Louella Tipper
@louellatipper66
Profile
Registered: 2 months, 1 week ago
How Professional Development Training Boosts Career Growth
Professional Development: Why We're Getting It All Wrong
Here's something that'll make HR departments uncomfortable: most professional development is just corporate box:ticking dressed up as employee investment.
After nearly two decades designing training programs from Darwin to Adelaide, and here's what nobody wants to admit: most professional development budgets might as well be flushed down the drain. Not because the content's poor. Because nobody's thinking about what actually happens after the flipchart paper gets binned.
Recently saw a retail chain invest $41,000 in leadership workshops. Professional presenters, branded notebooks, even catered lunches. Six months down the track, nothing had changed : same complaints, same turnover, same dysfunction.
This is where most people expect me to provide solutions.
Businesses that see real change from training do something totally different. They've stopped chasing expensive external programs and impressive seminars. They're doing something much more basic and far more powerful.
Consider Qantas ground crew training - they don't learn aircraft procedures in classrooms. It's experienced staff mentoring newcomers while serving actual customers. Messy, immediate, practical stuff.
The biggest mistake in corporate training is thinking you can teach workplace skills like university subjects. You dont learn to be a tradie by reading about electricity. You learn by doing the actual work under the direction of someone knowledgeable.
This might upset some training providers, but certificates and diplomas often matter less than actual ability. Met a shift manager in Darwin who learned everything on the job but was the best trainer l've encountered. Because practical wisdom beats academic knowledge every single time.
The fatal flaw in corporate training: it's created by consultants for practitioners. Training designers who believe workplace skills follow the same rules as classroom subjects.
Wrong.
Leadership - real leadership, not the stuff you read about in Harvard Business Review - is difficult, contextual, and deeply personal. It's about reading people, understanding politics, knowing when to push and when to back off. You can't learn that in a classroom.
This hit me hard during a leadership program l ran for a construction firm near Townsville. Covered everything - assertive communication, feedback models, team dynamics. Workers were engaged, took notes, asked good questions.
After eight weeks, same old problems. Identical conflicts during handovers, unchanged dynamics between departments, ongoing issues with information flow.
That's when l figured out l'd been approaching this all wrong.
The breakthrough came when l started shadowing these workers during their actual shifts. The real issues were environmental : poor lighting making written handovers difficult to read, computer systems that crashed regularly, and unwritten rules about not admitting confusion.
All the communication skills in the world couldn't overcome widespread workplace issues.
This is why l've become focused with what l call "embedded development" instead of traditional training. Rather than removing staff from their natural workplace to teach theoretical concepts, you integrate development into their daily tasks.
Case in point: forget practice scenarios and pair skilled employees with learners during genuine customer service situations. Rather than classroom project management courses, involve developing staff in real project meetings and decision making.
The outcomes are completely transformed. People learn faster, retain more, and actually apply what they've learned because they're learning it in context.
But here's the catch - and why most companies don't do this - it requires good people to spend time teaching instead of just doing their own work. It's an investment that shows up in next quarter's productivity reports, not this quarter's training budget expenditure.
Finance directors resist this method because it's difficult to quantify and tough to explain to executives who prefer tangible training metrics.
On the topic of measurement, most training evaluation systems are totally useless. End of course feedback forms asking participants to score their experience are meaningless. Of course people give it an 8. They've just spent a day away from their normal work, had some laughs, learned a few useful things. Those scores reveal nothing about real workplace application or lasting change.
Genuine assessment occurs months afterwards by examining changed behaviours, improved results, and different approaches to workplace challenges.
Companies avoid this level of follow-up because it requires effort and might reveal embarrassing truths about training success.
What really frustrates me are one size fits all development programs that claim wide applicability. The type advertised as "Universal Management Skills" or "Essential Leadership for Any Organisation."
Bollocks.
A team leader in a restaurant faces completely different problems to a team leader in an accounting firm. The communication skills needed for managing workers on a construction site are different to those needed for managing graphic designers in an agency.
Environment is important. Sector knowledge is essential. Workplace culture is fundamental.
Outstanding development programs are always industry-specific, situation-relevant, and immediately usable. It addresses real problems that real people are actually facing in their actual jobs.
Dealt with a factory in the Hunter Valley battling ongoing quality issues. Instead of sending supervisors to a general quality management course, they brought in a retired quality manager from Toyota's Australian operations to work alongside their people for three months.
Not to deliver courses or lead discussions, but to be hands-on with equipment and processes while teaching practical solutions.
Defect reduction was both quick and permanent. Workers gained capability through real application, mentored by someone who knew their exact industry and equipment.
You can't roll this out to massive workforces, but that doesn't make it less useful.
This will upset HR teams: most workers aren't particularly interested in career development. They want to do their job, get paid, and go home to their families. Development programs frequently seem like additional burden that serves business goals rather than individual interests.
Good development programs recognise this fundamental truth. They position learning as improving current skills rather than adding new responsibilities.
Look at JB Hi-Fi - their employee development focuses on product knowledge and customer problem-solving, not abstract leadership concepts. It's about product expertise that enables real customer service. It's practical, immediately useful, and makes people better at their actual job.
This is development that actually makes a difference.
Training providers persist in designing courses as though every worker is motivated by advancement and structured growth.
The reality is different - people mainly want to feel confident and learn shortcuts that simplify their workload.
This leads to my last observation about scheduling. Development programs are usually scheduled when employees are stretched thin with existing commitments.
Then businesses question why participation lacks energy and engagement.
Smart organisations schedule training during slower business cycles or genuinely decrease other responsibilities during development periods.
Revolutionary concept, l know.
Genuine professional growth has nothing to do with training attendance, qualifications, or program metrics. It's about building workplace cultures where skill development happens organically through coaching, challenge, and practical application.
The rest is just pricey window dressing.
Here is more info on Professional Training Geelong look at our webpage.
Website: https://activityteam.bigcartel.com/blog
Forums
Topics Started: 0
Replies Created: 0
Forum Role: Participant