You know what gets my knickers in a bunch? (No, it’s not a trick question.) It’s when well-meaning organizations decide their people need learning so they enroll them in "professional development." A few months ago, I guest-blogged at Rosa Say’s Talking Story and made a modest proposal for our businesses to stop with all the professional development. It simply doesn’t work. So, please stop.

I’m not against learning. I am truly a passionate proponent of developing a learning culture within organizations. It’s just that the current model is unsustainable and works against actual learning.  Worse, it feeds into old assumptions we bring from our institutionalized learning days of youth and fosters a cynicism that adult learning is basically useless in the real world of the office. Don’t believe me? Ask some of the poor unfortunate souls who’ve been to an offsite retreat or workshop in the past couple of months how they feel now. Chances are they were filled with good ideas, buoyant energy, and creative juice. See if they still feel the same way.

I guess what’s spurring this outrage is Don Blohowiak’s recent post on "training derailment." He offers a viewpoint from Daniel Tobin, author of Re-Educating the Corporation. Don’s post hits on many of the things that trouble me, namely how we don’t help attendees plan to integrate their learning into their real-world circumstances.

If you’re planning on sending staff to a workshop or a conference, spend the time helping them design a re-entry plan. And do whatever you can to make sure that the organizational culture is ready to accept them back when they return. Or else, do them a favor and don’t send them at all.

After spending a few weeks searching for a new office manager, we’re at interview stage. Last week, we conducted a second round of interviews with candidates. Even though the position will not directly report to me, I requested to be a part of the process at this stage. The three of us on the Management Team decided that since we have a small staff, any hiring decision ought to be made in consultation with the other team director.

Now after being on the interviewee side of the table for the past few months, you’d think that I would have learned a few things. Maybe I did. What I found interesting was that I was very cold with both candidates. Not unfriendly, but definitely at arm’s length. Isn’t that how we’re taught to be in interviews?

I distinctly noticed that they were nervous and was curious to see how they would handle their circumstance. Would they find a groove? Would they find this groove in spite of me and my colleagues? Do I want to make this easy on them or do I want to test their ability to handle stress? Is that the purpose of the interview? Of course it’s not the sole purpose, but the whole experience is a test of the candidate’s interactions and responses to pointed questions.

So why am I less than satisfied with how I performed as an interviewer and the interview process as a whole? Because deep down I know there is a better way. I slipped into a preordained role of "interviewer" keeping to the pattern of what an interview is supposed to be like. Sure it wasn’t completely my interview to conduct (after all, I was invited to this second round). However, as a part of the Management Team, I have the ability to introduce other models of hiring. With this thought, I get to actually take a challenge and transform it into yet another opportunity.

Seems like a lot a rambling with this post. If you’ve made it this far, thanks for being a co-conspirator in at least beginning to rethink the whole hiring process. Let’s have some fun making it up as we go.