Problem
In the past, training had not only been inefficient, but highly ineffective as well. Due to a relentless operations tempo and the need for qualified individuals, little time or attention was given to establishing a solid foundation of knowledge. Throughput numbers were the only item that was being reported to corporate headquarters. In order to try and maintain high numbers, training lacked the rigor needed and devolved into simple mimicry. Newly assigned personnel would merely replicate their trainer’s actions, this created a learning process without any regard to understanding why things were done. This generated a multitude of problems within the organization.
- Excessive training time—when trainees were matched with different trainers, they might see different methods of doing a task that would cause confusion and undo stress for the trainee. It became an issue of imitation vs. actual training standards.
- No training or engagement with newly assigned trainers—this lends itself to simple replication of a trainer's behavior.
- Lack of depth with regards to policy, directives, and doctrine—this leaves the trainee ill prepared to handle situations that were not encountered during the training process.
Cadre with a firm grasp of policy and doctrine have a clear basis for making instructional decisions. This provides a foundation for understanding why they're choosing a particular instructional method. It allows cadre to align their practices with policy and doctrine, which affords them the opportunity to discuss and reflect upon this. Discussion and reflection provides avenues for greater understanding, and thus furthering their effectiveness and allowing them to be more intentional with their instuctional decisions.