My first day of my first real job, I walked in and was introduced to my trainer: Jim.
Jim was an interesting choice to be my trainer. On the one hand, he clearly knew his stuff, and he could communicate the information adequately. This is always a good thing for a trainer to do.
On the other hand, Jim was a middle-aged father, while I was seventeen-year-old kid without a care in the world. Common ground was a little hard to come by in this arrangement. To compound things, Jim was a very strange guy. “Eccentric” and “idiosyncratic” are both very accurate descriptors of his personality.
So, here you have me, already a little nervous about this new adventure known as “working” and Jim isn’t helping the situation, despite his best intentions and efforts. It turned out in the long-run; I worked for that company all through college. But it was definitely a shaky start.
By now, you must be asking, if Jim wasn’t the perfect, best, or even really a great person to train me, who would have been?
One of the most important things I’ve found both in training and in being trained is that common ground is a key element of effective teaching and learning. If someone is trying to convey a massive amount of information to you (recipes, specs, procedures, whatever), the little mnemonic devices he brings to the table can be the difference between learning quickly and learning almost nothing. If you put me with someone whose trick for remembering the secret ingredient is that it fits perfectly into the rhyming scheme of the third verse of an E.L.O. song, you’re asking, nay - begging, me to forget what I’ve been told.
One of the simplest ways to create that common ground is to put new employees with trainers who are near the same age. It’s a simple equation. Similar experiences, similar tastes, and similar world-views equals lots of room for common ground. When it comes to creating those nuanced little ways of teaching someone, shared territory is what makes the difference.
The strength of the (often unintentionally) nuanced approach someone might take to training a peer of a similar age is a result of the simple mechanics of learning. If I’m going to try to take in a massive amount of information (recipes, specs, procedures, etc.) I want to learn it from someone who can communicate it to me as closely to the way I think as possible. That means I want someone who will use examples that make sense to me. It means I want a trainer who will refer to things I know about. It means I want to learn from someone who speaks my colloquial language fluently. Sure, if I ask a question I’ll know I’m in the right when I’m told “Nice work” and offered a hand shake, but a “Fo Sho!” and a fist pound offer a whole different layer of reinforcement.
Please, please, for the love of everything sacred, do not take this as my request to middle-aged managers to start adding “izzle” and “heezy” to everything they say. If you do this to me, I’m out. If you say it was my idea, I’m suing. When someone who clearly isn’t supposed to be using lingo tries to use it (you know who you are), it doesn’t create a common ground, it creates a no man’s land. Suddenly, something that was cool and enjoyable seems forced and more time is spent dwelling on the manner in which the information was communicated that the data that was transmitted.
Someone who can speak to my level without talking down to me will be the perfect person to train me because we’re on the same wavelength. That’s why I like being trained by someone my age. Think about it next time you have your new Gen Why training with a much older person. Especially if your trainer is as eccentric as Jim was.