To train or not to train is often a dilemma, particularly in small businesses. While the “raw materials” for success may be present from the outset, a trainee may not always develop as envisioned. Conversely, relying exclusively on hiring those perceived as able to “hit the ground running” has its own pitfalls. The following can help add clarity to the hiring and training process.
Evaluate Financial Resources for Training
This consideration is rather obvious, but fundamental. While large companies often pick up all or some of the tab for a graduate degree or industry certification, smaller companies typically cannot.
If the demands for the position are such that pertinent on-the-job training can occur (relatively cost free) using the people and technology at your disposal, then real learning can occur without all the “letters behind the names.” If not, then you might do well to hire someone who is experienced and can ramp up quickly.
What Does Training Really Entail?
There is a difference between training and providing information. Handing a salesperson a dozen binders full of products and procedures and then turning her loose in a new territory is not training. That is simply “trial by fire.”
Good training is systematic and formalized. The information provided is distilled in a clear, concise manner and an excellent combination of technology and interpersonal exchange. It also consists of ongoing access to trusted internal resources. Growth in the trainee should be measurable as well.
If your training is something that “looks good on paper” but lacks real substance, it might be better to hire someone who is seasoned. Be honest with yourself in terms of what your business really has to offer an individual in terms of training.
Is Being Trained a Reliable Predictor of Success?
Experience and training alone are not good indicators for success. Just because an individual is well-schooled in a particular area does not ensure that he has the people skills, temperament, drive, organizational skills, problem-solving style, objectivity or mental ability to apply what he has learned on a consistent basis.
However, it happens all too frequently. Hiring managers erroneously equate tenure in a role and related instruction with success: “Joe has been working in manufacturing for 12 years and is a Six Sigma Green Belt, so he must know his stuff.”
Little thought is given to the possibilities that Joe may have coasted, controlled perceptions, artfully managed up, leaned heavily on others or spent an inordinate amount of time covering up mistakes. Moreover, pre-employment assessment, done the right way, will provide significant insight into whether the candidate is a good enough fit to invest in training in the first place.
Does the Hiring Manager Have the Time, Inclination or Style to Truly Get a New Employee up to Speed?
In many small companies, if the position is new or the individual leaving will not be around to mentor the new hire, training often falls back on the hiring manager or supervisor. Whether she has the time or desire to actively get involved at this level (particularly if she has many direct reports) is critical to success.
Much too often all parties involved start out with good intentions. Training sessions are regularly built into the schedule. However, as things get busy and people become overextended, these sessions tend to default to a “check in and see me if you have questions” scenario.
Complicating this further is that many new hires may not only be “green” skill-wise, but emotionally immature as well. They may need to be taught as much about how to work with others and what a full day entails, as they are about the job itself. Then the question becomes, “Does the trainer have the time and energy to ‘take on one to raise?’”
In summary, the training question often comes down to money, the quality of instruction, characteristics of all involved and commitment. Examining these four vital areas openly and honestly will typically result in the decision to train or not to train. To ignore any of these is to run the risk of training experiences becoming incomplete (under-funded), existing in name only, being wasted on poor fit individuals or seriously missing the mark.
