Notes from the field: As a trainer I struggle with the bureaucracy of safer workplace training.

The discussion around this topic points to bureaucracy. In fact that is wrong and misguiding. The head count in any assurance program linked to training works for the people above their place on the organizational chart not below it. So the resources for the people at trainer level and below ie., trainers, will not be as readily available as to those above. That’s not to say these people don’t achieve anything. On the contrary they do lots of hard work unfortunately at the end of the day they make whales dance on their tails. Perfectly useless unnatural behaviors. Computer based learning comes to mind. The act of incorporating computers is not the issue. The premise training is cheaper with computers vs the alternatives is. The reason you do the type of training you do is because the tools selected at the front end demand a certain type of training we see across the corporation. Change the tools and the problem fixes itself. This is not going to happen given the momentum generated by third parties pushing learning management systems and learning content management systems. Your job is to feed these machines with ‘content’. The approach is unsustainable and out of sink with operational realities. Adding to the dangers for you, to the best of my knowledge, no one in HR has ever been held accountable in the court of law for a death or injury. That is reserved for operations. I suggest you bolster your position with a coach who provides remote access solutions and delivers just in time advice. Talk to your coach about using an educational accountability model infused across your processes. You will cut your content development time by 30 percent and free up time to see around corners and navigate the land mines – Fut