Surprising Myths About Training

Surprising Myths About Training Learned the Hard Way

Surprising Myths About Training

Here’s a challenge a leader I know faced last year. Paul was head of a customer service team for a company that had recently launched a new line of products. Soon after the launch, it became clear that Paul’s team was struggling to provide the same high quality of customer service they normally provided for their existing products.

The team was having trouble because the new products were aimed at a target market that was more sophisticated than the markets the team was used to dealing with. To meet the new customer service challenge, Paul knew he would have to upgrade some of the team’s skills, such as communication and creative problem solving.

So Paul looked for a training solution.

The Confident Choice

After evaluating a few vendors, he chose the one that seemed to understand his needs best. They had the best content. They also used state-of-the-art technology, with mobile apps and gamification, and offered to customize the training to the different learning styles of his team members. They weren’t the cheapest option, but they gave him the most confidence that the training would be effective.

Here’s what happened:

The training workshops seemed to go well. Most participants rated it very highly. Paul himself enjoyed it. But within weeks, it became clear to Paul that the performance of his team hadn’t improved much. A couple people became successful, a few others were doing slightly better, but the vast majority were still struggling.

Needless to say, the results frustrated Paul. He had spent a sizeable chunk of his annual training and development budget on this initiative. When he reached out to the vendor, they offered to come in and do more training…for more money, of course.

I heard Paul’s story a few weeks ago, when a mutual friend introduced him to me at a social event. Because I’d spent 10 years of my career as a principal in a training company, Paul asked for my opinion on what I thought had gone wrong and what he could do about it.

The Sad Facts

As I shared with Paul, my many years spent in the training industry did teach me a few things about training. Unfortunately, one of those things is the sad fact that a lot of training simply doesn’t work. As The Wall Street Journal has reported in an article titled “So Much Training, So Little to Show for It,” “Companies devote a lot of time, effort and money to corporate training—with little to show for it.” U.S. corporations spend over $150 billion in training annually, and many don’t see real ROI on their training investment. In fact, 90 percent of new skills are lost within a year.

Enduring Myths

As I also shared with Paul, this doesn’t mean that training never works. But it does mean that anyone considering a training intervention as a way to improve performance should be wary of myths that many training solutions suffer from—some of which are enduring, and quite surprising. Here are four that appeared to affect Paul:

1. The Learning Styles Myth

The basic premise of this myth is that there are different styles of learning. Some people are visual learners, others learn better when listening, or doing hands-on activities. While it’s true that people have their preferences, research has shown over and over again that matching training to someone’s learning style doesn’t make the training any more effective. As Wallace Hannum, former professor of educational psychology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill writes in a report on training myths, investing in learning styles is “a waste of training dollars.”

2. The Technology Trap

Technology makes lots of things better, and it’s easy to see why Paul fell prey to the idea that training that leveraged mobile apps and gamification would work better than traditional training, but research shows that technology-based instruction doesn’t actually improve results. As Hannum writes, “technology in itself adds little value in terms of producing learning outcomes.”

3. The Formal Learning Fantasy

Like many people, Paul equated training with formal instruction, such as workshops. The problem here is that we learn best through informal means, like simply watching and working with others. According to Jay Cross, author of Informal Learning, 70-90 percent of our learning on the job is informal.

4. The “Everyone Is Trainable” Fallacy

There is another myth that I think Paul became a victim of, and that’s the idea that he could train everyone on his team to succeed in the new conditions. While it’s true that human beings have a tremendous capacity to learn, we’re not all built the same. It’s possible that the new skills changed the role in a way that made some of the people on Paul’s team poor fits. To know if this was the case, Paul would have needed a clear understanding of the demands the new skills placed on his people, as well as insights into what kinds of demands each individual was capable of meeting.

These can be challenging questions to answer, but Paul could get the information he needs by figuring out why some people excel in environments where those skills are needed. He could, for example, take a look at the people who are currently doing well on his team. What makes them different from the people who are struggling? Are they naturally better problem solvers? Are they more innovative? More open to change? Discovering these insights would tell him the type of people he needs, and who on his team would likely do well if they were giving more effective training. Paul might, of course, find that some people on his team aren’t built to succeed in the new role. In which case, even the best training isn’t going to help.

Making It Work

So, what could Paul do to improve the performance of team? Part of the answer, of course, is not falling prey to training myths like the above. The other part of the answer is that once Paul is training only the people who are likely to respond positively to the training, he should invest carefully in what makes training effective. For the best and quickest answer on that, I would turn to The Wall Street Journal article mentioned above, in which Eduardo Salas, a professor of organizational psychology at the University of Central Florida, says that the single most important element for effective training is design. Corporations, he advises, should focus their training dollars on designing programs with regular opportunities to practice and get feedback.

Next time you need to upgrade the skills on your team, take heed from Paul’s experience—stay away from training based on myths and focus on training the right people, the right way.

If you haven’t already read What to Why, the free 20-minute eBook changing how leaders build top teams, which I coauthored with ClearFit founder and CEO, Jamie Schneiderman, you can download it here.





The Common Mistake That Leads to Underperforming Customer Service Teams

Customer Service Teams: The Common Mistake That Leads to Underperformance

The Common Mistake That Leads to Underperforming Customer Service Teams

Authors’ note: this post is based on a hiring manager we know. We’ve changed all names and some telling details.

If you’re trying to build a world-class team and you’re the head of a contact center, you’d think that you’d want to hire employees who are passionate about delighting customers. That’s what Sheryl, the new manager at a contact center for a tech company, thought.

When Sheryl joined the tech company, she set herself the goal of leading the highest performing contact center for the company, which had over half a dozen such centers. She wanted to set new records for various metrics like customer satisfaction and loyalty.

It was an ambitious goal, but Sheryl knew that the company didn’t have the best reputation for its contact centers. So there was lots of room to improve. She was also confident in her strategy—focus on hiring people with strong service orientation and a deep passion for delighting customers. Set the highest standards for those qualities and don’t waver on them—that was her plan.

A disturbing trend

Two months into building her team, Sheryl began to notice something disturbing—her weekly numbers for caller satisfaction and loyalty were dropping. At first Sheryl chalked this up to the fact that many reps were still in the middle of the onboarding process. But as the weeks ran on, the numbers dropped further. If the trend line continued, her team would end up scoring near the bottom. Sheryl was mystified, and more than a little worried.

Around this time, a friend of Sheryl’s referred her to ClearFit to help with her hiring efforts. During a call with a ClearFit Hiring Coach, Sheryl confessed that her team was underperforming and that she was eager to hire the best possible candidates to turn things around. When she stressed that she was looking for people with superior service orientation, the coach asked her what exactly the reps were responsible for.

A matter of distinction

After Sheryl fleshed out the rep’s role, the coach pulled up success profiles for similar roles and explained to Sheryl that the profiles actually emphasized a different trait—problem solving. As the coach further explained, this role’s benchmark score for service orientation was relatively low compared with its requirement for problem solving.

The distinction between service orientation and problem solving is a key one. If someone is service oriented, they have a strong desire to help customers. For some types of roles, that might be enough—so long as the rep can quickly find the solution to the customer’s problem. If it’s a matter of some tips or tricks, a service-oriented person would do well in the role. But if the customers’ problems vary frequently, if they’re complex, and if they’re often new problems for which there are no existing solutions, then service orientation isn’t going to cut it.

What they really want

In that kind of situation, if you’re the person calling into the contact center, you don’t really care how much the person wants to help you. What you care about is whether or not they can actually help you. More than anything—more than a welcoming phone manner from a well-intentioned rep—you want the solution, the quickest way you can get it. And you’re only going to get that from someone with a proven ability to define problems, analyze them, and then solve them. Turns out that these puzzle solvers don’t always score high on service orientation.

The mistake

The mistake Sheryl made is a common one, not just for contact centers, but for any type of team. There are lots of myths out there about which traits are important for certain roles. In many cases, the reality is often quite different, hidden, or even counter-intuitive. If you want to build a world-class team—no matter what the role or roles—it’s vital to know exactly which traits lead to job success. Fortunately, this doesn’t have to be a guessing game. There’s tons of data on what it takes to succeed in thousands of different roles, and that data is available to any small business owner, leader, or hiring manager.


After her call with her hiring coach, Sheryl did some more investigation into the type of person she needed for her reps. She eventually revised her strategy and instead of trying to hire people with the highest customer service orientation, she focused on building a team of the best problem solvers. She also revamped her entire screening and interview process to probe on this critical trait. The people she began to hire based on this strategy were very different—often less extroverted and less personable—but they could solve the knottiest problems her customers called in with. And they could solve them fast.

After rebuilding her team, it didn’t take long for the numbers to jump. To date, Sheryl’s team is on target to lead the company in customer satisfaction and loyalty.

For more ideas on how to hire the right person, see:

Beware the halo effect: it can make you hire a dud.

Discover how to instantly identify which applicants possess the critical traits for the role.

Find out how to easily identify applicants who distort the truth.