CHAPTER 3
Learning Styles and Training Styles in a Multi-Cultural Setting

Much of management training in France tends to be in the form of lectures requiring considerable attention from participants, with questions allowed at the end of the presentation. Participants feel privileged to receive training from respected authorities knowledgeable in the subject and believe that the responsibility for understanding and learning from them is theirs alone. In the USA the process tends to be much more interactive, with trainees feeling they have a right to influence and input into the training they receive. In this situation the learning is largely on the shoulders of the trainer, with attendees feeling a responsibility to help the trainer to help them.

In this chapter we will attempt to answer these questions by looking at some theories of learning and training and relating them to Hofstede's cultural dimensions.

What are 'learning styles'?

How do different cultures learn? Is there any difference in the learning process or styles? The Learning Skills Research Centre (LSRC) has produced an important research paper (available at www.lsda.org.uk) in 2004 which lists 13 different learning styles models, with a critique of each. Of these, the one with which readers are likely to be most familiar is the Honey and Mumford learning styles framework. Although the LSRC report is critical of the apparent lack of empirical research carried out to substantiate this model to date, its wide usage has led us to choose it as a basis for relating learning styles to cultural styles. For those who wish to refresh their knowledge, it is summarized in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Honey and Mumford learning styles

Training styles

Although best known for their work on learning styles, Honey and Mumford have also developed a similar classification for training styles: Activist, Reflector, Theorist and Pragmatist. Each of us tends to have one or two dominant training styles which we feel most comfortable in using. Naturally, we perform better with trainees with the same learning styles.

Activists

Trainers who are Activists like the limelight and want to be inspirational. They are energetic and enthusiastic, welcoming new challenges and experiences and do not shy away from taking risks. They seek a high degree of audience involvement and use participative exercises. Experimenting with new materials and training methods is a way of maintaining their interest in the training process, particularly in a subject that they have delivered many times. They use humour and give entertaining presentations, pushing participants to try new things and to keep up. Sticking to time is not a strength and they tend to be flexible, happy to go with the flow and react to the participants' requirements. This may mean that they do not adhere rigidly to the agenda and may omit parts of the programme and bring in additional materials. They like to move about, get 'stuck in', try things out and participate. They are less interested in what has happened in the past or in putting things into a broader context. They are primarily interested in the here and now. Detail is not a strong point; they prefer to see the bigger picture.

Reflectors

Trainers who are Reflectors prepare carefully and like to think about things in detail before taking action. They take a thoughtful approach and encourage participants to do the same. They are good listeners and do not hog the limelight. They reflect on, and make good use of, their personal experiences. Their feedback to participants is objective and non-judgemental and their facilitation unobtrusive. Helping trainees explore options rather than provide answers comes naturally to them. They prepare in detail and often build in pre-course work for the participant. Sometimes they can appear to be a little slow, indecisive and lacking authority.

Theorists

Trainers who are theorists like to see how things fit into an overall pattern. They are logical, analytical and objective. They prefer a sequential approach to problems and frequently use flow charts, boxes and arrows to illustrate points. Models and theories attract them. They are analytical, pay great attention to detail, spell things out precisely and tend to be perfectionists. Usually they believe that there tends to be one correct answer and it can be arrived at by analysing the facts and data. Unlike Activists, they respect the timetable and will stick to it. They dislike uncertainty and prepare thoroughly. Trainers who are theorists thrive when working with participants who are challenging and questioning and of whom they will ask insightful and probing questions. On the negative side they can appear to be distant from reality, adopting an 'ivory tower' approach, and can be pedantic.

Pragmatists

Trainers who are Pragmatists relate the application of the training directly to the issues faced by participants in their daily roles, offering guidelines and implementation tips. As practical and down-to-earth people they like to use case studies and share concrete techniques. They offer themselves as role-models and do not ask the trainees to do anything that they cannot do. Developing skills is seen as being important so that new knowledge can be applied. At the end of a course they will encourage the participants to develop an action plan to implement their learning.

Learning styles, training styles and culture

Hofstede's cultural classification provides a generalized framework which gives a good overall picture but may not apply to any particular individual. The same is therefore true in drawing some generalized conclusions on the preferred learning styles of different cultures as shown in Table 3.1. Indeed, in practice, a trainer should structure the learning process to appeal to all four different learning styles. However, in deciding which to emphasize the following framework may be useful.

Table 3.2 would suggest that Activists are well represented amongst low power distance and high individualism cultures such as the USA and other Anglo-Saxon countries and in Central and Northern Europe, although not France or Belgium. Reflectors can frequently occur in low masculinity and low uncertainty avoidance cultures such as Denmark and Sweden. Theorists are well represented in cultures with high power distance and high uncertainty avoidance such as some Central and South American countries. Finally, Pragmatists are prevalent in low individuality and high masculinity cultures such as Central America, and Asian countries such as Hong Kong, Japan and Pakistan.

Table 3.2 Relating Hofstede's cultural dimensions to preferred learning styles

Increasing the sensitivity of participants to cultural differences

Where training events are more than three or four days in length then it is often useful in order to improve the learning process to sensitize multi-cultural participants to each other's differences. Indeed, there will be occasions when one of the client's key objectives for a training event will be to sensitize managers to the particular challenges of working with colleagues from different national and cultural backgrounds. This can be the case where young managers enter their first job, where they will either be expected to manage a project across national boundaries or be part of a virtual team, which is spread across a region of the world or indeed the whole world. To work effectively in these circumstances managers need to understand many important aspects of cultural difference, including:

• different perceptions of the role of the leader
• different approaches to sharing information
• different degrees of 'directness' in giving instructions
• challenges of working in a second language.

Clients who have a long experience of international working will recognize that this type of learning is more likely to be achieved through structured exercises and case studies where small groups of mixed nationalities work together to solve a problem, than it is by the trainer talking with the group about the different approaches of different nationalities. The trainer would be relying on generalizations, whereas in group work participants learn to appreciate the differences that are due to national and cultural background and those that are due to differences between individual personalities.

If the client does not have any depth of international experience, this is an area where the trainer needs to influence the client to see that this is where time spent on theory should be minimal and where group work to solve simulated business problems is likely to be very productive in enhancing participants' appreciation of the different approaches of people from different cultures. The trainer needs to brief, facilitate and debrief these training sessions with a fairly light touch in order for the learning to be maximized.

Summary

The Honey and Mumford learning styles and training styles models with their four classifications - Activist, Reflector, Theorist, Pragmatist - are helpful in helping trainers realize that they need to cater for all four learning styles in delivering their materials and that they will probably feel more comfortable with one or two training styles than with the others. In Part III of this book we look at a number of training techniques that can help trainers broaden their delivery range.

Within any group of delegates from any country one would anticipate that a variety of learning styles would be represented. Relating the training/learning styles to Hofstede's model of cultural diversity, however, suggests that there may be a heavier representation of certain styles in certain countries.

Central Europe has more than a fair representation of Activist learners and, coming back to the incident recounted at the beginning of this chapter, as Activist trainers we felt very comfortable in this environment. However, we felt very uncomfortable discussing each participant in great detail with their bosses. Not only were we disappointed that what we had hoped would be a relaxing social evening with the participants had turned into a business meeting, but we also felt uncomfortable with the large number of hypothetical questions regarding the participants on which we were being asked to proffer an opinion.

However, our resulting concern that the trainees would be more guarded and regard us with suspicion the following day, wondering what we had told their bosses, proved groundless. They knew before they embarked on this training, as with any training, that the trainers would be asked for their views by their bosses. It was standard practice with which they had learned to deal.

Finally, we have highlighted the value of sensitizing multi-cultural participants to their different cultural approaches at first hand through the trainer facilitating, with a light touch, group work on simulated business problems.

By considering the issues in Table 3.3, trainers will be able to respond to the issues and adapt their training to enhance its effectiveness with international managers.

Table 3.3 Learning and training style issues