To remain competitive in the marketplace, a consulting engineering firm must provide not only quality service to clients, but also a challenging and stimulating workplace for employees. Investing in training and learning is an important element of the business.
Training and learning
Training is focused on development of new skills (e.g. using a software application), while learning relates to everyday experience, often facilitated through mentoring, which helps employees understand the business and how to deal with a wide range of situations.
During and after the COVID-19 pandemic, many firms turned to online platforms for both training and learning, instead of face-to-face experiences. While these platforms can provide necessary resources and content, online training or learning also presents new challenges for employees with regard to motivation, engagement and avoiding distractions.
For a course to be effective, it must be designed and delivered in a form compatible with employees’ learning styles:
“Effectiveness = Content x Delivery.”
All too often, there is a tendency to focus on content, rather than delivery, which can result in a course comprising a crowded PowerPoint presentation, delivered by a trainer reading slide after slide. Often referred to by employees as ‘Death by PowerPoint,’ this approach certainly limits the effectiveness of a course.
Instead, content and delivery need to be designed with an understanding that people perceive and process the world around them differently and, thus, have different learning styles.
Too often, there is a tendency to focus on content, rather than delivery.
Learning styles, perception and process
In terms of perception, some people prefer to learn by feeling, others through thinking. Feeling involves learning from concrete experiences and being sensitive to other people’s feelings. Thinking involves abstract conceptualization, learning through a logical analysis of ideas and acting on an intellectual understanding of a situation.
In terms of process, on the other hand, some people prefer to learn by watching, others by doing. Watching involves reflective observation before making a judgement. Doing involves active experimentation, ‘getting things done,’ influencing people and events and taking risks.
In the 1970s, American educational theorist David A. Kolb helped develop the Experiential Learning Model (ELM), which suggests four combinations of perceiving and processing determine learning styles (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Kolb’s learning styles.
Engineers tend to be convergers, focusing on thinking and doing. They like facts, proof, evidence and hands-on activity. In a course, they respond well to examples, demonstrations, applications of theory, trial and error, visual graphics, clear objectives and a logical sequence. They dislike games, distractions, role-playing and ‘touchy-feely’ content.
Scientists tend to be assimilators, focusing on thinking and watching. They like reading, preparation, theory, individual learning, lectures, written handouts and reflective activities in an orderly sequence with respect for their time. They dislike large groups, redundancy and unstructured discussions.
Divergers, who focus on feeling and watching, tend toward careers in the humanities. They enjoy brainstorming, discussions, games, role-playing, reflection activities, learning journals and simulations. They dislike long-winded lectures, too much theory and passive and isolated learning.
Accommodators, who focus on feeling and doing, tend toward ‘action-oriented’ careers, such as sales and marketing. They enjoy drama, icebreakers, metaphors, analogies, debates, free-flowing activities, real-world examples and big-picture relevance. They dislike lengthy presentations, abstract theory, straight lectures, limited interaction, individual learning and sitting for too long.
A firm’s mix
Years ago, I conducted a survey of 40 professionals (out of more than 400) at an international consulting engineering firm; 80% of the respondents were either convergers or assimilators, with an approximately even split between the two learning styles.
This split reflected the office’s focus on engineering and environmental science. With two exceptions, the remaining 20% were a mix of accommodators and divergers, typically in non-technical support roles.
The two exceptions were both female senior environmental scientists with diverger learning styles. One explained how earlier in her career, she was very thinking- and task-focused, but with age and becoming a wife and mother, her perceptions changed. Feelings and the ‘big picture’ had become more important to her.
It is not unreasonable to assume the consulting engineering profession is dominated by convergers and, to a lesser extent, assimilators.
The consulting engineering profession seems to be dominated by convergers and assimilators.
Tailoring courses for engineers
I have been involved in developing and facilitating face-to-face courses in consulting engineering and environmental science for more than 25 years, focusing on the business, people, financial and project management aspects of the business.
These courses were designed with an understanding of the learning styles of engineers and scientists, resulting in an emphasis on interactive group and individual exercises, discussions, the sharing of experiences, stories and minimizing the length of presentations and lectures.
At the end of such courses, participants were invited to provide feedback. In particular, they were asked, ‘When were you most engaged and when were you most disengaged during the course?’
Feedback from 43 participants in (a) introductory consulting business and (b) project management courses, representing two small consulting engineering firms (i.e. each comprising less than 200 people), helped identify which course elements stimulated engagement, with some participants reporting more than one process engaged them (see Table 1). The results emphasized team exercises and group discussions, reflecting the preferred learning styles of engineers and scientists.
Of those 43 participants, 21 identified sources of disengagement (see Table 2). Four of them cited a 45-minute module, featuring 44 information-dense PowerPoint slides referencing accounting system software, presented at the end of their course’s first day, with limited opportunity for interaction. Their responses are not included in Table 2, as they were specific to that module and consequently atypical, but they are still worth noting.
That said, outside of the 21 aforementioned participants, many others reported feeling engaged the entire time or never feeling disengaged, suggesting the design and delivery of the courses were well-aligned with their learning styles.
Sources of disengagement were perhaps more related to personal situations regarding knowledge and experience than to course design and delivery. Examples cited included “doing math,” “information I had heard before,” “the contracts portion” and “these subjects have been beat into me for over 38 years!”
Achieving ROI
Courses represent an investment in the sustainability and competitiveness of a consulting engineering firm. To be effective, they should be designed and delivered to address a range of learning styles. Varying processes will help increase employees’ motivation, engagement, learning, understanding and application.
The benefits of well-designed and delivered courses for the firm include increased employee productivity and retention, fewer project write-offs and claims, higher client satisfaction and greater profitability. The potential return on investment (ROI) is substantial.
Bryan Leach is a retired, Calgary-based engineer who has been designated P.Eng. in Alberta and C.Eng. in the U.K. and now focuses on helping organizations learn. He can be reached at [email protected].
This article originally appeared in the November/December 2024 issue of Canadian Consulting Engineer.
link