Tl;DR: As we return to pre-pandemic norms, organisations are beginning to transition from virtual to face-to-face training – often with the assumption that the latter is always better. But there are various situations where a well-designed virtual training programme might be the better choice.
From our experience running both virtual and face-to-face training, we’ve discovered (to our surprise) that a wide spectrum of participants from differing seniority and experience levels, and different units of the organisation, find it easier to discuss and debate in virtual instructor-led training, which leads them to a deeper understanding of the training material. In this article, we’ve included real-life examples from ‘Company X’.
When the pandemic struck, COVID restrictions forced us to leave our training rooms. We had to adapt. So we converted our homes into virtual training rooms; we put away the cat, locked away the kids and hoped the internet would stay fast (despite the family bingeing on Netflix). Then, as we continued to convert ever more of our face-to-face programmes to virtual programmes, we learned some surprising lessons that led us to think that the shift back to face-to-face training may not necessarily be the best thing to do.
First, we found that face-to-face training is not necessarily easier to do, nor is it always more engaging or effective. At times, we found that virtual instructor-led training (we’ll shorten it to virtual training from here on), was the easier and more effective intervention. Now as we speed back to pre-pandemic norms, and as our physical training rooms start to fill up with people again, many L&D and HR departments breathe a sigh of relief, thinking that they no longer have to settle for the seemingly inferior virtual training. But what if, by abandoning virtual training, we could also be leaving behind an effective way to train staff?
Let’s talk about what happened to ‘Company X’.
Company X had a mission to improve collaboration within the organisation, so we worked with them to design and deliver a series of workshops. These workshops started during the height of the pandemic as virtual workshops, but since moving back to normalcy, training is now carried out on-location, face-to-face. And while it felt familiar to return to face-to-face training, we found that virtual training, at times, allowed for more robust learning.
Robust Learning
The face-to-face environment is vastly different to the virtual one, so participants react differently to both. Sometimes, participants’ reactions to the virtual environment can lead to a deeper understanding of the content. Here’s why:
1. Participation can be more frequent in virtual training
Virtual training is usually more comfortable. Participants are in the safety of their homes. And because they feel safe and comfortable, they’re more willing to participate. With Company X, we’re in a position to compare the same participants in two different settings, virtual and face-to-face, and we’ve observed that, in the virtual setting, participants are more likely to be confident, project their voices further and are more motivated to respond in front of a large crowd of people. Perhaps it’s because a large crowd becomes less intimidating when they all fit on a tiny laptop screen?
2. There may be a wider range of active participants in virtual training
Being online puts everyone’s presence on an equal plane and allows for more robust participation by all, regardless of seniority. Discussions and even debates flourish. Somehow, seeing your boss as a small square on a screen doesn’t quite affect you as much as he does when he’s standing two feet away. With more robust discussions, participants delve deeper into the content and gain a more profound understanding of the materials.
Huddled together on a single monitor, participants have many opportunities to share insights. And because the fear is oftentimes absent when they’re online, they’re brave enough to speak up. Encouraged by the design of the programme, senior and junior employees from all levels of Company X share what they’ve learnt in the context of their work experience. It helps that, in virtual training, participants don’t feel like they have to stand in front of the crowd to deliver a speech that needs to impress. This mixed-level sharing enriches the learning experience, making the knowledge that they’ve learnt relatable, relevant, and actionable while helping to grow awareness and empathy towards their colleague’s needs and challenges.
It was rewarding to watch participants get that ‘aha’ moment as they listened to their higher-ups at Company X share their frustrating experiences of waiting for emails that never materialised. It was this ‘aha’ moment that helped them to improve their email communication habits.
Huddled together in virtual training
3. There’s a possibility for deeper engagement
Instead of ending up in familiar cliques, in virtual learning environments, people are nudged to interact with others outside of their comfort groups (in the guise of completing their activities). Although the resulting connections may appear superficial, we have participants at Company X who express their appreciation because they got to know people from other units. We’ve also seen relationships blossom thanks to the common ground that they’ve established during these activity interactions.
And because people are no longer in their usual cliques, people are less likely to depend on whoever is the most capable in the group to do most of the work. In virtual learning, people are more inclined to come out of their shells. Participants work beyond the comfort of their functions and roles. Case in point: in a virtual workshop, we’ve had technicians attempt to use the Fishbone Diagram for their root-cause analysis, the same tool used by the heads of departments of the organisation. On the other hand, in face-to-face training, these same participants were mostly seen ‘hiding’.
But, as engaging as virtual training can be, there’s one place that virtual training could not compete with face-to-face training, and that’s the social element.
The Social Element
Activities are more fun in their physical form: people are more spontaneous, there’s energy in the room, and there are a lot more interactions between participants.
Meeting other participants in the flesh allowed for opportunities to connect beyond the content of the programmes. Whereas in the virtual learning environment, interactions are more programme-oriented, and it’s rare to have spur-of-the-moment conversations. But depending on the nature of the programme, this could work as a benefit or a distraction.
So What’s Best for You? Face-to-face or Virtual Training?
While it’s easy to see why people miss face-to-face training, the pandemic has brought upon some previously undiscovered opportunities found in virtual training. Below are some aspects to consider when selecting training modes:
1. When to choose virtual training:
- When you want the design of the programme to be reflective and you want your participants to explore and discover the content through conversations and interactions.
- When you want your programmes to include deep discussions and discourse.
- When you have participants who enjoy the intellectual aspects of the content and are eager to dive into the depths of a subject.
- When face-to-face training will create a significant environmental footprint (e.g. when participants have to fly in from different cities) and sustainability is a core value in your organisation.
2. When to choose face-to-face training:
- When content delivery is more linear.
- When the programme requires physical activities.
- When you have participants who relish the social elements of training.
As we begin to revisit our previous training norms, it’s useful to avoid falling into the assumptions of what we previously knew about training. The truth is that there is an alternative way to deliver programmes effectively. So instead of asking ‘when’ you should go back to face-to-face training, you should instead ask, ‘why’.
The author, Lee Choong Yin is a learning and development specialist at People Potential. He’s served and worked with multiple NGOs locally and internationally, having spent a significant part of his life in Kampong Speu (Cambodia) working with more than 50 villages in the areas of education; water and sanitation; food banks; and sustainable agriculture, while working with survivors of HIV/AIDS. His diverse background makes him a different kind of facilitator: he sees nuances, appreciates complexity, and can distinguish patterns in complex situations. He works hard to grasp where his learners are, and what they need, to deepen their learning.
If you’re considering whether your organisation should continue with virtual training or shift back to face-to-face training, talk to us about the benefits of both. Email Mints at: [email protected]