Hi Su,
Can't really comment about other companies' inductions, but from personal experience (when I worked for a big company :-) one of the biggest training benefits was the simple fact that I got a chance to meet people from other offices. Under normal circumstances I might never have met them, so induction and core training provided an opportunity to get to know people.
On the other hand, it's important to realise that training should only be offered when it is going to add some value to either the employee's careers or their productivity with regard to their jobs. So, there's no point putting someone on a course just to 'put a tick in a box' if that course is of no relevance.
Where induction is concerned, though, I assume you mean basic training, which will offer candidates at least a certain, known, competency within the organisation. If it's pretty basic, you probably want to make it fun as it may well be 'teaching Granny to suck eggs' for some people.
I personally believe that a successful training strategy is borne of timely, well-matched courses and seminars relating to an individual, not a role. The success of training is as much a factor of the company's attitude to training as it is to the quality of thetraining itself - after all, many companies insource/outsource training to third parties, e.g. QA training, Learning Tree, etc., and gain differing results.
A positive organisational attitude to training will rub off onto staff. If training is offered grudgingly, it can demotivate. But be warned, training for training's sake is perhaps a 'cul de sac' off the road to happy, skilled and motivated personnel.
I don't think this answers your question as such, but at least it gives you perhaps an alternative viewpoint.
John |