Training has to be paced. People can make only so much progress at a time. Even though you see several things they have to learn, you are wiser to break them into pieces they can handle. Have the patience to give the other pieces as time goes along.
If you assign six things at once, you break the spirit. You break the person's concentration, too; he spends so much time thinking about what's gone wrong or could go wrong that he doesn't do his job. And if there's something about a person he cannot improve—family background, for example, or accent, looks, or spouse—don't even mention it. Development is based on improvability.
In some severe situations, I admit, a spouse's attitude or behavior may actually threaten some one's future. That situation has to be faced—but this is beyond what we call training or development. It's simply a necessary action. You have to say to the person, "If this doesn't change, you're not going to be here. I want you to know why. But it's not my responsibility to change your wife. That is up to you. If at any time you think it would be helpful for me to sit down with you and her and talk it over, I'd be happy to do that. But, since she does not work for me, it's not my responsibility to develop her."
Pacing means not only spreading out our topics but covering each topic more than once. People rarely get anything the first time you say it. So you vary the wording each time, even though you're saying exactly the same thing. Remember the old adage for speakers: 1) tell them what you're going to say, 2) say it and 3) tell them what you said. This works in training, as well.
When it comes to actual work, assignment comes first, then delegation. There is a difference. When you assign, you tell a person what you want done, how you want it done, and when you want it done. When you progress to the point of delegation, you are able to say, "What do you think should be done?" The person is experienced enough to start telling you. While assignments have to be checked regularly, with work-in-process dates, delegation needs only a completion date.
If you delegate too soon, you put a person in over his head. He could lose confidence. He could run into conflict with you as his boss. He could also lose respect within the organization. I've often seen it happen: somebody is brought in, put on the job, and abandoned. The leader expects him to figure out how to do it all alone. He doesn't always succeed.
Certain types of things should never be delegated to certain people. In business, for example, you never delegate expense accounts to salespeople. They seem to have a blind spot when it comes to spending money, entertaining, and so forth. You have to control that area yourself. Other people can never really handle the freedom to work outside the office or have flexible hours. They'll start coming in later and later; somehow they lack the necessary personal discipline.
My personal philosophy, however, is to delegate everything I can, and only when that delegation has been neglected do I go back to making assignments. A lot rides on how I give the delegation in the first place. If I announced it with a lot of fanfare, the person loses face if it's pulled back. But if I can quietly say, "I believe we can improve this by both of us working on it," the person is usually spared the feeling he's going backwards.
Naturally, I don't like to get into this predicament. It's much better to delegate realistically in the first place.
All of this increases the assets of the organization. People are our greatest asset. Just as we improve a physical plant, we improve people. I'm as hesitant to fire somebody as I would be to bum down one of the buildings.
