I’ve been to many training sessions. In business and out. Most are glorified information transmission. The 8 hours I spent in the room would have been better spent with a book.

Then there are training for sales, negotiation, management, leadership that expect to transfer skills via this same method. The instructor stands in front of the class and lectures using powerpoint slides. Unfortunately a lecture is a very poor method to transfer skill (or anything else, for that matter). If you are lucky, you get a short, contrived exercise that gives you a false sense of the skill.

Even worse are these leadership and group bonding situations. They claim to improve group dynamics, yet all they do is have the group use exactly the same skills and behaviour in a different context. So if the group didn’t work in the office, chances are it’s not going to work outside.

Ideally, training requires a mix of theory combined with challenges and exercises. The theory is to transfer the “how” of the skill. The exercises designed to practice the theory, and the same time stretch the experience of the students and allow then to practice the “how”. The percentage of each needs to be managed with the outcomes of the course and current student skills.

The metaphor I like to use is: describe to someone how to ride a bike. You can read all the theory in the world, talk to BMX and Tour de France experts, and watch thousands of hours of video. Then, when you get on a bike you realise it’s not as easy as it looks. Learning how to ride a bike contains about 2 minutes of ‘theory’ (this is how you steer, this is how you go forward and stop). Then about 30 to 60 minutes of direct experience, trial and error. From then on, it’s practice.

So next time you attend a training seminar that claims to teach a skill ask yourself the question. “When I finish this training do I know how to ride a bike, or can I ride a bike?”