|  |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
Printable Version
E-mail to a Friend
APA | MLA | |
Training a Team vs. Individuals
Similarities
Goal setting, behavior modeling, practice, and feedback are basic aspects of training similar in both team and individual training environments (Cascio, 2006, p. 288). Goals must be clearly defined to address the training objectives when training a team or individual. Behaviors to be learned must first be demonstrated and then practiced by trainees in a group or individual setting. In addition, circular feedback from trainer to trainee and trainee to trainer is a basic aspect of both team and individual training.
To illustrate this point, I have experienced the similarities in training a team vs. individuals while performing technical software training in my current role. I admit that some training is more conducive to the group enviroment than individual setting and visa versa. In addition, class size can negatively impact a trainee’s learning experience. However, I have successfully trained thousands of sales representatives across the country on the same handheld computer software both in a group as well as a one on one setting. The basic aspects of the software training are the same: set goals to learn the new software, model behavior of proficiently navigating around in the computer, complete practice exercises, and provide circular feedback.
Differences
While individual training may provide necessary one on one attention, group training provides many different advantages over individual training. Group collaboration is specific to training within a team environment. Cascio stated, “As more firms move to employee involvement and teams in the workplace, team members need to learn behaviors such as asking for ideas, offering help without being asked, listening and feedback skills, and recognizing and considering the ideas of others” (Cascio, 2006, p. 288). Training in teams fosters teamwork and is conducive to the development of close ties in an informal network. Team training provides better socialization in the work environment where learning individually potentially segregates the trainee from the corporate environment.
Implications of new-employee orientation are centered on cost to the employee as well as the company. In what follows, the cost and importance of new-hire orientation are outlined from both employee and company perspectives.
Importance of New-Hire Orientation to the Employee
As there is typically some level of “culture shock” when starting with a new company, new-hire orientation is important to the employee as it minimizes the stress associated with coming from outside the organization into a new environment. Cascio stated that coming to work at a new company is not unlike visiting a foreign country; you either are told about the customs or else you learn them on your own by process of trial and error (Cascio, 2006, p. 310). Effective new-hire orientation lessens corporate culture shock and decreases the need for trial and error. In addition, it allows the employee to more quickly adapt to work functions as a contributing member of the organization.
Importance of New-Hire Orientation to the Company
As previously mentioned, new-hire orientation is important to the company as it has many costs at risk. Orientation increases retention, which is critical due to the cost of hiring, training, and orienting a new employee being estimated at 1.5 to 2.5 times the annual salary paid for the job (Cascio, 2006, p. 310). New-hire orientation generates higher levels of employee commitment to the organization along with a deeper understanding of its goals, values, history, and people.
Keep or Alter Methods to Orient New Employees
The current new-hire orientation methods at Frito-Lay are showing positive impact on both employee job satisfaction as well as retention and, therefore, should be kept. The result of such practices is decrease cost emotionally to new-hires as well as decreased cost financially to the company. In conclusion, expenditures on orientation training are returning a two-fold profit to the organization from both people and money perspectives.
Reference
Cascio, W. (2006). Managing human resources: Productivity, quality of work life, profits (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
