Introduction
Training of employees is a common phenomenon in most organizations. It is fundamental in providing employees with the skills and knowledge required to achieve the set goals and objectives. The main reason for employee training is to enable workers to meet and even exceed the organization’s performance standards (Dolan 2002, pp.278).
Other reasons that call for employee training include introduction of a new equipment in an organization, a need to raise the overall employee performance, in cases of a new employee, a need to make a correction on an out of standard performance as well as the need to improve the general performance of the employees in a given organization.
According to Glasrud (1999), for companies to attain the anticipated performance of its employees, it should be able to clearly define the need for training, select the most effective training method as well as invest in the most effective tools and materials (pp.51). Different training methods have different benefits as well as demerits to an organization.
On-the-job training and development
On-the-job training is the form of training that takes place in the work place. Employees learn the various skills that they require in their jobs as they interact with other experienced employees in the organization. There are two types of on-the job training, namely planned and unplanned on-the-job training.
In planned training, there is a well-planned training procedure to enhance employee’s productivity in a given institution (Mike and Jack 1996, pp.15). It follows the model of tell, demonstrate and practice with the practice being the most interactive part where the trainee advances his/her knowledge in a systematic manner.
Trainees have constant direct contact with their trainers. On the other hand, unplanned training also known as ‘sink-or-swim’ training, does not follow any specific procedure in equipping the employees with the knowledge that they require.
It is common in the training of new employees whereby the trainer gives the trainee a very quick demonstration of what he/she is supposed to do and leaves them to carry on their duties without further assistance (Boella 2000, pp.120).
However, the planned on-the-job training is the most popular form of on-the-job training. In both cases, more knowledgeable, skilled as well as experienced employees such as managers and supervisors act as trainers to the less knowledgeable, skilled and experienced employees.
On-the-job training has various advantages. Trainees are able to formulate a training program using the real company situation. By so doing, they do not waste time and energy in trying to attain knowledge and skills that may not be relevant in their real working environment or rather situation.
This method of training is essential in training individuals on the particular use of a piece of equipment employed in the production process of a given organization in step(s) where there are alternative methods and machinery of doing the same.
Mark argues that, on-the-job training gives trainers an immediate opportunity to monitor and evaluate how quickly trainees are learning (2001, pp.158). As a result, the trainers are able to tailor the training process to meet individual learning capabilities using the pre-existing knowledge of the trainee(s) in question. This increases the efficiency of the training process significantly.
On-the-job training benefits the organization in several ways. Trainees who go through on-the-job training remain productive throughout the training process. To some extent, it boosts the productivity of the organization even before the management absorbs the new employees in the organization.
For instance, in the processing of important documents in an organization, most trainees are able to process documents effectively reducing the workload of the other experienced employees who can engage in other important activities to the success of the company.
Additionally, on-the-job training is cost effective. The organization will not need to hire instructors since the process employs the organization’s most experienced and knowledgeable employees as trainers (Michael 1999, pp.76). Employees who go through on-the-job training tend to learn rapidly.
Owing to this, the organization is able to cut some of the costs associated with the training process and channel the money to other activities since the trainees acquire the required skills and knowledge within a short period. However, on-the-job training has some shortcomings.
The quality of the process depends entirely on the ability of the trainer. In some instances, a trainer may be experienced and knowledgeable in a given field but poor in giving guidelines and instructions (Storey 1995, pp. 49). In such cases, the trainee may fail to understand some of the aspects as well as principles that are fundamental in carrying out various roles within their jurisdiction.
Moreover, since most of the trainers in on-the-job training are employees of the company, they may not be available to address most of the trainee’s questions because they may be having commitments concerning their regular activities in the organization. Some of the trainers may introduce the trainees to poor working habits (Jacobs 2003, pp. 82).
For instance, the trainer may introduce the trainee to some shortcuts or some irregularities which the management may not realize jeopardizing their job integrity. The trainee may even choose to ignore some aspects of the job regarding them as insignificant, which may be costly to the organization as well as the trainee in the future.
On-the-job training may cause several loses to an organization. Since the trainee is actively involved in the production process, for instance in food processing, his/her mistakes may lead to the production of lots of scrap material.
This not only leads to low productivity but also the production of low quality products that may negatively affect the reputation of the organization. In addition, on-the-job training may lead to the damaging of valuable equipment. In most cases, this occurs where the organization employs unplanned on-the-job training method (Duane 1998, pp.710).
The damage lowers the overall productivity of an organization and makes the organization incur extra costs in repairing or even replacing the damaged equipment. It is a common phenomenon in the introduction of new employees to computerized systems especially where the trainers are not keen on the progress of the trainees.
If an organization majors on the use of on-the-job training for a long time, the ‘pool of knowledge’ in the workforce diminishes with time due to lack of exposure to fresh ideas and dilution of skills. This poses a great danger to the technological advancement of an organization due to the dynamic nature of technology especially for organizations in the field of information and technology.
Off-the-job training and development
Off-the-job training is a phenomenon whereby the training of employees takes place in areas outside their normal work places. It may take the form of seminars or other forms of learning. Off-the-job training employs several techniques, which may include talks, discussions, lectures, case studies, films, charts as well as other visual aids (Boella 2000, pp. 120). Training away from the job has several benefits.
It involves taking workers away from their normal work environments. This eliminates the frustrations associated with the normal work environment. It helps the employees to absorb more information about a particular subject. According to Rosner, off-the-job training gives the employees an opportunity to think through the principles behind several actions (1999, pp.43).
Additionally, employees get a chance to practice their roles in an environment where mistakes do not matter in case they happen. In most cases, off-the-job training brings together employees from different companies. This paves way for the exchange of valuable information from the participants from the other companies such as current market trends for a given product, skills and techniques.
Other forms of useful information may include current computerized technologies or forms of improved administrative procedures keeping an organization at par with its competitors (Storey 1995, pp.53). It also allows networking between the trainees from various companies, which may yield relationships that are useful to the company.
Off-the-job training constitutes several aspects that may profit not only the organization but also the employees. A specialist instructor enables delivery of high quality training and this means that an organization’s staff members receive a reasonable standard of training.
The instructor will not only demonstrate several procedures and activities but will also ensure that the trainees understand the underlying principle in different operations within their jurisdiction (Michael 1999, pp.79).
The employees have exposure to a wide range of facilities and equipment during off-the-job-training. This broadens their knowledge and understanding of various operations increasing their efficiency thus the productivity and the profitability of an organization.
Most off-the-job training courses take place in planned stages. This enhances a better understanding of the various procedures in carrying out different activities. Consequently, the trainee is capable to relate several aspects of his/her job enhancing their effectiveness.
The fact that employees perceive off-the-job training as a means of receiving quality training makes them feel highly valued boosting their morale in effectively carrying out their roles at their work place (Rosner 1999, pp. 48). The knowledge that employees gain during off-the-job training boosts the employees’ confidence in carrying out their duties.
Off-the-job training has several demerits. The training equipment may differ from the production equipment. This may lead to the transfer of learning difficulties when the trainee moves from the training equipment to using the equipment at his/her work place.
Dolan points out that trainees may not be able to relate the information learnt to the real production environment (2002, pp.290). Not all the trainees have the same level of understanding/expertise in a given field and some trainers may overlook this fact.
If this occurs, some of the trainers may get lost from the start of the training process rendering the process fruitless. Moreover, trainers may overlook the fact that different individuals have different learning speeds and this may force some trainees to progress at a compromising rate, which is not desirable. As a result, some new employees may require some induction training before assuming their roles in a company-a double cost of training.
Off-the-job training has proven to be costly. The costs incurred include those associated with the hiring of the instructors/trainers as well as travelling and accommodation costs depending on the type of training. In addition, off-the-job training leads to the loss of working time since the employees cannot assume their duties until the training is over.
This leads to a considerable reduction of employee output to an organization (Michael 1999, pp. 80). Employees who feel that they have acquired new skills as well as valuable knowledge may choose to leave the organization for better jobs. In such cases, the training offered by the organization to the employee turns out to be a loss to the organization since he/she will not benefit the organization in any way.
A comparison of on-the-job and off-the-job training and development
Both on-the-job training and off-the-job training are beneficial to organizations. They enhance the achievement of valuable information essential in enhancing better performance of the organization. Both approaches enable workers to sharpen their skills besides acquiring knowledge thus improving their overall efficiency significantly. However, they have more differences than their similarities.
Learning in on-the-job training employs the use of the actual equipment used in the normal working environment but this may not occur during off-the-job training. As aforementioned, this results in the transfer of learning difficulties.
In addition, the trainers in on-the-job training tailor the course content using the real company situation but this may be difficult to attain in off-the-job training. However, it only occurs in planned on-the job training as opposed to unplanned on-the-job training.
Trainees in on-the-job training have a high risk of obtaining bad work habits from their trainers unlike those in off-the-job training who have instructors who are not familiar with most of their normal working conditions.
Trainees involved in on-the-job training have a high possibility or receiving poor instructions from their trainers since most of the trainers may not possess good communication skills. On the other hand, off-the-job training utilizes trained instructors thus are able to give instructions appropriately.
Repeated on-the-job training may hinder the development of an organization. It prevents the employees from accessing information that could be instrumental in enhancing the development of the institution. Additionally, it eventually diminishes the knowledge of the employees as far as development is concerned due to lack of new ideas from other organizations in the same field.
On the other hand, off-the-job training paves way for the flow of useful information to an organization. This may include the latest technology in various fields, changes in some legal processes and requirements or even the latest changes on several organizational structures
Although both methods are costly to an organization, off-the-job training is more costly than on-the-job training. The costs involved in off-the-job training such as accommodation, transport as well as hiring of instructors are not involved in on-the-job training.
Additionally, off-the-job training leads to a considerable reduction of the employees output during their training. However, if the trainees in on-the-job training damage some equipment, the organization incurs unplanned for expenses such as the repair or even the replacement of the damaged equipment.
Concerning the training environment, off-the-job training offers a more conducive environment than on-the-job training. Trainees in off-the-job training are free from the pressures that their counterparts go through.
The relaxed environment associated with off-the-job training gives the employees a better chance to think clearly as well as to concentrate away from the noises associated with most workplaces such as manufacturing companies.
On the other hand, in on-the-job training employees do not have exposure to the workplace noises and pressures but also to offensive comments from their workmates. This can be very destructive to the employees especially new employees lowering their morale and output.
The trainees who go through off-the-job training feel highly valued by their employers. They have the perception that off-the-job training is a privilege to them. Such a feeling enhances their morale leading to increased efficiency in their work. Consequently, the organization experiences increased output enabling it to maximize its profits.
However, some of them may choose to leave the organization for a better job elsewhere. In contrast, on-the-job training does not cause the trainees to feel highly valued by their organization. As a result, they may not deliver adequately although most of them will remain loyal to the organization.
Conclusion
Training of an organization’s workers enables them to perform their job to the best of their ability. It provides the knowledge as well as the skills they require to carry out their duties effectively. On-the-job and off-the-job training are effective in training employees though each has its own strengths and weaknesses.
Some of the ways in which the two methods differ are the costs involved, the suitability of the training environment, the efficiency of the instructors in giving instructions and their overall contribution to the development of the organization in question. To achieve all the benefits of the two approaches, it is advisable for an organization to practice both methods on their employees.
Reference List
Boella, M.J. (2000) Human Resource Management in the Hospitality Industry. 7th ed. New York: Nelson Thornes.
Dolan, D. (2002) Training needs of administrators in the non-profit sector: what are they and how should we address them? Non-profit Management and Leadership, 12, pp. 277-292.
Duane, L. (1998) On-the-job training. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51(4), pp. 710-711.
Glasrud, B. (1999) Here comes the 21st workforce. Non-profit World, 17, pp. 50-52.
Jacobs, R.L. (2003) Structured on-the-job Training: Unleashing Employee Expertise in the Work. San Francisco: Berret-Koehler Publishers.
Mike, S. and Jack, K. (1996) On-the-job training: Harder than it looks. Water Engineering and Management, 143(12), pp. 14-17.
Mark, S. (2001) Does training generally work? Explaining labor productivity effects from schooling and training. International Journal of Manpower, 22(1), pp.158.
Michael, L. (1999) Earning and employment effects of continuous off-the-job training in East German after unification. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 17(1), pp. 74-90.
Rosner, R. (1999) Training is the answer…but what is the question? Workforce, 78, pp. 42-50.
Storey, J. (1995) Human Resource Management. London: Rout ledge.