The future of the profession formerly known as training: is a profession that doesn't know what to call itself having an identity crisis, or morphing into something new and better? Or will training kill off its brand equity just as it's beginning to have some? And what about training as a profession? As kids on a long trip will ask, "are we there yet?"

T+D, Dec, 2003 by Pat Galagan

There's no topic that inflames more passion at the moment than what to call the profession formerly known as training. People who believe the field is fragmenting offer the explanation that it's undergoing a natural metamorphosis. But from what to what? And why?

Galagan explains that there's no clear definition for the field. Learning, performance, and change activities are happening under many different names. Some experts blame the splintering on technologies that expose training's inefficiencies. Others say it's because of a widening difference between learning-and performance-based views of the field. Learning professionals responsible for business information are the new power elite, while outsourcing has made trainers an endangered species.

Some experts make predictions for the future: jobs for educational tech grads, behavior development for executives, structural makeovers for training companies, and training that blends interactivity with solid content.

**********

Is someone who does HR forensics--investigating potential wrongdoing by tracking an employee's downloads and Website visits--in the same profession as someone who facilitates understanding between diverse groups of employees? Is a classroom trainer with a solo practice in the same universe as a corporate chief learning officer? Does a course designer occupy the same family tree as a knowledge strategist?

There is no topic that inflames more passion at the moment than what to call the profession formerly known as training. Medieval theologians debating the number of angels that could dance on the head of a pin could not marshal more arguments than the defenders of competing nomenclatures. Is it performance? Is it intellectual capital development? Is it knowledge management? Is it learning facilitation? Is it human process engineering? Is it workforce development? Is it organizational stewardship and transformation?

What has happened to the term training? Are squabbling subgroups squandering the brand equity of a name that has served the field for more than 60 years? Google the word training and you'll get 83.5 million entries, the first of them being ASTD, the professional association formerly known as the American Society for Training and Development. Surely that is brand equity to kill for. Yet, in a recent online discussion about what to call a document describing competencies for the field, I read this amazing statement: "Under no circumstances should the word 'training' appear in the title."

What is going on here?

Is this a sign of a field attempting to commit identicide or just Paul McCartney leaving the Beatles to form Wings? People who believe the field is fragmenting offer the explanation that it is undergoing a natural metamorphosis. But from what to what? And why?

Here is how Pat McLagan--CEO of McLagan International, an authority on competencies in the field, and not the source of the quote about not using the term training--explains it. (Note to readers: I am not, like U.S. Senator Bob Dole, referring to myself in the third person. Pat McLagan and I, though often mistaken for each other, are two individuals.)

"If we are to be effective, our views and theories of organization must change. The metamorphosis is from closed rational systems focused on structure to dynamic models inspired by new views of the universe that emphasize process and participation. Closed systems are reaching the limits of their ability to be effective. We can change the boxes on the chart. But if we don't change what happens in the white spaces between them, we will fail.

"Against this context," McLagan says, "our role is to unleash human capabilities into the workplace and society by using all of the tools at our disposal. We need to align the human side of the business so that it fits these new paradigms. Calling it 'training and development' puts too much emphasis on what we do, not on what we're trying to create: knowledge organizations that release and focus people's energies for work performance. Our field is changing in an emergent way, with no strong identity. Learning, performance, and change activities are happening under many banners. The innovation that occurs as these different identities pursue their work is good. Identity fragmentation expands options, but it also creates silos and artificial boundaries."

McLagan warns that "a schism is widening between the humanistic (learning and adult education) and behaviorist (performance improvement) views of the field."

Technology did it

Another theory about the splintered condition of the profession holds that technology is to blame, or to thank, for the schism between e-learning enthusiasts and those rooted in classroom-based traditions. Here's how Sam Adkins, a learning technology product analyst, sees it:

"Technology has pushed training to an inflection point--not just learning technologies that can create, deliver, and manage training but other kinds of technology--that throws a spotlight on the training function itself." Business intelligence tools are exposing training's inefficiencies to managers and C-level officers.