Older executives are shunning corporate training. This is a problem both for them and the firms they work for

When you reach a certain age your bullshit detector becomes more sensitive. Maybe it's as simple as that.

Learning is a continuous process;and one can learn at one`s own desk,if one has an open mind.
An advantage of a program in a Business school is not just that it i will be a break from normal routine but provides an opportunity for interaction with the younger lot and persons with different work experience.
Business schools might consider all these factors in drawing up Sessions for the senior executives to make it worthwhile and attractive

So how have these trendy in house courses and companies led by MBAs worked out? Short term gains at the expense of long term strategy has destroyed our economic competitiveness and it is a direct result of "What is the latest fashion" ideas enthusiastically put fourth by MBAs and lawyers. Listening to the older managers who have the good sense to know BS when they see it may be our best hope.

The comments by the academics reveals their belief that only they should control the learning process. As a 61 year old senior manager I am bored to tears by so much that passes for learning and is just the same old, same old, rehashed. Just occasionally I hear something that is startlingly new and that really takes my breath away - in the last year I've heard Ralph Stacey from U Hertfordshire and John Burgoyne from Lancaster talking about different aspects of complexity and making me rethink my understanding of leadership. However, someone who has really taken responsibility for managing their own learning knows that most training events will be uninspiring, as ground they trod 20 or 30 years ago is retrod.

Organisations that really care about learning will attempt to use this resource and harness the knowledge and skills of older employees, and that will further encourage them to learn as well. Anyone who has trained or coached others knows that you learn more than anyone else in the process. The problems facing business schools is that they have a product to sell and are desperate to re-package it for customers who aren't buying, which rather diminishes them, since that's exactly what poor performing companies do. Successful businesses look at developing innovative products to meet the needs of different customers, and that's the challenge here - offer me something I can't get elsewhere! I've honed my learning ability to get me where I am, I can sniff out the occasional gem in the ordure supplied by Google and can easily learn about the latest good ideas online, so what can you offer me that I can't do myself?

I'm successful because my mother raised me right. Try teaching that in a classroom.

I was 24 in 1971, and the manager of a second resturant. Our chain hired a consultant to come and give us advise. He watched me for a couple of days. He asked me to go to his office and preceeded to inform me that i was putting out fires, not managing. I talked to him a few minutes and noticed something. He sounded like his advise was coming from a textbook. I asked him how long he had managed a resturant he stated, "six weeks". I got up and left.

Managers learn from textbooks; but, their most valued learning comes from the blood and sweat of managing. This type learning can not be bottled or captured between cardboard on paper. Tom Peter's eat your heart out... blah, blah, blah.

I have participated and led several 'in-house' training programs. Not too long ago, I was asked to review the 'in-house' training against outside programs. My results showed that 'in-house' training is too insular and lacks the valuable input outside participants and organizations.

Moreover, 'in-house' training is routinely questioned and considered 'not up to industry standards'. The major international financial services firm I did this review for, wouldn't consider executives who completed a like program from a peer firm to have completed a viable program.

Simply put, firms want 'in-house' training to work in order to keep valuable individuals in the firm. Giving a valued executive an opportunity to share ideas with outside peers in an environment outside corporate control, could lead to a 'poaching' exercise (something my firm did frequently).

While older executives understand the value and potential benefit of "lifelong learning" and personal development, they also find it difficult to take time from their day to participate in programs which they, more often than not, can lead. And, even if a university creates a value-added proposition, the older executive (which includes women by the way) is likely reluctant to risk taking the time to find out. I would be more willing to re-enter the ivory tower if I thought I could, in short order, learn the latest and greatest concepts and technologies relevant to my industry, and be offered, as well, an academic degree commensurate with the knowledge I have accrued over 30 years. An opportunity exists today for new paradigms of learning and sharing, but which requires some breaking down of industry-academia barriers and egos.

As a senior medical device design engineer, age 65, the best aspect of working as an individual consultant is never, ever having to go to another useless corporate training. For every useful one (e.g., statistical techniques) there are 10 total waste-of-time ones (Corporate harassment policy, new forms, etc.), where the objective is simply administrative.
I know how to do my job. I've intentionally narrowed my focus to do the things I'm good at, and to forget about pursuing meaningless advancement. I don't have forever to continue to practice, and I don't want to waste the precious time I have left on nonsensical, "mandatory training."
In fact, nobody I know is an enthusiastic participant in these exercises, but the younger professionals believe that it will help them achieve their professional ambitions. They are sadly mistaken.

This is not just an older worker pattern. We can see the same 'irrelevant' or "don't want stuffed up my nose" pattern in kid classrooms. A better way is more agile (Britain has a good "dogme" movement in teaching). Show a bit in a workshop, then gather the group around to select a new sub-topic, and preferably have one of the group lead the sub-topic presentation. Agile pattern, led by members of the group for the group, with reviews at the end of each section. Sometimes done best in the actual workspace/teamroom, sometimes deliberately off-site.

Business schools tend to do more damage to the world than munitions dealers and tobacco companies combined. Executive seminars and programs seem to be the most dangerous of all programs, as they claim to offer wisdom through an endless, repeating loop of "This 101", "That 101," and "The Other Thing 101."

Yes, I fit the demographic, having safely made it to 55. But I've hated this condescending, academic-driven, "lifelong-learning" claptrap since I've been about 30. In contrast, so-called auto-didactism is, to me, like, you know, I read a book once in awhile, talk to smart people, work, and occasionally I learn something.

In business, rather than blowing money on empty calories, better to take the old guys (and gals), stick a mic in front of them, maybe pour a Scotch or two into them, then simply listen.

I am a 61 year old manager and have been in my line of business for 28 years, growing through the ranks. Having worked in two continents and three countries, I have experienced different approaches to management and also how cultures influence them. Aside from formal education in engineering and business management, I have taken numerous courses, attended seminars etc. to hone my skills.

Of late, I find it tiring since I feel I have heard it all before. Particularly, management theories come and go. No one can contest a mathematical equation or a physics observation but when it comes to management, theories are dozen a dime, contradicting each other. A company considered excellent this year is spat upon in the next when it is divulged the perceived excellence was really illegal practices. Thus, age and experience make one suspicious of management theories.

Another factor is that at my age, I am not looking to conquer more mountains. I want to pass on what I have learnt to my subordinates and prepare them for succession.

If the academia feels that they miss out on experiences like mine in the classroom, they should pay me to attend, the same as the professor.

For students with grey hair is hardly surprising to anybody over 50. Will it change the unfortunate attitude of recruiters and HR Directors to employing such people ? When did Tesco, or the BBC last employ a 60 year old Marketing Director or IT or HR Manager for any job other than pushing trolleys or serving food in the staff canteen ?
Wisehead

As a consultant to middle management- my guess is that this is an ego problem at the top. I completed a research thesis at 70 years old and at 75 am back at University. The ego is suffering but the learning is good.
Mulgajim

" a wealth of knowledge and experience is lost from the classroom, which reduces the value of the training for everyone else."

The logical conclusion is that people like me should be paid to attend?

I think it depends on many aspects. First, the landscape you see when look in front of you: new goals o that it used to be. But there are an issue to be considered:

After 50's you have to "fight" against single people without children that can attend evening courses and don't need make family agreements to travel or to spend a sunny sunday reading manuals.

But, many times, people who leads companies forgets we have learnt something that nobody teaches in courses.

We know the defeat, the mistaking and the loosers lonelyness. This course is teached, of course, in a lifelong training camp. I say to the too young people: Don't worry, if you make mistakes then we will be there and we will see how you learn by yourself.

My dissertation, completed in 2009, sought to assess the people-management knowledge of mid- to high-level US organization managers. The findings indicate that managers accurately know about 57% of the most rudimentary knowledge needed for hiring and managing people effectively. The complete abstract is available at http://gradworks.umi.com/33/59/3359833.html. A related study of mid- to high-level HR managers, conducted for the Society of Human Resource Management (SHRM) by Prof. Rynes and her colleagues at the University of Iowa (Rynes, Colbert, and Brown, 2002), indicated that HR practitioners have a very similar level of knowledge. Not very impressive. Combining this insight might help explain why companies are not more effective, why so many employees are dissatisfied with their work, and why many companies experience so much turnover. Perhaps management's return to the classroom should be viewed not as an option, but as an essential criteria for advancement.

In difficult economic times, corporations hit "discretionary" expenses, including education, very hard. In most cases, courses for personal development now are at my personal expense.

I am a young worker, and *I* think that most of the in-house training we get is "repetition of lessons already learned". You can tell that most of it was created to comply with regulations. The ones that aren't (usually technical and run by by outside companies) aren't that useful either - they are too short to get into any real detail, and instead just act as an overview of things we can teach ourselves on our own time. I would rather they just skip the short-courses and let me spend the time teaching myself, or pay tuition for one university course a year.

It may be a simple case of kind consideration by these older gentlemen. After all, when they fall asleep on their desks, the light reflected off the tops of their heads may distract the instructor.