"There'll always be a difference between classroom training and OJT or the production floor.
Nobody would appreciate if we don't teach them ground realities or prepare them for the floor. Class-room training is just the preparation.
There'll be lot things that would happen on the floor, every minute a new situation. Class-room training prepares for that.
We want to prepare you for all those live situations where you wont get much time to recollect. Whereas a few would expect us to give a list of situations and the responses.
"Say this if customer says that and that if says this".
This is exactly not how things work in the real world.
Class-room training is intended to develop you to get your own responses, prepares you for every new situation for which not even a little less than a star caller has the answer.
Learning comes with time and efforts.
You tell me, haven't you ever asked a question to get the answer for another question you didn’t ask?
Or haven't you ever said something as a customer in way to imply something else or the opposite?
This is what you do in the real world?
Broaden your view. Don’t ever stick to the list of responses.
So what is the right approach?
Right approach.
Content-based or performance-based.
Somebody defined performance based training as, "Learn as you do" and content based approach similar to "trying to learn how to drive by reading manual".
By hypothetical definitions, performance based training emphasize more on industry's best practices whereas content-based learning on developing and enhancing general skills. Content based approach focuses on the broader aspect of learning while performance based approach targets on a specific task.
To help you relate: In school, you might have wondered why do you have to learn lessons on so many things you may not apply in your lives. But still you had to learn those lessons. Content based teachings may not be directly related to the performance of a particular task but are significant in the betterment or efficiency of employees performing the task. I learned to ride bicycle when I was in 2nd grade. My brother gave me a little idea about how to keep it moving and how to apply brakes. He didn't tell me anything about traffic rules as he himself wasn't aware then. I bumped it several times. Eventually I learned how to waltz through traffic circles, signals, crowd, and what side to keep, etc.
I m pretty sure that if somebody told me about those many things before, learning would've definitely been a lot easy. I still have bruise marks on my shank.
There are certain jobs which are not like learning creative arts. If you ask a pilot training institute, they'll give you the exact idea of the content-based training. Learn to fly a plane is more complex than learn to drive a car, etc.
A balanced training model is what we recommend, is a mix of both, based on the organizational goal. The most important of all is "what we teach and how we teach" and the application.
Let us face the reality now; ask yourself, if your training department simply kills time or is engaged in other non-core functions. May be that's the reason why the dept. always falls behind and doesn't even add any value to the exportable services.
A major %age of the total work hours of your training staff is spent on administrative work. We have to draw a line between training administration and core-training.
Administrative functions have taken the place of development/research. Research/development and training are inseparable.
One of the biggest training function challenges today is managing and deploying the training. May be trainers are doing the best job in the world with available resources, but whether employees apply training largely depends on the content quality, methodology, and applicability. If it is not easily applicable employees will go back to their old ways of doing things.
Training initiatives can do wonders if are based on knowledge and its applicability. Today, training & development as a corporate function needs a careful examination. Annual training reports should explain what exactly employees learned; whether or not they apply what they learned. To get the real picture we can run a survey to check the effectiveness, to know if they learned anything or not. "
Inviting further suggestions and ideas from others on the same.
Monday, October 20, 2008
PRE-HIRE SCREENING.
BPO HR management is the fastest growing segment of HR services. The reason being, machines and labor are both human in BPO industry. BPO recruitment consultancy growth is indicative of the scope of expansion. Recruitment consultants have been successful playing with there solid reference base and 'you scratch mine & I scratch yours' strategy.
Why would we need recruitment consultants in the first place?
They have space, facilitators, and the most crucial of all they have good referral base. Domain expertise! I m sorry, even if they have it they do not use it. However, we don’t need much initially.
A little over-view would help you understand better.
It is four times more preferable than a company walk-in:
1. from consultant perspective: Recruitment consultants are happy 'cause they are getting business.
2. Recruits are happy 'cause they are getting jobs. Getting through a BPO interview facilitated by a recruitment consultant is a lot easier than a direct company walk-in.
May be because consultants know how to keep things moving.
3. Company is happy 'cause is getting the resource.
4. Company HR is happy as she is meeting her targets and also getting lots of extra benefits.
Extra-how?
Everything is related. And money is what keeps business relationships strong.
Yes, money is the driving force but how could it make the recruitment process easy, and how exactly everything is related?
As you know that everybody wants more, more and more and more; just the salary ain't enough when we can make a little extra otherwise. Company HR monitors the hiring process; though they are closely associated with Human resource management; understands quite well the benefits of not being loyal to the organization.
They are a crucial part of the nexus which is governed by recruitment consultants.
Paying to get a job is not something new, everybody knows! We have seen it before. However, this is a little tacit in BPO industry and more lucrative than any other industry.
Prospect wont pay 'cause she has options; if not this some other. The most profitable link has to pay for the favors.
The vendor!
But what about the quality of the resource?
What if the recruits are not trainable or what if training vertical doesn't have tools to train them?
And why should the HR get all of the benefits?
Training intervenes with these questions to get its share; human again.
Consultants know exactly how to lure and how far can we run from money.
There is a concern about the quality of recourse provided by recruitment consultants. Finally the company is the one who suffers.
Disintegration of recruitment and screening functions is what we'll see in days to come.
Why would we need recruitment consultants in the first place?
They have space, facilitators, and the most crucial of all they have good referral base. Domain expertise! I m sorry, even if they have it they do not use it. However, we don’t need much initially.
A little over-view would help you understand better.
It is four times more preferable than a company walk-in:
1. from consultant perspective: Recruitment consultants are happy 'cause they are getting business.
2. Recruits are happy 'cause they are getting jobs. Getting through a BPO interview facilitated by a recruitment consultant is a lot easier than a direct company walk-in.
May be because consultants know how to keep things moving.
3. Company is happy 'cause is getting the resource.
4. Company HR is happy as she is meeting her targets and also getting lots of extra benefits.
Extra-how?
Everything is related. And money is what keeps business relationships strong.
Yes, money is the driving force but how could it make the recruitment process easy, and how exactly everything is related?
As you know that everybody wants more, more and more and more; just the salary ain't enough when we can make a little extra otherwise. Company HR monitors the hiring process; though they are closely associated with Human resource management; understands quite well the benefits of not being loyal to the organization.
They are a crucial part of the nexus which is governed by recruitment consultants.
Paying to get a job is not something new, everybody knows! We have seen it before. However, this is a little tacit in BPO industry and more lucrative than any other industry.
Prospect wont pay 'cause she has options; if not this some other. The most profitable link has to pay for the favors.
The vendor!
But what about the quality of the resource?
What if the recruits are not trainable or what if training vertical doesn't have tools to train them?
And why should the HR get all of the benefits?
Training intervenes with these questions to get its share; human again.
Consultants know exactly how to lure and how far can we run from money.
There is a concern about the quality of recourse provided by recruitment consultants. Finally the company is the one who suffers.
Disintegration of recruitment and screening functions is what we'll see in days to come.
RIGHT APPROACH.
Right approach
Content-based or performance-based.
Somebody defined performance-based training as, "Learn as you do" and content based approach similar to "trying to learn how to drive by reading manual".
By hypothetical definitions, performance based training emphasize more on industry's best practices whereas content-based learning on developing and enhancing general skills. Content based approach focus on broader aspect of learning while performance based approach targets on a specific task.
To help you relate: In school, you might have wondered why do you have to learn lessons on so many things you may not apply in your lives. Still you'd to learn those lessons. Content-based teachings may not be directly relate to the performance of a particular task but are significant in the betterment or efficiency of employees performing the task. I learned to ride bicycle when I was in 2nd grade. My brother gave me a little idea about how to keep it moving and how to apply brakes. He didn't tell me anything about traffic rules as he himself wasn't aware then. I bumped it several times. Eventually I learned how to waltz through traffic circles, crowd, and what side to keep, etc.
I m pretty sure that if somebody told me about those many things before, learning would've definitely been a lot easy. I still have bruise marks on my shanky-pont.
There are certain jobs, which are not like learning creative arts. If you ask a pilot training institute, they will give you the exact idea of the content-based training. Learn to fly a plane is more complex than learn to drive, or a car to be on grounds. Ground is what we know, to know the sky is the question.
A balanced training model is what we recommend is a mix of both, based on the organizational goal. The most important of all is "what we teach and how we teach" and the application.
One of the biggest training function challenges is managing and deploying the training. May be trainers are doing the best job with available resources, but whether employees apply training largely depends on the content quality, methodology, and applicability. If it is not easily applicable employees will go back to their old ways of doing things.
Training initiatives can do wonders if are based on knowledge and its applicability. Training & development as a corporate function needs a careful examination. Annual training reports should explain what exactly employees learned; whether or not they apply what they learned. To get the real picture we can run a survey to check the effectiveness, to know if they learned anything or not.
Content-based or performance-based.
Somebody defined performance-based training as, "Learn as you do" and content based approach similar to "trying to learn how to drive by reading manual".
By hypothetical definitions, performance based training emphasize more on industry's best practices whereas content-based learning on developing and enhancing general skills. Content based approach focus on broader aspect of learning while performance based approach targets on a specific task.
To help you relate: In school, you might have wondered why do you have to learn lessons on so many things you may not apply in your lives. Still you'd to learn those lessons. Content-based teachings may not be directly relate to the performance of a particular task but are significant in the betterment or efficiency of employees performing the task. I learned to ride bicycle when I was in 2nd grade. My brother gave me a little idea about how to keep it moving and how to apply brakes. He didn't tell me anything about traffic rules as he himself wasn't aware then. I bumped it several times. Eventually I learned how to waltz through traffic circles, crowd, and what side to keep, etc.
I m pretty sure that if somebody told me about those many things before, learning would've definitely been a lot easy. I still have bruise marks on my shanky-pont.
There are certain jobs, which are not like learning creative arts. If you ask a pilot training institute, they will give you the exact idea of the content-based training. Learn to fly a plane is more complex than learn to drive, or a car to be on grounds. Ground is what we know, to know the sky is the question.
A balanced training model is what we recommend is a mix of both, based on the organizational goal. The most important of all is "what we teach and how we teach" and the application.
One of the biggest training function challenges is managing and deploying the training. May be trainers are doing the best job with available resources, but whether employees apply training largely depends on the content quality, methodology, and applicability. If it is not easily applicable employees will go back to their old ways of doing things.
Training initiatives can do wonders if are based on knowledge and its applicability. Training & development as a corporate function needs a careful examination. Annual training reports should explain what exactly employees learned; whether or not they apply what they learned. To get the real picture we can run a survey to check the effectiveness, to know if they learned anything or not.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)