3 ms·

Certainly it depends on the program. I've seen some truly horrible training programs. Cheesy videos from the 80s, pointless multiple choice tests, no mentorship

by RevEng 3y ago

Certainly it depends on the program. I've seen some truly horrible training programs. Cheesy videos from the 80s, pointless multiple choice tests, no mentorship or assistance after the initial round of intensive training. These aren't what we are talking about. An example of the structure is that we have a curriculum figured out. We know what tools, techniques, and domain knowledge our new employees need within each team. An ad hoc approach like we used to follow would have individual managers or mentors giving an overview off the top of their head, then answering questions as they come up. This is a good start, but lots of important things get missed and new employees don't know to ask for information that they don't know exists. Another example would be with mentorship. In many situations, new employees aren't given a single point of contact with someone whose duties including supporting them. In other circumstances, they will be told to ask anyone about anything, or to ask their manager or team lead, but often new employees are too timid to ask, or don't know who to ask, or the assigned person may be too busy or otherwise unapproachable. Having a plan and making sure everyone is onboard with it is important, but it's not always considered.

lmm 3y ago
> Certainly it depends on the program. I've seen some truly horrible training programs. Cheesy videos from the 80s, pointless multiple choice tests, no mentorship or assistance after the initial round of intensive training. These aren't what we are talking about. So how do you make sure your programme doesn't turn into that? Is it just a case of "have a good training programme, don't have a bad training programme"? Again it's weird to have the article use so many comparative terms and not talk about what you're comparing against and what the critical differences are. > An example of the structure is that we have a curriculum figured out. We know what tools, techniques, and domain knowledge our new employees need within each team. So how do you know it's right, and especially how do you keep it up to date? A lot of those terrible training programmes suffer a lot from having what was originally thought to be a good curriculum at the time. > Another example would be with mentorship. In many situations, new employees aren't given a single point of contact with someone whose duties including supporting them. In other circumstances, they will be told to ask anyone about anything, or to ask their manager or team lead, but often new employees are too timid to ask, or don't know who to ask, or the assigned person may be too busy or otherwise unapproachable. Having a plan and making sure everyone is onboard with it is important, but it's not always considered. Making a single point of contact mentor work sounds like something concrete that many companies don't do or do badly. How do you make sure people are properly incentivised/rewarded for mentoring well? Do new joiners have any way to recover if they end up with a bad mentor (given that having the mentor be their single point of contact/responsibility cuts both ways)?

by RevEng 3y ago

lmm 3y ago

> Certainly it depends on the program. I've seen some truly horrible training programs. Cheesy videos from the 80s, pointless multiple choice tests, no mentorship or assistance after the initial round of intensive training. These aren't what we are talking about. So how do you make sure your programme doesn't turn into that? Is it just a case of "have a good training programme, don't have a bad training programme"? Again it's weird to have the article use so many comparative terms and not talk about what you're comparing against and what the critical differences are. > An example of the structure is that we have a curriculum figured out. We know what tools, techniques, and domain knowledge our new employees need within each team. So how do you know it's right, and especially how do you keep it up to date? A lot of those terrible training programmes suffer a lot from having what was originally thought to be a good curriculum at the time. > Another example would be with mentorship. In many situations, new employees aren't given a single point of contact with someone whose duties including supporting them. In other circumstances, they will be told to ask anyone about anything, or to ask their manager or team lead, but often new employees are too timid to ask, or don't know who to ask, or the assigned person may be too busy or otherwise unapproachable. Having a plan and making sure everyone is onboard with it is important, but it's not always considered. Making a single point of contact mentor work sounds like something concrete that many companies don't do or do badly. How do you make sure people are properly incentivised/rewarded for mentoring well? Do new joiners have any way to recover if they end up with a bad mentor (given that having the mentor be their single point of contact/responsibility cuts both ways)?