What are your thoughts about On the Job Training (OJT) vs formal training?

2014-08-24T09:16:51-04:00

Some fields rely heavily on OJT instead of more expensive formal training. I have seen OJT degenerate into a way to pass on shortcuts, poor work ethic, and general ignorance. How many 'generations' removed should OJT be used before knowledge gaps occur? (A person who is formally trained trains another, who trains another, etc.)

Response by PO3 Christopher Mcdonald made Aug 24 at 2014 9:55 AM

2014-08-24T09:55:28-04:00

There is no substitute for either. If we have a ODJ trainer that is on point and stays up to date in their feild that would be the optimal situation.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 10:09 AM

2014-08-24T10:09:52-04:00

Excellent question CPO Jon Campbell . I'm one that believes OJT is a good thing - if there is no other path available. Too many times in my career did I see some young sailor trying to get a "B" or "C" school but for one reason or another (usually command politics) there weren't enough billets available to get the sailor in the schools.

I agree - a bad set of intruction can lead to an improperly prepared tech. However, I've always wondered how the infamous shortcuts ever got started...obviously the shortcuts work or they wouldn't be passed on. Certainly I realize some shortcuts are dangerous. That reminds me of a situation on a ship I was on - the C.O. had decreed that only an electrician's mate could remove wiring from any piece of gear. Why? Because anyone without proper experience and knowlege might not test for current before disassembly. Makes sense, unless you have the pre-requisite knowlege and experience. One does NOT have to be an electrician to know how to properly ground, etc., and test with a meter on board a ship. The decree went so far as to limit the use of meters to ONLY EM's. Seriously?

But I digress. I think, if the person conducting the training (OJT) has been fully trained then, that's pretty much as far as you would want to go for anything beyond the basics or "A" school level. I certainly wouldn't want the OJT trainee to be the next instructor down the line until the OJT trainee got some formal schooling.

Response by MSG Wade Huffman made Aug 24 at 2014 11:04 AM

2014-08-24T11:04:52-04:00

OJT has always been an excellent form of training (when utilized correctly) both in the military and in the civilian sector (think apprenticeships) and have been successfully used both, in conjunction with, and in lieu of formal training depending on the job and circumstances.
Formal training is almost always preferred, at least as a 'baseline' but is not always practical.
I would state that the most important factor in the prevention of degeneration would be the selection of the trainer. As far as going generations without formal training, that would indeed become an issue, but I don't see this as a common problem. Equipment changes alone would normally require even experienced workers to receive some formal training along the way just to keep up.
Again, all generalizations here. Naturally things are much different between, say, a carpenter and a neurosurgeon. But those would be my thoughts in general.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 11:27 AM

2014-08-24T11:27:24-04:00

There is no adequate substitute for OJT training in combat medicine, triage, and surgery . . . nothing else is comparable!

You can go to any school you like, try simulators etc . . . try to save pig lives . . . but there is nothing like trying to save wounded human lives in country . . . the heat, pressure, sights, sounds, textures, and smells are overwhelming . . .

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Aug 24 at 2014 11:55 AM

2014-08-24T11:55:19-04:00

Hands on, OJT is irreplaceable as our esteemed colleagues have so excellently detailed. Many jobs also require some schoolhouse background and theory training to understand the nature of the job. In the theory of the late great George Carlin. "People we could do without:"

An EOD technician with red & blue color blindness
A mortuary affairs specialist who leaves you with, "Hope to see you again real soon"
A sailor who can only tie a slip knot
An Artillery FO with poor depth perception
A pilot/aviator with a fear of heights
A computer technician who only knows the DOS operating system
An armorer with only 3 fingers on their "good" hand
A commo specialist who thinks circuit training only applies to PT.

"that's enough of that..."

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 24 at 2014 12:47 PM

2014-08-24T12:47:02-04:00

I use both with my tactical carbine training. I also use the verbal speech/instruction method of "This is what I'm going to tell you, I'm telling you, this is what I told you" Class instruction with DVDs and airsoft, range time, a review of the range time and DVDs. Training is also modular I,II and III, with I a prerequisite for advancement. My training is inherently more dangerous than most civil training or competition so safety is always job one and that has to be hammered in before the OJT range time. I would not even think to put one on my ranges without a previous classroom grounding in safety practices. Although it is sometimes necessary for me to physically hammer it into ones head on the firing line to make a point.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 24 at 2014 12:48 PM

2014-08-24T12:48:58-04:00

This is a favorite topic if mine here in my field. Both are very important for certain MOS. Some Service Members have already hit it on the head, Medics, EOD, and few other Technical trades that require lots of OJT, and formal training. I can only speak for the Military Police field from experience. Formal training on doctoral and concurrent jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction changes with with each new location of PCS. That's something you can't learn as far as OJT, I've seen it adapted and executed better if taught through a formal environment rather than on a n actual crime scene. This is only what I know, come from my MOS and seeing it first hand.

Response by SPC Randy Torgerson made Aug 24 at 2014 1:21 PM

2014-08-24T13:21:59-04:00

Actually the quality of an education is directly attributed to the quality of the teacher. Whom ever that may be. You can be formally trained by bad teachers and information just as easily as from your TO (training officer). The same holds true in both cases. Since almost every job requires some level of OTJT a bad TO can undue a good education. A good TO can square away a bad education. I think the 2 go hand in hand.

Response by Cpl Dennis F. made Aug 24 at 2014 1:45 PM

2014-08-24T13:45:59-04:00

This is definitely BAD Juju!
An accident waiting to happen.

Response by CPO Private RallyPoint Member made May 29 at 2015 5:38 AM

2015-05-29T05:38:36-04:00

I have to agree with what most have said here. I feel both formalized training and the experience of being trained by a mentor in the field are best. I feel strongly that one without the other makes for a less qualified member. There is no substitution for experience in the field, but you really need a solid foundation in the classroom to build on for best results.

Response by PO3 David Fries made May 29 at 2015 6:11 AM

2015-05-29T06:11:54-04:00

I firmly believe that both are required to be successful in any field. As a Corpsman, first in a Hospital setting, and then with Lima 3/3, I had baseline training. Yet there are some skills that have to be learned by constant repetition. Drawing blood, starting IV's, and good bandaging are classic examples.
Every civilian job I have had also has had its share of OJT.

Response by CPO Jim Wingate made Aug 16 at 2015 6:40 PM

2015-08-16T18:40:50-04:00

I think a good mix of both can be effective. Experience actually doing the job in some cases can be better, however the by the book aspect is gone. By the book you may miss a trick to assist you getting the task done. I lean more towards experience.