Let’s say one of my employees doesn’t know French: I send them to the right “training” program, and sure enough, they come back speaking French fluently. Or they need to learn PowerPoint. Or accounting. Or how to operate a machine. For any company—or personal—need of this kind, where a person must acquire a specific skill, training is of course the best and fastest choice: alternatives, such as learning on one’s own through trial and error, or by asking others, are certainly much less efficient, costly, and, at times, dangerous.

This concept of training as “knowledge transfer” is extremely widespread, extremely effective, and no one could question its usefulness, least of all when it comes to technical skills that are easy to model and explain.

The Limits of Traditional Training

Problems begin to arise when attempting to apply this model to other areas, such as interpersonal relationships, leadership, sales, motivation and self-motivation, organization, and so on.

Despite the fantasies of some authors, these skills are not so easy to model; a client or subordinate cannot be viewed as a computer where you simply enter the right command to get the desired result, and generally—as is always the case with people—the laws of cause and effect are far from rigid and predictable, not to mention that they do not necessarily fall within the realm of the rational.

In fact, it’s remarkable how, in thousands of situations, we don’t understand or like OUR OWN behavior—where we assume we know what we want and what our rules and values are—yet we expect others to behave as we wish and to please us. But that’s a separate thought; let’s get back to training.

Why People Are Not Machines

Applying the “knowledge transfer” model to fields related to people, communication, and psychology—by providing a set of standard techniques and behaviors—may quickly resolve some basic problems, but it can only lead to the creation of “programmed robots.”

That’s how we end up with call center workers who speak as if they were a tape recorder, salespeople endlessly repeating scripts written by others, managers enforcing rules they don’t understand, and, in general, people who act in a rigid, programmed manner dictated by someone else.

Efficient Organizations and Replaceable People

Warning! Apparently, this is a good thing for the company: the primary need of any organization is that the resources it consists of be easily replaceable with someone—or something—capable of doing the same thing.

So for the organization, it’s convenient that if a call center agent, a salesperson, or a manager has a health issue, someone else—who has undergone the same training—can step in and continue the work without disrupting the organization.

That’s why I can’t bring myself to criticize this concept of training as “drill” any further: better a salesperson who recites a memorized speech than one who spouts nonsense, better a rigid but predictable manager than one who acts erratically.

What I’m trying to demonstrate, however, is that:

a) this system is devastating for the individual
b) it can only lead to mediocrity
c) the chance to achieve much better results is lost

I’ll allow myself an etymological digression, as I usually do when I want to understand something better.

The Difference Between Teaching and Training

“To educate” comes from the Latin e-ducere, meaning “to draw out”; “training” is also from Latin, trainus, meaning “one who pulls.” In romanian, to learn is “a învață” and it comes from the more “vulgar” Latin, invitiare, and, though it may sound strange, it means to take on a habit. In Italian, to teach is “insegnare,” from in-signum, meaning “to leave a mark.” This is not meant to be an academic discourse, but it allows me to highlight a difference that seems fundamental to me—and which many so-called trainers overlook—between training and teaching: while teaching means filling a person with information and techniques, training means drawing out from a person what they already know.

What Children Naturally Know

What they already know? Yes, exactly. Anyone who has dealt with a 5- or 6-year-old and realized that they possess social sensitivity, an ability to read the psychology of those around them, an instinctive talent for leadership, immense creative potential… how is it that the same child, at age 25, is a fool who can’t function in society, doesn’t know how to command respect, lacks confidence in their own opinions, and doesn’t dare to have a personal idea? Could this be the result of 20 years of schooling? Is it any wonder that if a person is told for 20 years in a row that they shouldn’t think for themselves but should repeat what the teachers say, they would then have difficulty expressing themselves?

Learned Helplessness and Social Conditioning

In English, the term “learned helplessness” is used to describe this process. The fact that this situation is somewhat comfortable and convenient for organizations—and for society, and perhaps to some extent for trainers as well—does not necessarily mean that it is the best one.

I realize this may sound like a futile struggle, but I am increasingly convinced that if, as trainers, we manage to focus not on the transfer of knowledge but on removing barriers, we will achieve much better results.

Removing Barriers Instead of Imposing Behaviors

Instead of forcing a behavior, we could focus on helping a person find the behavior that fits their own personality. Instead of providing a solution, let’s help them find it on their own. Instead of offering a technique, let’s help them tap into their intuition (by the way: in-tuitus: learning from within…)

Obviously, it can be a difficult process, especially if, as often happens, the trainer is the first to use rigid methods acquired along with their certification.

Intuition and Creativity in the Age of Machines

But I believe it is the only path to excellence and performance: only a path of personal expression (by the way: ex-pressus, to push out…) will allow us to access all the resources at our disposal, while having it imposed from the outside will create all kinds of resistance.

Let’s not forget one thing: more and more, computers and machines are replacing people in these very professions: you won’t be answered by people at call centers anymore, but by recorded messages.

Why the Future Belongs to Creative Thinkers

Many jobs will become the domain of computers. Thus, our only strengths will be intuition and creativity: we’d better remind ourselves as soon as possible how to use them. Get to work!

by Bruno