Implementation of Training Programmes

As the literature explained, implementation plays a significant role in the quality of training programmes; the researcher therefore asked several questions and sub-questions to gain an in-depth understanding of the implementation of the programmes and the role of the trainers in this process; see Appendix 2.

Concerning the training methods used by trainers, most respondents affirmed that they use the lecture as the only method to introduce the training material. They prepare each topic to be introduced, write the main points on the blackboard, and then explain them in detail; each participant has a copy of the training material distributed by the training coordinator on the first day of the programme.

Two of the respondents stated that they allow the participants to ask questions at the end of each session.

136

The majority of respondents were used to implementing the lecture method in training, because they believe it is the best method to introduce and communicate the training material to trainees. One of them said: “Over six years of my work as a trainer, I always use the lecture method in the training programmes. I think it is a popular and a widespread method, and easy to deal with. I did not try to learn any other method, and no one at the centre asked me to use a specific training method”.

On the other hand, another trainer emphasised that: “Using multi methods in the training programmes I had implemented or am implementing currently, these methods include the lecture, the case study, role playing, and brainstorming as training methods in order to increase the participants’ abilities to comprehend and gain the information and the skills included in the training programme, also to increase the participants’ motivation to interact and participate positively through the training sessions; this will help in developing the participants’ personalities and increasing the interest in the training programme. Moreover, the internet helped me in preparing the exercises and the cases I have used in these training programmes”. He added that he acquired these skills through attending a training programme held in a European country three years ago, and received a “professional trainer certificate” from the institute in question.

The researcher attended a training session in Case A, in the field of public relations, and researcher observed that the lecture was the only method used. He also found that the wall-fixed board was the only equipment used by the trainer to explain concepts and content of the training material.

Regarding the barriers encountered and negatively affecting the implementation of the training programmes, the reasons for these barriers, and how to overcome them, all the respondents agreed that the main obstacles that they encounter is the insufficient and old-fashioned equipment such as overhead projectors also, most of the venues are unsuitable for most programmes. No specialised technician is available to maintain and repair the equipment.

All respondents agreed that the other major obstacles encountered were the differences in the educational level, work experience, and other qualifications among participants, which negatively affect the acquisition of knowledge, skills and abilities, and even interaction in the training sessions. Some of the participants were careless and not serious about the training programme, for several reasons summarised by the

137

respondents as: first, the absence of follow-up by the employers and/or the supervisors of the participants; second some of the participants had no confidence in the programme because they were not free to select the one that would satisfy or meet their training needs. This happens when the participation in a programme is the result of either a hasty decision to send the employee on the course, random placement of the participant, or mistaken judgments by the trainee’s supervisor or even the trainee himself. Finally, there are no materialistic or functional consequences (rewards) related to and resulting from participation in the training programmes.

Another obstacle mentioned by the majority of respondents is absence or late attendance at training sessions, because of the distance from the participants’ work place to the training venue, or because the timing of the programme is unsuitable, for social, family, functional or cultural reasons.

The researcher accessed documents providing evidence of the absence of participants from training sessions, which documents indicated that the absence rates were 35% on average in 12 training programmes conducted in the previous three months. The researcher also saw for himself the late attendance of some participants; for example in one session, four participants were late by 10-25 minutes and three were absent altogether, out of a total number of 11 participants in the programme. The researcher was also shown registration documents for various training programmes, indicating the clear differences in qualifications, experience, and work and education backgrounds among participants.

Regarding communication with the participants’ supervisors, the majority of the respondents affirmed that there was none at any stage of the training programmes they implemented. They attributed this lack of communication to several factors, such as the lack of a specific policy encouraging communication between the trainers and participants’ supervisors, and therefore the absence of appropriate mechanisms for this kind of communication.

Interestingly, only one of the respondents said: “Communication took place between me and the supervisor of two of the participants on the last day of the programme, through a telephone call, when the supervisor asked me about the extent of those participants’ commitment regarding attendance; the supervisor wanted to make sure that they (the two participants) are not absent, because he gave them a leave for four

138

hours a day to attend the programme and these hours are not discounted from their vacation’s account”.

As part of the researcher’s archival investigation, he reviewed one of the files dated from 1 January to 31 December 2010, containing formal letters sent by the administration of the centre to the employers of trainees who participated in the programmes throughout the year. The only issues covered were financial claims to be paid by those employers for their employees’ participation in particular training programmes. The researcher found nothing in these letters relating to subjects such as training-needs assessment or feedback from participants.