Too much management training takes place in the classroom. We can teach facts, figures and concepts in the classroom, but learning happens when we apply management principles in the work place: With real people, our employees. And that s where the traditional management training model falls short.

A few of my peers suggest that my paradigm isn t accurate because there is no traditional model for management training. We have on-line learning, CDs and trainers use small group activities to supplement their lectures from the podium. Before we escalate our debate into an argument I m going to suggest we ask our peers what they think is the most traditional model for management training. What has been their experience?

Ask your colleagues what percentage of their management training was conducted in the traditional lecture format?  I m a baby boomer and I realize things are changing, but I can tell you that the last half a dozen management training sessions I attended within the last three years were 90% lecture. And the small group activities were not what I would call innovative or stimulating.  We discussed the same things that the larger group discussed, but a few more people got an opportunity to express their opinions.

I have a theory why the classroom lectures are so prevalent?  Its not about effectiveness, its all about cost and efficiency. I can put twenty-five managers in a classroom, hire one trainer for $1,000 and get them six hours of training. Even if we include lunch, books and a few incidental expenses its still under $2,000 for the day and about $80 per participant. That s about the same cost as one hour of personal counseling from your local family therapist and they always ask you to come back for at least three sessions.

I m poking fun at the way we herd managers into a classroom and lecture to them for several hours, but I m very serious about the effectiveness of this training strategy. None of those sessions I attended within the last three years included any follow-up assessments and we assume that some of the participants are applying some of the principles and we assume things have gotten better?

What I m proposing is that we in the training business need to demonstrate that although the classroom lecture format may be efficient, it is not very effective and there are other methods that have a much better ROI (Return-On-Investment). If training does not produce better results, then it s not a good investment at any price.

My alternative to the traditional classroom approach in management development is what I call The 6^th Phase. Its not necessary to explain the evolution of phases one through five, but I will tell you that The 6^th Phase evolved from my experiences with executive coaching. The most dramatic changes I ve seen in performance and behavior has been the result of executive coaching. The improvements could be measured and the organizations could demonstrate that the ROI was a good decision.

Despite the positive results, executive coaching is not a realistic solution to the problem. The cost can be justified for key executives, but it is not a practical solution to reach the majority of managers and supervisors who need training. And that dilemma is exactly why the lecture format is still the most widely used approach in management training.

Alas, there is a better solution waiting to be used. We can combine the positive aspects of executive coaching and minimize the one-way communication barriers that emulate from the podium. And yes, we call it The 6^th Phase.

1.                  We train is smaller groups. I strongly recommend six and would never exceed eight in a group for management development.

2.                  We hold an orientation session for the employees of the participants. Yes, we want the employees to understand that they have a role in the improvement process. The development of the supervisor s skills is the primary focus, but all members of the team have a responsibility to participate in the improvement process.

3.                  The actual classroom training time is shorter, but we invest more time in facilitating the effectiveness of the group. A supervisor s primary responsibility is to develop competent, productive employees. We measure success by the improved productivity of the team.

4.                  The ROI extends beyond the six participants. If each of the six managers has five employees, then our training is having a direct impact on thirty employees. When ROI is measured based on the increased productivity of thirty people, it becomes a very sound financial investment for the organization.

5.                  If your organization wants to promote teams - than lets walk the talk. I can t tell you how many times I have heard employees say, "Why do we bother? You send my boss away for a couple days of training and nothing really changes?"  Let s bring the employees into the process.

Managers who are disenchanted with the traditional classroom model for management development are excited about The 6^th Phase. Training six at a time, instead of twenty-six. Inclusion of the employees who will be affected by the training that the supervisor receives.  And measuring ROI based on the performance of the entire team, not just the supervisor.

There is a lot of room between one-on-one executive coaching and classroom lectures. I see this as a new opportunity to create training models that promote effective teams and interdependence as a preferred model for success. Please join me in my quest to burn the podium and knock down the classroom walls. Change is on the way.