“That’s the missing link in most training,” Madison continued. “We send people to training, thinking if they are just exposed to information, they would take the appropriate action. But having information, or data or watching, does not mean a person understands.”
“So how do you redesign training so that someone moves from seeing, or hearing to understanding what they see or hear?” I asked.
“Some people learn visually, by seeing something,” Madison started. “Some people learn through auditory, by hearing something. Some people learn kinesthetically, by feeling something. I think you have to hit all three, visual, auditory and kinesthetic. That’s why, during training, I think it’s important to embed some experience exercise. I want my team to feel it, touch it. Reading a book doesn’t mean you understand something. I want my team to feel it.”
“But, just because a person understands something doesn’t mean they are going to take action,” I said.
“Exactly,” she replied. “Even taking action in an artificial exercise in a classroom does not necessarily translate to taking action in the real world. Most training is ineffective because it doesn’t push people into the real world.”
Spot-on. Madison hits the nail on the head about why so much training fails. Information alone doesn’t build understanding, and classroom practice doesn’t guarantee real-world action. The final point about pushing people into the real world is crucial.
Based on your experience, what has been the single most effective “real world” exercise or simulation you’ve used or participated in to bridge that gap from classroom learning to actual application? The kind that genuinely changed behavior.