The Difference Between Education and Training

By Glen Fahs, Ph. D.
Director of Training & Organization Development
Cascade Employers Association

Question:

Does staff education have the same impact as training? What’s the difference?

Answer:

There are significant differences. We often talk about education, training and employee development as if they were one approach. While they often go together, especially in graduate school and very applied fields, they are not the same. Education emphasizes broad fields of knowledge, theory, research and practice, while training is much more specific and is best customized for the organization and its participants.

Let’s review how assuming that education and training are the same undermines the effectiveness of training. We will consider both as structured or classroom learning experiences, leaving discussion of on-the-job skills training to another time.

• Education – There are many different philosophies of education. One treats people as blank slates, to be controlled by behavior modification rewards. Another views the young as growing organisms with an internal plan to be nurtured as one would nurture a plant, which assumes older learners aren’t going to change much. Another contends that humans are images of a higher being to be disciplined so they act more heavenly.

While some instructors personalize their designs and involve the learner, it is clear the teacher or professor is the expert and learners are there to follow the institutional or expert’s plan. Conformity is rewarded and, while they are often successful in later life, cut-ups are not encouraged. We assume that exposure to broad fields will generate interest in following up so college majors are more likely to practice what is preached.

While I am all for education, it isn’t a very cost-effective or time-efficient way to generate productive performance. Humans, even little ones, aren’t blank slates and when their needs are not addressed, they don’t act very heavenly. Most of us grow up wanting to be taken seriously.

• Training – Adult education was founded on the belief that educators needed to respect adults’ experiences and needs. It cultivated a love of learning that sees many choosing to go back for advanced degrees and continuing education whether they have immediate application for what they are studying or not. While lifelong learning is a very worthy pursuit, most organizations want their investments in education and training to accomplish specific objectives. They want their employees to develop computer and communication skills, knowledge and judgment about what is best to do, and an attitude of team work and innovation. They want improved performance.

If we assume education is the wise course to get results, having Stephen Covey on the TV or having a crowd hear a speaker review “52 Ways to Deal with Difficult People” makes sense. Why have a trainer customize something for your organization if the brochure promises anything and everything on a topic in eight hours or less?

The traveling road shows such as Fred Pryor call their offerings “seminars.” They aren’t. Seminars are small groups where the learners do a lot of the presenting. Like conferences, the mass-produced shows are okay for superficial awareness of a topic, but they are better at selling books and tapes than at getting behavior to change.

In contrast, training involves needs assessment, planning how to meld the learning and management’s priorities, and reinforcement of what is learned over time. It is a partnership of managers, trainers and learners. Like any system, it requires alignment. And good training builds commitment and positive attitudes along with skills.

The bad news is that Oregon is not supporting education as well as it used to. Public higher education gets an increasingly lower share of its resources from the public and increasingly larger shares from fund-raising and tuition. The good news is that while most of the traveling road shows are gone, customized training is stronger than ever. As a result of the recession and productivity improvement efforts, organizations made hard choices about how to spend their dollars, and in-house training had the competitive edge.

But in-house training is still dependent on the culture and systems that encourage practicing what is learned. Do we allow time for learning and trying out new behaviors or do we expect learners to do double duty by making up work that they missed while in training? Do leaders participate in the training, showing that they want to improve along with others, or do they leave participants wondering why they don’t see learning as a priority for leaders as well? Do managers and expert coaches follow up so learners are helped to change, especially when they are feeling awkward or stuck? Few of us turn to a manual when we forget a key point from the training. We need coaches who are accessible, understanding and supportive so we can do our best.

In summary, “education” gives us the big picture, “development” helps us integrate our long-term plans with our organizational lives, and “training” is for now.