For Your Business To Be Efficient — Do Not Train Your Staff?
by Andrzej Gorecki
[As published inThe Quality Magazine, June 1993]
Training is universally seen as an important tool for the improvement of productivity. However, in the author's opinion, some forms of training are actually detrimental to business; they are proof that mistakes have been made in system and procedure design. The author suggests that in some instances, the elimination of training will lead to substantial improvements in productivity.
One of the few areas which cause little controversy in the world of business is training. Virtually everyone agrees that training is a desirable activity since it improves productivity and reduces errors. Many organisations are committed to training and they maintain training departments. In Australia, the Federal Government actually forces businesses to train their staff, via the training guarantee levy.
W. Edwards Deming, the father of Total Quality Management (TQM), endorses training as one of the important elements of his management method. Tom Peters in his books 'In Search of Excellence' and Thriving on Chaos' also strongly advocates the need for training and retraining.
So, the opinion of the experts is that training is valuable and worth doing. There are some reservations because it costs money and, time, but many argue that there is not enough of it.
Fundamentally wrong
In my opinion not all training is of value. A distinction needs to be made between skills and abilities enhancement versus task or procedure related training. I believe that the first form of training is needed and valuable. It is the latter which I consider to be fundamentally wrong. The reasons for this claim follow.
TQM practitioners argue that 85 to 96% of poor performance in business is caused by inadequacies or faults in business systems. Only the balance, i.e. 4 to 15% can be attributed to people. In other words this is a rephrased theory Y of organisation people are basically willing to do a good job, it is their environment which is an obstacle.[1] Since the 4% is the more recent number, I will adopt it for my further deliberations.
The 4/96 notion means that when something goes wrong it is unlikely (only 4% of cases) that people intentionally did the wrong thing. More often (96% of cases) people just lack understanding of the task or they make a genuine mistake, and the system facilitates (or does not prevent) the error. Those who designed the system, by failing to make it intuitive and foolproof, left it open to confusion and errors.
In a poorly designed business system, the willingness to do things right thing is no longer sufficient; people need to remember what to do, when and how to do it. To gain the necessarily knowledge, people are trained in the task (or procedure) and the training becomes a cover-up for the inadequacies of the system. Obviously, sooner or later something must go wrong; a corollary to Murphy's Law states that if a part can be mounted into an aeroplane upside down, someone will do so.
Flawed business processes, instead of having quality built into them, depend for their correct operation on continuing 'post-sale' services. People need to be monitored and coached and their errors need to be fixed. As in any other instance of poor quality, this results in higher costs. The costs are a sum of training and retraining expenses, the cost of correcting errors, and the cost of doing the job again.
The picture is even worse when one considers a training degeneration issue. Under normal circumstances those trained by the original trainers train the next group of people, who in turn train yet more people. This process is usually repeated until very little of the original message is left. Since each person in a communication chain alters 25% of the message, it is reasonable to assume that the fourth generation trainee could do precisely the opposite of what is required.
So, contrary to the popular view, it is my conviction that in a perfect organisation no task or procedure related training should be required and each request for training should be investigated. Whenever there is a need to train, one should seek to review the task or procedure to eliminate the need. This is a prescription to prevent up to 95% of business problems.
Paradigm shift
Awareness of the detrimental nature of task and procedure related training is obviously the first step, which needs to be taken to improve the situation. However, it does require a paradigm shift in how we view business practices.
The introduction of Apple Macintosh computers forever changed people's ideas on how easy to use and accommodating a computer can be. Business systems and procedures should be no different. They should be designed in such a way that they are intuitive and foolproof, just as the Apple Mac happens to be.
Many people may argue that what I am proposing is not possible; that a reliable intuitive process cannot be designed since it would always be open to interpretation. However, what I am advocating here is not new. The approach is already well established and often used. It is possible to shape the processes (or products) in a way that there will be no room left for misinterpretation. Automatic Teller Machines (ATMs), which are successfully used by virtually everyone, without any training, are a good example.
Similarly, manufacturers of consumer electronic goods have long stopped relying on instruction manuals. They realise that the customers use the Standard Crabb Method — never worry about the instructions, plug the sucker in and get it going. So, in the design of an appliance a lot of thought goes into making it intuitive and foolproof. In other words, even if an attempt is made it should be difficult to use the device incorrectly.
A good example of this new way of business thinking took place some years ago in an Australian department store chain. New imprinters were installed for processing credit card transactions. Unfortunately, very soon the management realised that the machines misprinted customer dockets making them illegible, hence the stores were losing money. The new machines had a different mechanism and they simply required a different touch.
An immediate knee-jerk reaction would have been to train the stores' staff on how to use the new machines. However, someone suggested taking off the machine cases instead, so the staff could see how the internal mechanism worked. Miraculously, the problem vanished overnight as people could see what was needed to get a clean imprint. A change in one of the tools eliminated the need for training.
Yet another example of a successful implementation of the foolproof process is the introduction of cars using unleaded petrol. All car manufacturers put a message on petrol tank lids to remind the motorists that only unleaded fuel should be used in their vehicles. This is an important message since leaded fuel would damage the expensive catalytic converter in the vehicle. However, the main reason why people practically never pour leaded petrol into unleaded cars is that the pump nozzle for leaded petrol is simply too large to fit into an unleaded cars petrol tank inlet. You have to make a lot of effort to pour incorrect fuel into it.
Thus, we need to stop thinking in terms of 'let us put together a system and then train the staff to use it'. Task and procedure related training should no longer be viewed as something normal and acceptable. Instead, if a business procedure requires staff training, those who designed it need to go back to the drawing board. The procedure or the tools used need to be redesigned so training is not required.
If you design your tasks, systems and procedures in a way that one needs to make a concerted effort to do something wrong, there is a chance this will never happen.
Obviously, as much as I would like to remain a purist and firmly say "do not train people in tasks or procedures", I am also a realist and I accept that for many years to come there will still be a requirement for such training. However, we need to work on its elimination since the benefits of the proposed approach are many.
Expected benefits
Assuming that we are 100% successful in designing intuitive and foolproof business systems and procedures, we can expect the following:
- The cost of training in terms of money and time will be virtually eliminated. This will also reduce the cost of staff turnover.
- The cost of fixing errors and redoing failed tasks will be eliminated.
- Retraining will be eliminated for employees moved to other tasks and later returned to their original jobs.
- There will be no need to prepare and maintain training materials.
- With the proliferation of the intuitive systems, gradually the need for a training department within the organisation will diminish, or the department will refocus on skills and abilities training.
- The training degeneration issue will disappear.
- Management dependency on staff members staying in their jobs will be reduced.
To complete the topic we need to make one more important distinction — we need to differentiate between training and drill. Drill is always task and procedure oriented and sometimes it is essential.
There are four stages in becoming proficient in anything:
- Unconscious Incompetence. For quite a while a child is not aware of the fact that she or he does not know how to drive a car. Until a certain age it is not an issue.
- Conscious Incompetence. The inability to drive a car becomes obvious when there is a need or desire to use the vehicle for the first time.
- Conscious competence. After studying traffic rules and being instructed how to drive a car, one gains understanding of basic routines. However, it is still frightening to get on the road since one needs to think about every maneuver.
- Unconscious competence. At this stage, through practice, we just jump into a car and we do not even think about what we need to do, the car just goes.
Hence, unconscious competence is the highest level of skill attainable. At this stage one no longer needs to think about what is being done.
The third stage (conscious competence or theoretical knowledge) is achieved through training. The fourth stage (unconscious competence) is achieved through drill. Drill is designed to make people perform at their peak in a real life situation. Those who study martial arts or drive a car appreciate the concept of perpetual repetition to get the skill transferred to an unconscious level. If no thinking is involved, reflexes are faster.
Intuitive processes and tasks practically eliminate the need for the third stage in the learning process — one moves directly from conscious incompetence to unconscious competence. The procedure or the system guides the person in performance of the task. This saves time and money.
So, if you want your business to be efficient, make an effort not to train your staff!
Andrzej Gorecki is a Director and principal consultant with Melbourne-based Retail Directions Group, which develops and supplies state-of-the-art software solutions for retailers worldwide.
Reference
1. In 1960 Douglas McGregor publishedThe Human Side of Enterprisedescribing &series X and Y of management The theories are based on contrasting assumptions about human nature and work. Theory X assumes that employees dislike work and must be coerced by management. Theory Y believes that people enjoy fully productive work if permitted to participate in decision making.
Copyright (c) 1993 Andrzej Gorecki