Methods of Training

Chambers (2005) concluded that persons tend to learn in different ways, with favoured styles of learning. Brown and McCracken (2009) identified the importance of trainee characteristics, including ability, skills, personality and motivation. Chen et al. (2004), Armstrong (2003), Yiu and Saner (2005), Lingham et al. (2006) and Kauffeld and Willenbrock (2010) agreed that the differences in the trainees’ education, experience, levels of skills and capabilities, and other qualifications are factors that affect the programmes and the success of training, and should be considered in the design and implementation of training.

Arthur et al. (2003) found that the efficiency of training seems to differ as a function of the identified training delivery systems, and the task or skill being trained. Chen et al. (2006) argued that a good training programme needs to use methods of training that can support trainees’ contributions. Many authors such as Tracey et al. (2001), Beardwell and Holden (1997), Reid and Barrington (1997), Gomez-Mejia et al. (2001) and Cole (1997) offer a convenient vision, since they consider the types of training which take place inside or outside an organisation.

Perhaps the first distinction to be made is between the location of the training, in which respect Beardwell and Holden (1997) noted that provision for training can be “on-the- job” and/or “off-the-job”. In explaining the differences, Cole (1997) described an off- the-job location as a training centre which may be on or away from the organisation’s sites, or a training institution, and where the emphasis is frequently on increasing an

46

accepting of common principles, providing related knowledge, and creating an awareness of reasonable concepts and practices.

Schraeder (2009) stated that many training programmes can be expanded to contain some amount of energetic participation by the participants, involving them in actions that directly linked with the planned objectives of the programme. However, a fully on- the-job location, in contrast, is one where the worker is actually performing the tasks for which he/she has been hired, and the emphasis is on the gaining of definite skills in the original situation. Within these two contrasting approaches, different methods and techniques are used, summarised by Cole (1997) and shown in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2 Training Methods and techniques

On-the-job training methods Off-the-job training methods

1. Job instruction

2. Delegation

3. Coaching/counselling

4. Secondments

5. Learning from experienced workmates (‘sitting by Nellie’)

6. Special projects 7. Lectures/talks 8. Classroom instruction 9. Case-study analysis 10.Programmed instruction 11.Group discussions 12.Simulation exercises Source: Cole (1997, p.294)

Bimbitsos and Petridou (2012), De Cenzo and Robins (1996) and Yaghi (2008) stressed that the media aids and equipment used in presenting the training material are basic and should be taken into consideration when designing any training programme. De Cenzo and Robbins (1996) summarised their use in off-the-job training, as presented in Table 2.3.

47 Table 2.3 Off-the-job training methods

Classroom lectures Lecture designed to communicate

specific interpersonal, technical, or problem-solving skills

Videos and films Using various media productions to

demonstrate specialised skills that are not easily presented by other training methods

Simulation exercises Training that occurs by actually

performing the work. This may include case analysis, experiential exercises, role playing, or group decision making

Computer-based training Simulating the work environment by programming a computer to imitate some of the realities of the job

Vestibule training Training on actual equipment used on the job, but conducted away from the actual work setting, e.g. a simulated work station

Programmed instruction Summarising training materials into highly organised, logical sequences. May include computer seminars, interactive video disks, or virtual reality simulations

Source: De Cenzo and Robbins (1996)

Schraeder (2009) argued that it might be useful to enhance training by providing contact information on other participants, encouraging trainees to communicate and network

48

following the training sitting. He added that trainers could also ask participants to provide information about their own key knowledge and skills, to increase the possibility that trainees would contact each other for networking or benchmarking.

Mathieu et al. (1992) and Tracey et al. (2001) argued that the trainee’s level of training inspiration will affect his or her preparation. Burke et al. (2006) stated that involving trainees in exercises that relate the information and give comment permits trainees to make adjustments in their behaviour and gain insight into the changes required. Atiyyah (1991) stressed that training methods utilised in Arab training institutes are limited and conservative, and the lecture is still the most frequently used method, followed by discussion groups; case studies, role playing exercises, games and simulation are rarely used.

Ghosh et al. (2012) indicated that the trainer must motivate the trainees to contribute to discussions and adopt a reflective listening to inspire group involvement. Cole (1997) emphasised that case studies and simulation are important as training tools. Schraeder (2009) stated that many training programmes can be expanded to contain some degree of dynamic contribution by the trainees, involving them in actions directly related to the scheduled purposes of the programme.

Lucas (2005) found that employees usually prefer to perform their tasks using traditional procedures and work methods rather than new ones, perceiving the adoption of a new approach as risky and problematic. Atiyyah (1991) confirmed that most Arab trainers have limited or no experience in using advanced training methods.