This is a general article. I did not find anything interesting. The author of the article, Khadim Batti says that "Itís still the same old bland classroom training. According to the Training Industry Report for 2016, about 48.3% of enterprises continue to rely on instructor-led classroom coaching for their employees". Now my question is who is he to certify blandness of the instructor-led training? I am surprised at his averment.
Instructor-led training or any other method of training, measuring ROI of the training is always challenge. Author has not quoted any proof as to any other method provides better ROI. Neither he has come up with any other solution to this challenge.
By the way, let me quote with my 17 years into training that people are unwilling to learn even when someone is teaching or training them. How can the author expect that some other method can drive willingness in the mind or heads of the learners?
I have seen few fire-brand learners who refuse to take any training. By virtue of their strong willingness as well as average plus, IQ, they learn on their own. There is no replacement for self-learning. It could be learnt from book also.
Last section of the article is about performance support as a substitute to legacy training. Why performance support should be substitute to the legacy training? Whatever be the method of training, performance support or guidance at the time of implementation is required.
Lastly about rechristening of HR into Employee Success. Mere by changing the labels, can HR acquire more value? After all has personnel management rechristened into HR? Few smart HR have gone further and started calling as Human Potential Managers or Human Capacity Managers and so on. Nevertheless, have the results from HR improved? It is same old wine in the relabelled bottle!
18th October 2017 From India, Bangalore