Crab - well my time is done (a little prematurely) but in my time I think I made some differences to both the usage of automation and the training for it. It was certainly an uphill struggle with resistance to change from many quarters including some crusty trainers, the older generation of pilots, and the CAA.
But for example we ceased doing a manual ILS on every check, instead doing approaches with partial automation to tick the "manual" box. That being infinitely more useful. Engine failure on takeoff after DP was presumed to be flown hands off by the automation. We started flying overlay approaches (ie coupling to FMS to fly a VOR or NDB approach down to DA (and through the missed approach)). And lots more.
It was quite interesting to see the slow but inexorable shift in line pilots' attitude from "can't I just fly it manually, it's so much easier" to loving the automation, to getting a bit close to "automation dependancy". And that of course brings up another point which is that optimising training depends amongst other things on where the company is in its cultural transformation from steam to automation, and the provenance of each pilot. So for example converting a crusty old line pilot onto the 225, nearly all the emphasis was on the systems and automation. It was presumed that they had basic flying skills. However doing a type rating on a baby CPL, one had to include lots more manual flying so that the trainee would gain confidence and skill in flying something much bigger than a Hughes 300.
So looking back on the period 2005 to 2012 which was when we got the 225 to when I had to retire, I'd say the culture regarding automation and the training for it changed dramatically in our company. Jobs like that are never complete though, but I suspect it is continuing.