Training Courses and Employee Motivation

[SecureTrans]

Over the last five years we have developed and/or purchased a wide variety of training programs designed to enhance officer safety and performance. However, I have kind of "run out of steam" in regards to our training prgram since I cannot seem to generate enough employee interest to keep my previous level of dedication to the program going.

So I am looking for some ideas to get officers to want to come to classes, to want to actually improve their skills and to see security as what has become, which is a serious profession.

We have tried tying pay raises to training. In 2005 we developed a 6-7 (officers at the SOIII level have to make a choice to go armed or continue to the Supervisor level as an unarmed offcer, if you go armed there is a 7th tier, otherwise it is only 6) tiered rank structure where each step gets more money and you progress through the steps through a combination of longevity and the completion of specific training courses and testing. However, since 2005 only 1 person has gone from SOI (Entry level) to SGT through the program and only 3 (out of 110 permanent employees) have gone from SOI to SOII.

The SOI Course consists of
WA State Basic Guard Video Series (4.0 hrs)
Introduction to MTSA (1.0 hrs)
Incident Report Writing (2.0 hrs)
Field Training (8-24 hrs)

The SO II Course is
520 hrs Uniformed service
Use of Force -Law (8.0 hrs) - Self Study
Chemical Agents/OC (4.0 hrs)
SVOC (8.0 hrs) - although we are thinking of eliminating this program and replacing it
Introduction to Criminal Law (4.0 hrs)
Handcuffing (4.0 hrs)
Unusual Occurrences (6.0 hrs)
2 Officer choice electives

[jtwestern]

First question: How "fun" are they to attend?

Who are your instructors? What is their teaching background? Do they understand adult learning issues? Is it dry and boring and death by ppt? What do you do to make it interesting?

As a Program Director, I never hire an instructor who does not understand the concepts of teaching. Just because I did it for 20 years doesn't mean I can teach it.

Does your company buy into the program? Do they help sell it? Do your employees understand WHY they should do this?

What else besides a pay bump do they get? A different nametag that says SOII or something? I different color shirt? Corp. stripes? More responsibility?

I do appreciate that you have gone out and actually set up a promotion program. Well done! Now we just need to see what all the brain trust can do to help you out. It may be that someone else can use what you have started.

[N. A. Corbier]

It may simply be that your personnel are following the path of least resistance. Are these courses tied to promotion and increased pay? I.e. If I want more money, I must attend these courses?

[psycosteve]

ST I have to wonder about the cost analysis of training cost in proportion of the promotion. Is it worth the money to get the training and secondly is the training affordable . I noticed that you have 5 classes listed with 2 more elective courses listed as requirement for SO 2. Now if you look at the price for all 7 of the classes your looking at a possible cost of $350 ( estimated cost at 50 a class ) plus loosing 30+ hours of pay so the potential of getting that dollar raise is going cost you about $700 (estimated at $10 an hour ) with no guarantee that a promotion is assured. Would you waste almost 2 weeks pay on training that for the most part is not going to make it more profitable and when you do get the promotion it will take a little more then 7 weeks to pay yourself back. If money was tight I would have to say no the training is not worth persuading. Now if you had Free and paid training you would have every person showing up for training .

[Sgt.Campbell]

Also consider that some folks in the security field just want to work in a field that doesn't require or promote a whole lot of labor or thought. Sorry to say it, but a lot of folks in this business are shiftless crap.

Try mandating the programs as a condition of employment ("fun" is of secondary concern to your clients). If the officers don't want to abide by policy, they can leave. You will want to place it in your employment contract, however, to avoid any misconceptions by new employees upon hire. It will also weed out the folks who don't want to work straightaway, so that you don't lose time and money on them.

Also, yes, make them pay for training, but allow payroll deductions so that the cost is not killing your profit. Free training is great, except the company loses money when they have to pay a trainer and no trainees chip in. Also, to cut costs, one could simply make the state mandated training part of an ops manager's job description, so that the cost would take care of itself, and the company could charge its employees for specialized training.

Let's face it, security, after the initial excitement of becoming employed in a unique field, tends to suck after a while. It becomes tedious and predictable. The training in itself is a deviation form the norm and provides a fresh outlook, then they go back to the tedium. Don't rush to promote -- only promote those who are superior (as it sounds like your company has been doing). The rest will quit shortly, and instead of throwing your money down a pit, you'll just replace the crap officer with someone who, hopefully, will shine.

[zm88]

Tell them there will be punch and pie...

[SecTrainer]

1. Training for job skills isn't "about" officers, and it isn't necessarily about advancement. It's about meeting organizational needs. I have a bit of difficulty, even after reading the description of your program several times, identifying what it is you're trying to accomplish with your program. It seems to conflate at least two different objectives that need not be linked.

Identify the organization's personnel needs, establish the skill sets needed, and train the skill sets. If it's desirable for reasons of organizational agility to require people to prepare themselves for a wider variety of possible assignments, make such training mandatory. You don't need 6 levels within the single organizational level of "security officer". Three, or at most four, "competency steps" within that organizational level are sufficient and should be matched to a similar number of "post classifications" that you've identified (so that a category III post is filled by someone with SO-III competency, for instance). New hires would be expected to achieve SO-I competency immediately, SO-II competency within, say, 3 months and SO-III competency within 6 months - and it isn't optional.

On the other hand, training for advancement would be optional - and would not typically involve job duty-related skill sets but "knowledge" type of training.

2. Incentives and motivation are two different things. Employers can incentivize training (the incentive for mandatory training is getting or keeping the job). Employers cannot motivate. Motivation is an amalgamation of ambition, interest and hopefully abilities that the employee either brings to the job with him - or he doesn't.

3. The subtle message in item #2 is that any lack of motivation you see reflects a defect in your hiring process, not your training program. Most companies never make this critical connection, which is why they're always blaming their "training technology", etc.

It only stands to reason that you have to hire motivated people if you expect to see them in your work force. The likelihood that employees will suddenly "discover" motivation after they're hired is pretty small.

On the flip side, even "boring" or "unsophisticated" training programs usually won't destroy the motivation of people who are truly motivated. They'll have lots of suggestions for improvement, of course, but they'll participate and they'll learn even if the training program isn't lots of "fun". People (adults, anyway) who are motivated to learn something don't need to be entertained by fancy technology. In fact, these are people who will even try to learn something on their own if they have to. Of course, multimedia, simulations, etc. do have some usefulness - but only as enhancements to the core training, not as cartoons or games with little purpose other than to keep unmotivated people awake.

4. Who pays for what? A lot of models are possible, but remember that people will inevitably make the benefit/cost calculation, rightly or wrongly. I'm generally of the opinion that if the training is mandated primarily for reasons of organizational efficiency, the employer is really the primary "beneficiary" of people getting the training, and as such should pay for it. If it's optional training for career advancement, the employee is the primary "beneficiary" and as such he should pay. That's my personal logic, anyway. Others may disagree.

Someone mentioned "death by PowerPoint". This is a popular phrase that I suspect has been circulated by publishers of books and training courses on "how to punch up your PPT presentation". Although slides can be badly designed (difficult to read, too many points per slide, confusing transitions, silly animated figures repeatedly doing the same thing over and over, etc.), what kills most PPT presentations is actually the oral presentation. The slides are mostly intended to summarize the "lecture points", and sometimes they're used to deliver meaningful multimedia supplements to the lecture. But very simple slides can work quite well providing the lecture itself doesn't fall flat (not providing interesting examples of points, disorganization, a "boring" or annoying vocal delivery style, etc.).

Oh, yes..one other thing. Have something for trainees to do OTHER than PPT lectures during the hour after lunch! Do a desktop exercise or a skill demonstration - anything where you can keep the lights on and/or the blinds open. Otherwise, expect to hear "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz"...it's only human. In the days before I learned this lesson, I once literally had someone topple out of his chair, snoring like a bulldog with a head cold. Thank God he was snoring, or we'd have thought he was dead.

[jtwestern]

Fun means that it is interesting, timely, important, inclusive. Death by ppt is not an industry made word, it is the total reliance on ppt to do everything. Most people who present don't know the rules and how to use it as an adjunct to teaching.

You misread my "fun" meaning. too bad as I teach CJ to 56 students and if there isn't something meaningull and "fun" to do, they don't want to be there. This applies to employees as well.

[SecTrainer]

Fun means that it is interesting, timely, important, inclusive. Death by ppt is not an industry made word, it is the total reliance on ppt to do everything. Most people who present don't know the rules and how to use it as an adjunct to teaching.

You misread my "fun" meaning. too bad as I teach CJ to 56 students and if there isn't something meaningull and "fun" to do, they don't want to be there. This applies to employees as well.

Sorry! Now that you've shared your private definition of the word "fun", I agree. I would have used the word "engaging" because training can be all of the things you mention and still not be the least bit of "fun", as any student pilot or boot camper can attest. Sometimes we have to teach people things that are boring simply because they have to know them and no amount of media, humorous anecdotes, shocking examples, etc. will make the "grunt work" of learning them any less boring. I've just been through a seminar on the federal law pertaining to the seizure and/or interception of electronic evidence, for instance. Hoo-boy! Just no way to make that a trip to the circus. We even had a mock trial, but it still amounted to us sitting there poring over the warrant, the rules of evidence, elements of relevant crimes, etc. trying to figure out whether a particular seizure action had been legal or not. "Can he seize the fax machine based on this warrant? Yes? Kindly turn to the handout on Khoom-al-Faddlefart v. US and read the court's opinion...but in Muddhenn v. US the 9th Circuit ruled that..." Talk about eating sawdust without butter! But I did learn how to say "I haven't the faintest idea what you're talking about" in Latin, which sounded a lot better that way. :D

I also obviously agree that PowerPoint (or any media aids) should not be expected to "teach the class". They should be used as adjuncts to the oral presentation (for instance, summarizing the main points), as I stated. The worst situation is when the instructor gets up and just reads the slides to the audience, and those things were really hammered home on us in my adult ed program. We had to look at people's bad presentations - and then "fix" them. Now, that wasn't "fun" for me by any means because the presentations weren't usually about anything that I found particularly interesting (one created by a bank to teach new tellers all about the different kinds of savings accounts, for instance).

What was funny was that one of the worst was a presentation on how to use the new features of PowerPoint 2007 to create good presentations!. Oh, dear it was bad, mostly because the author skipped important steps, etc, and you could barely see the cursor or read the menus in the CamStudio video segments. Not "fun", but it was educational to tear the presentations down and rebuild them.

[SecureTrans]

First question: How "fun" are they to attend?

Who are your instructors? What is their teaching background? Do they understand adult learning issues? Is it dry and boring and death by ppt? What do you do to make it interesting?

As a Program Director, I never hire an instructor who does not understand the concepts of teaching. Just because I did it for 20 years doesn't mean I can teach it.

Does your company buy into the program? Do they help sell it? Do your employees understand WHY they should do this?

What else besides a pay bump do they get? A different nametag that says SOII or something? I different color shirt? Corp. stripes? More responsibility?

I do appreciate that you have gone out and actually set up a promotion program. Well done! Now we just need to see what all the brain trust can do to help you out. It may be that someone else can use what you have started.

The instructors all understand adult learning and most of the courses are pretty fun to attend. As to buy in, yea we buy in, the Command Staff and the Site Supervisors push training all the time and we practice what we preach, every SGT and above does about 90-100 hours a year of follow-on training or skills refreshers. You don't get anything except a pay increase until you reach the Master Security Officer level except a certificate and an announcement in the Company newsletter.

[SecureTrans]

It may simply be that your personnel are following the path of least resistance. Are these courses tied to promotion and increased pay? I.e. If I want more money, I must attend these courses?

If you want more than the base wage you have to attend the courses, do the work and pass the exams. However, a lot of the biggest complainers about wages (my 2009 starting wage is $12.65/hr) have never made any effort to take courses in order to get their pay up.

[SecureTrans]

ST I have to wonder about the cost analysis of training cost in proportion of the promotion. Is it worth the money to get the training and secondly is the training affordable . I noticed that you have 5 classes listed with 2 more elective courses listed as requirement for SO 2. Now if you look at the price for all 7 of the classes your looking at a possible cost of $350 ( estimated cost at 50 a class ) plus loosing 30+ hours of pay so the potential of getting that dollar raise is going cost you about $700 (estimated at $10 an hour ) with no guarantee that a promotion is assured. Would you waste almost 2 weeks pay on training that for the most part is not going to make it more profitable and when you do get the promotion it will take a little more then 7 weeks to pay yourself back. If money was tight I would have to say no the training is not worth persuading. Now if you had Free and paid training you would have every person showing up for training .

Actually, all of the training is provided at no cost by the Company. Also, they are almost all offered at night and on the weekends when the largest portion of our officers are off duty. We pay officers to attend some (but not all) courses, we pay all of the associated costs, provide all of the necessary equipment and if you complete the course of instruction and pass the comprehensive final, you absolutely get the promotion and raise.

[ctbgpo]

I have always been of the mindset, that training, ANY training is good. If the company pays for it even better. I currently work for the State of Ct. and the training offered is ridiculouswe can take as many classes as we want paid for by the department and we get paid to go , cpr, behavioral managment, first aid, hostage negotiations, domestic violence, computer courses, firearms. 9 college credits for completing the MANDATORY corrections academy. I just happen to realize that any training I receive, makes me a better employee, and makes me look better to a future employeer. I take advantage of every opportunity for training I can. Good for your company offering free paid training to its employees, thats a good company to be associated with in my eyes.

[5423]

ctb, that's kinda always been my personal attitude toward selecting which training course is next on the list: If I've identified a need for training, that's the course I'll do, ASAP. If there's nothing pending, and no pressing need, virtually anything can broaden my horizons, and improve my mind (admittedly, it doesn't take much to be an improvement for me ;)).

And ya never know; I may end up taking some new job that where some of the more obscure classes have value... or maybe not!

As a result, one of my sons started teaching himself Gaelic about a year ago... he was bored, and no pressing training needs...