Within the student affairs profession, it seems that staff training is far more important today that it was ten or fifteen years ago. Currently, almost all departments provide extensive training programs and sessions for both their professional and paraprofessional staff. The impetus for this renewed emphasis on training includes many dimensions.
The rapidly expanding use of technology within society in general and higher education in particular has had definitive implications for heightened staff training initiatives. A renewed emphasis on quality and customer satisfaction, and the nontraditional management philosophies which are driven by those emphases, has also been influential. Moreover, departments are finally beginning to recognize that learning truly is a lifelong endeavor and developmental activities such as staff training have a profoundly positive impact on job satisfaction, productivity, and overall effectiveness.
It is equally inescapable that, since the mid-1970s, society has demonstrated an undeniable propensity toward increased litigation. Modern corporations operate within an environment where seemingly minor infractions can have enormous consequences. It is imperative that everyone in an organization, from top management to the front-line, be acutely aware of this trend and its potential impact on their individual and collective lives.
In an analogous sense, those who work within the college community must perpetually strive to keep themselves familiar with the legal environment in which higher education exists. Everyone at the institution should be cognizant of the statues, administrative guidelines and relevant judicial cases which intrinsically impact their efforts to facilitate student learning and development.
But awareness by itself is simply not enough.
Student affairs professionals must be able to translate awareness into action. They must be able to foster within staff members a meaningful appreciation for the complex nature of the legal system, including an ability to think critically while considering all sides of a given issue.
For many departments, training is a very formal process. Contingent on available resources, the trend is to have a full-time professional devoted to providing both initial and ongoing staff development training programs. Some departments even bring in outside consultants to conduct training sessions.
Keep in mind that the motivation for providing such training varies considerably from organization to organization. Many departments are genuinely committed to enhancing the skills and competencies of their staff members. Other departments conduct training primarily to reduce the probability of potential litigation. Sadly, some departments appear to conduct training simply for the sake of appearance.
Regardless of the reasons or level of commitment to the process, the need for professional development has definitely grown at many institutions. And the truth is that training, when carefully developed and appropriately implemented, can have a tremendous, positive impact on virtually every aspect of student development.
The tremendous power associated with learning through involvement has been recognized and accepted for most of the past century. But when it comes to staff training, especially when limited financial resources are available, many departments seem to favor a more cost sensitive, but far less effective, approach. They turn to education instead of training.
There is a significant difference between staff training and education--particularly within the context of adult learning paradigms. Education typically takes place in a classroom and involves a transfer of knowledge through the use of formal methods such as lectures and directed discussion. Participants learn new and relevant information, but the acquisition of new skills and competencies designed to facilitate student development and enhance customer service is usually not the intended outcome; i.e., the ability to actually do something new is often not exploited.
In other words, knowing about a skill is not the same as being skillful.
Adults learn more efficiently when they are allowed to talk about the subject, relate it to their own experiences, and discover the usefulness of the skills for themselves. But this type of learning is also very time consuming. Many departments regularly sacrifice long-term gains for short-term convenience and economy. More information can be provided using the lecture format and many training sessions are lecture-based simply because of the time commitment involved. Yet most staff members simply do not learn very well when they are 'talked to.' They need to be more actively involved in the learning experience.
Training, on the other hand, typically entails personal involvement, commitment, and experiential gains. Training involves learning by doing. Competence, much more than knowledge, constitutes real power. True training occurs when skills that can be measurably defined are amplified until the competency level is visibly enhanced. Training aims to provide staff members with proficiency in the execution of given tasks. The outcomes of training should be tangible in that they should complement and support the department's mission and goals.
Think about it. If you needed an operation, would you want a physician performing the procedure who is educated in medical theory or one who is trained in surgical technique?
Recently, a few training 'gurus' have taken issue with the training model discussed here and have argued that teaching people to think is more important that teaching specific skills. The response of the informed staff training coordinator to such criticism is quite elegant. Thinking is a skill just like any other. It is self-evident that in the future people will need better decision-making and problem-solving skills in order to survive and remain viable in a variety of work environments.
But their need for highly specific skills and competencies will only increase with the passing of time. For someone to be functional, they have to be able to do something.
A final note about learning by doing. Many training programs focus on the modification of behavior in a direction that is deemed advantageous by the department. This may even be the stated purpose of the entire training program. Unless these types of training ventures focus on specific skills and competencies, however, the odds against their being successful are monumental. The desire to change behavior in a positive direction is, in and of itself, an admirable goal. But for behavior change to be permanent, it must be linked to the acquisition of new competencies.
When staff members learn new skills, their behavior inevitably changes. Behavior change is best realized as a byproduct of other forms of training.
The fundamental question is always the same: What will staff be able to do when they complete the training program?
As alluded to previously, the benefits of a learning by doing approach to staff training have been recognized for years. Still, many departments continue to focus on so-called 'feel good' training programs as opposed to those which target specific, utilizable competencies. Such programs typically involve training in soft skills; i.e., skills such as listening, communication, teamwork, leadership, etc. Although these topics are generally well-received, the evidence seems to be that they are the least effective in terms of tangible gains.
Most soft skills training is never put into actual practice; i.e., the information covered in these types of training sessions is almost never utilized in concrete, on-the-job situations.
For example, a lot of departments today are conducting 'team' training without first defining what the desired outcomes of the training are or how the teams should be able to function at the conclusion of the training program. Team training, especially in its early stages, typically involves various group decision-making exercises that center around some hypothetical situation such as being lost in the wilderness or desert with minimal resources. Participants have to decide as a group how to establish priorities and proceed collectively.
The idea is that staff members will be able to see a connection between how they would handle a hypothetical problem and how they should handle similar on-the-job situations.
But translating the classroom experience into specific skills that staff members actually integrate into their job performance is extremely challenging. While these kinds of structured experiences probably have a place in staff development programs, they should never be allowed to become a primary emphasis. They sometimes serve a good diversionary or stress-relieving purpose, but they are simply not in the same league with training that enhances the 'how to' repertoire.
As illustrated by the preceding scenario, training sessions which deal with soft skills topics such as diversity and quality are often quite entertaining but seldom involve the kinds of hands-on experiences that help staff members translate awareness into action. Role-playing, games, and simulations help to present the ideas in a more palpable context, but they seldom precipitate the acquisition of useful skills.
Those who attend 'soft skills' training rarely get a real 'feel' for how to implement what is presented in a realistic context. As such, this type of training routinely amounts to nothing more than a rather expensive waste of everyone's time, effort and resources.
It cannot be over-emphasized that training should only involve tangible, hands-on skills and observable behaviors. Training goals and objectives should not involve feelings and emotions. 'To enhance the staff members' appreciation of student development' is not an appropriate training objective. It is difficult to explain what 'appreciation' is, much less how it can be taught within a skills-based context.
The purpose of training is to enhance behaviors, not attitudes. Keep training objectives focused on skills and competencies--attitudinal changes will occur spontaneously with time. Staff training programs rarely have any reason to delve into the affective domain.
'Staff Training Coordinator' seems to be a fairly common job title in any department of considerable size. Many smaller departments also have individuals whose key responsibilities entail some form of staff training. Furthermore, most large institutions have a staff of several full-time professionals whose sole function is to assess training needs and institute training programs based on an individual department's needs.
While the length of time spent managing a professional development training program tends to be related to departmental size and other factors, all training coordinators share at least one common characteristic. Eventually, they have to demonstrate the effectiveness of their training pursuits and thus justify the need for their position. This is, after all, the age of accountability.
Few companies would seriously consider turning over their manufacturing operations to a person with no manufacturing experience. Yet many student affairs departments routinely entrust their training initiatives to coordinators who have little or no background, expertise, or formal education in the area of staff development. The department head or leadership team suddenly recognizes a need for training--or is informed of this need by either front-line staff or the Vice President for Student Affairs--and delegates the responsibility for implementing a training program to the individual in organization who seems to most need something to occupy their time.
While the selection of an appropriate training coordinator is indeed a crucial first step, it is only a beginning. Unwavering support must permeate all phases of the training process.
New training coordinators should make it a point to educate themselves about fundamental training concepts and techniques. Attendance at local or regional training conferences is a must. They should also consider taking a class or two. Classes on teaching methods or establishing goals and objectives for training programs would obviously be appropriate. It would also be advisable to join relevant associations and other organizations that emphasize staff training.
Reading always helps, as does seeking advise from training coordinators at other institutions. Training coordinators should pay particular attention to what has been successful, and what has not worked so well, within similar departments. They should take a little time to prepare for the challenges that lie ahead and to anticipate the inevitable difficulties that will be encountered. Training is a process that can be only be mastered only through experience and practice.
Of necessity, training coordinators must continually focus on the effectiveness of their programs. Continuous improvement is as important to the training process as it is to the more tangible (and visible) areas of learning outcomes and developmental programming. The good training coordinator is always cognizant of the fact that their efforts must support the departmental mission in a demonstrable and unambiguous manner.
Support from upper administration is inherently linked to the training coordinator's ability to successfully illustrate such a connection. This can be especially difficult when economic conditions are less than favorable. When the balance sheet indicates that budget cuts may be necessary, one of the first areas to receive careful scrutiny is staff training programs. In such instances, training programs are severely limited or eliminated altogether primarily because the training coordinator is was unable to convince the appropriate administrators of the long-term benefits often associated with staff training programs.
Admittedly, new training coordinators are often anxious to get the ball rolling. They always seem preoccupied with instituting some type of training--any type of training--regardless of actual needs. While a few training successes fairly early in the training coordinator's tenure are certainly good from a credibility standpoint, it is imperative that all training endeavors be based on an overall training plan that has been carefully developed.
Being able to say that X number of training sessions have been conducted is only part of the equation. The administration will still need to be convinced of the utility of those activities; i.e., what improvements have been realized and what problems have been resolved as a direct result of training efforts?
Successful professional development programs demand a significant investment in terms of both financial and human resources. They can also take up a great deal of time which can adversely affect other aspects of job performance. The administration is usually aware of these factors and therefore tends to question the necessity of staff training programs when revenues are scarce and/or during certain peak times on campus.
Moreover, some departments decide on training topics based on what the latest 'hot' topic in the profession seems to be and/or other arbitrary considerations and predetermined time allotments. These are critical mistakes, but they are characteristic of many departments.
To further elaborate, some departments make the critical mistake of trying to fit the topic to the time slot. In other words, the amount of time allotted for training is determined by factors independent of the nature of the material to be covered in the session. Time should be allocated based on the value placed on the skills and competencies that are to be transferred through the training program. Selecting a training topic solely by the length of time staff can be permitted to leave their regular job responsibilities often dooms the entire effort without ever giving it a legitimate chance for success.
Once a training need has been identified, the training coordinator, working closely with other concerned parties, should decide how much time will be realistically needed to endow staff members with the new competencies. The desired outcome; i.e., the specific skills that are to be obtained, should be instrumental in establishing the length of an individual training session. This is another reason why staff training program goals and objectives are of critical importance.
Many of the more progressive student affairs have recognized the prudence of changing the focus of their training programs away from the trainer and more toward the trainee. Trainers, often out of sheer necessity, tend to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to decide how best to fit a given topic into a particular time frame. Their preparation is concerned more with staying within the established time constraints than with the actual development of usable skill sets.
The proliferation of available instructional technologies has helped to put the staff member back at the center of the training process. The length of the training session (and the entire training program, for that matter) should be determined solely by the amount of time anticipated to achieve the desired outcome. In other words, the time devoted to a given training topic should be determined by how long it takes staff members to master the skills that the department deems important.
When exposed to skills-oriented training, it has been shown repeatedly that adults do not tend to acquire new competencies overnight. Time is needed between training sessions for reflection and practice. In general, staff members can absorb only about two or three hours of meaningful content in any single training day. And that rate tends to decrease exponentially as the number of consecutive training days increases. It only makes sense that training is most effective if it is conducted over the course of several days or weeks.
Despite these realizations, some departments persist in concentrating their training efforts into lengthy, intense marathon sessions in order to 'get it over with.'
Another critical dimension in the development and implementation of staff training programs concerns the number of people in each individual training session. Staff members learn more efficiently in small groups. Conducting skills-based training with large groups may be advantageous in many regards, but such an approach seldom produces any meaningful results. Furthermore, larger groups are more difficult to coordinate and usually force the trainer to rely more heavily on the lecture format.
While it may be true that larger groups can often be divided into smaller groups for some training purposes, having too many small groups can lead to anarchy. Most training sessions should be limited to more than 20 staff members as less is almost always better.
On the surface, having large numbers of staff members in each training session seems cost-effective. The department appears to be getting 'more bang for the buck.' But this perceived benefit is only an illusion when the participants in those sessions fail to obtain the required skills and competencies. Large groups are appropriate only for the dissemination of information. They are not practical for most staff development purposes. Short, multiple training sessions carried out over a considerable timespan with minimal numbers of staff members in each session seems to be the most successful way to conduct training.
Finally, a well designed staff training program has built-in reinforcement. It is not necessary to reinforce learning if the skills and competencies emphasized during the training really assist staff members in the performance of their job duties and responsibilities; i.e., if they are able to actually use what they have learned. External reinforcement only becomes necessary if the skills acquired are not instrumental in enhancing job completion.
Successful professional development programs result from thoughtful and serious planning. A great deal of attention must be paid to detail and desired outcomes. Difficulties arise when there is a lack of a coherent foresight regarding what training is expected to accomplish and how those accomplishments will be measured and rewarded. If these preliminary considerations are not given careful thought and the program is not implemented in a logical, systematic, and sensitive manner, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to execute successful staff training.
There are legitimate reasons for many of the problems currently associated with staff training programs. If training outcomes are not fulfilling initial expectations, it may be time to re-think how it was conceived, implemented, and managed. In other words, it may be time to pause, step back, and make sure that the department's reasons for engaging in staff training are legitimate and responsive to actual departmental, institutional and individual needs.
Admittedly, staff training requires a great deal of commitment, is very time-consuming, and demands relentless, ongoing support. The dedication and perseverance needed to conduct good staff training is substantial.
But so are the potential rewards.