Reflecting on my experiences with different training programs two stand out the most. I can identify clear distinctions between effective and ineffective training approaches. One particularly beneficial training is the underwent was a two-week shipping class I went too. This program was structured, comprehensive, and delivered by professionals in the field that were active. The instructors ensured that every participant thoroughly understood the material which earned a basic certification of standard watch keeping and safety. The seriousness and dedication of the training professionals created an environment of learning and skill acquisition.
In contrast my experience with restaurant cook training was less favorable. The training lacked structure and guidance. I was expected to know how to prepare most dishes without any formal instruction. This lack of proper training left me feeling unprepared and undervalued. Reflecting on these experiences the difference aligns closely with the insights from the Fortune article, “The Making of a UPS Driver.” UPS realized that their traditional rigid training wasn’t working for younger workers and responded by redesigning their training to be immersive and tailored to how modern workers learn (Hira, 2007). Rather than abandon high standards they changed the delivery of training to meet new learners where they are.
Just like UPS invested in understanding their workforce the shipping class I took was effective because it respected the learning process. The restaurant training failed because it lacked investment in the training process. Effective training programs consider the learner’s needs provide structure and reinforce knowledge with real application.
Sources:
https://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/11/12/101008310/