EPALE - Електронна платформа за учене на възрастни в Европа

The question of the identification of need for training is an old one, to which we know the answer is neither obvious nor immediate. There's nothing immediate for the employers or managerial staff, nor is there anything immediate for those whom we ask, or who ask, to be trained.

The analysis and definition of training needs can be carried out in different ways. This article does not aim to cover that subject. It reports on the work carried out in a very small business in the hotel/catering sector, which used an approach of professional didactics to analyse the work, then designed an initiative which we shall see was both original and productive.

The business is a hotel and restaurant situated in a small spa, in a rural area. It is run by a couple, and employs a cook, a chambermaid and a waitress. The request for training arose from a simple fact: the hotel-keepers had noticed that some of their clients were coming back to the spa, but not to their hotel and wanted to improve the quality of their service. The owner felt that the ways in which the waitress and the chambermaid behaved could be improved and that a training course, within the business, was needed. She herself, who was not a hotelier, was aware of the gulf between what she was doing or asking to have done, which she felt would contribute to customer satisfaction and loyalty, and the way in which her employees were behaving.

The trainer who was called in started by taking the time to carry out a job analysis, which the owner found interesting.

• First of all, the trainer took the time to define what ergonomists call the prescribed work; in other words, what the owner expected: what the chambermaid had to do, and how and why she had to do it.
• She then carried out a work co-analysis with the chambermaid, an experienced person, whom she learned was very attached to the business and its work, and who cared about the guests even when she did not see them. It is characteristic of this type of worker to be concerned about customers whom he or she does not meet.  The trainer observed the chambermaid over two working days, which showed the what, the how and the why of what she was doing. Here again, the chambermaid worked in a systematic and logical way. She explained that she took a lot of time and trouble; too much when vacuuming, according to the owner. For the chambermaid, who was in the habit of going on holiday with her sister, when on holiday they walked and explored, and when they got back to their room they wanted to take off their shoes and walk barefoot, or in their socks or tights. If the floor was not spotless, they would notice at once because their feet or their socks would get dirty.  For this reason, the cleanliness brought about by thorough vacuuming was a criterion of quality and customer satisfaction. It was noted that it was non-professional experience as a customer and user of the service provided by a chambermaid which she was using to define her work and construct its activity.
   
   
   

The phase of training as such was carried out in the following way: the owner and the trainer were going to work with the chambermaid. The relations between the employer and her employee were good enough for this to be accepted, as a priori they had the same aim in mind.

In reality, it was a double work co-analysis and co-training which had to be carried out:

one of the success factors included something unforeseen, which arose very quickly. When the chambermaid went to clean the toilets, the owner reminded her that she must not forget the anti-limescale spray. The chambermaid turned to her, surprised, and said that as the water there was not hard at all, it was a waste of time to use an anti-limescale spray. She added that it was a waste to use it, and what was more, there was a risk of leaving a chemical odour which the guests did not like.  This fact surprised the owner, and formed an element of training for the owner herself.  She acknowledged that she was not from that area, and had not known that; she thanked the chambermaid. This reaction, both brave and unassuming, immediately changed the relationship with her employee. For the chambermaid, it showed that her working habits and her skills were appreciated. For the owner, training her employee was also training for herself, and extended beyond training to take in company practices. The training continued in this way:

• in certain cases, and for certain tasks, the employer explained what she expected, how she would do it, or what she thought if it was not well enough done (that is, in her way), then she discussed it with the chambermaid;
• usually the chambermaid made comments or explained why she was working in a particular way. After that, the owner might suggest other things, then they discussed how they could see ways of working or changes which could be made, which would work for both of them.

What were the conclusions?

• This type of approach, which could only be taken with employees with whom relations were not strained, resulted in a workplace training which involved not just one type of worker but all those concerned in work which was necessarily collective. In this case, they both learned that they could teach one another; on a return visit not long after the training session, it also showed that the professional relation had changed and, according to both people, had led to increased mutual confidence.
• Most of the time, training is defined and targeted at one working sector, as if the others, and the supervisors, were not concerned.
• Here, we could see that it was the working practices and conditions which were primarily concerned and which were the subject of reassessment and a joint reflexive analysis. Through this co-analysis and the discussions on the criteria for the quality of the work, the two involved trained each other in the workplace.

This training course was carried out by Beyan Sokhurt for her thesis for a Master's Degree in the Engineering of Vocational Training, in Dijon.