on specific research purposes.

What this implies for corporate training is an increased responsibility to widen the scope of services. The process of training should now entail a full suite of research inquiries, critical analysis, full justifications, tailored content as well as post-training evaluation. With this in mind, it is little wonder that streamlining makes more business sense than spreading resources over a host of key, but disintegrated concerns.

Contributed by Joel Yong