So the value of manager training is increased

Then why am I standing here? And why are the participants here at all? Wouldn't it be better if they stayed in their office and did real work instead of sitting here and wasting the day?

The literature calls it the "transfer problem", a gap between the content the education intends to convey and what is then used in the work. We put a lot of money into the training of managers (and employees), but we get a poor dividend on the effort. One engineer had called it a poor efficiency. Education simply does not become as valuable as it could have been.

As a chief developer, I have therefore immersed myself in the "transfer problem". There are, with the support of the research, concrete things that clients can do before, during and after a management training to increase the efficiency. I call it the before-under-after model.

Prior to the training, the managers should prepare mentally, reflect on a few study questions, and talk to the nearest manager about goals and expectations. During the training itself, the managers should be active, prepared and challenge themselves, and the manager educator should adapt and vary pedagogy and methods, and put the content in a context that the managers recognize and can relate to, that is, their working day. When the managers are back at their workplaces, the nearest manager, colleagues and employees should support in different ways and create the conditions for the new skills and abilities to be trained.

Through these few efforts, the gap between what is communicated and what is brought back to work can be significantly reduced. The dividend payout has thus increased significantly. Which should please everyone involved, especially commissioners of management training.