When “On-the-Job Training” Becomes a Liability

Most repair facilities believe they already have a training system. In reality, what exists is often a loose collection of habits, assumptions, and workarounds that only function when the right people are present.

An image of a modern school

Understanding "On-the-job training"

“On-the-job training” is not inherently flawed. In the right conditions, it can be one of the most effective ways to develop technicians. Learning alongside experienced peers, seeing real work performed correctly, and applying knowledge immediately all have clear value.

The problem is that those conditions are rarely defined.

In many shops, OJT operates without shared standards, without protected time, and without clarity around who is responsible for instruction. Training depends on availability rather than intent. Knowledge transfer varies from person to person. Expectations are implied, not stated. This creates a fragile environment.

New or transitioning technicians are expected to perform while they learn, often without a clear understanding of what “good” looks like. Questions are answered inconsistently. Corrections happen after mistakes rather than before work begins. Over time, technicians stop asking questions. This is not because they’ve mastered the work, but because the cost of asking becomes too high.

What looks like competence on the surface is often silent disengagement underneath.

When OJT works, it is supported by structure: clear expectations, consistent methods, and leadership that understands the difference between development and production. When those elements are missing, OJT becomes a liability rather than an asset.

The impact shows up gradually. Experienced technicians become resentful of carrying informal training responsibilities. Less experienced technicians feel exposed and unsupported. Both groups feel the system working against them.

Another factor is rarely acknowledged: technical competence and teaching ability are not the same skill. Some technicians, regardless of tenure, are excellent at their work but poorly suited to mentoring others. Others may be willing but lack the communication skills or patience required for effective instruction.

When training responsibility is assigned by availability rather than aptitude, both sides suffer. The trainee receives inconsistent guidance, and the mentor feels trapped in a role they were never equipped or supported to perform.

Training failures rarely announce themselves as training problems. They surface as rework, tension, burnout, and eventually attrition.

Until training is treated as an intentional system—rather than an assumption placed on whoever is nearby—shops will continue to lose capable technicians they believed were being developed.