Why
Training Doesn’t Work
…
What went wrong … and what to do about it
by Ricky Lien
Great minds at work
during a training forum
Training in industry must produce results. Just as companies do not invest money in additional plant/equipment without first working out what return they will get for the money invested, and how it will benefit the company - so investment in training also has to produce a measurable benefit.
The benefits may be measured as a contribution to the strategic goals of the organisation or they may be measured financially as a direct contribution to the profits. However they are measured, it is essential that organisations are able to determine if the training was successful, and that they are receiving an adequate return on the money invested.
Most organisations recognise the need to enhance the workplace skills of their workers to develop more skilled and willing followers. From discussions and anecdotal evidence, three of the greatest challenges faced in creating worthwhile changes are:
1 Coming up with cost-benefit ratios to justify training.
2 Validating the money invested on the training programmes into a significant long-term return on investment to the bottom line of the organisation.
3 The significant improvement of workers to continue to learn, lead, develop and grow themselves and others, over a sustained period, whilst managing and getting things done in a demanding environment.
Kirkpatrick is one of the leading authorities on workplace change after training. He suggests that there are four levels on which evaluation can be based. They are:
1 Reaction level: Trainee reactions – questionnaire forms, usually at the end of the course.
2 Learning level: Learner assessment – feedback on learning back at the workplace, work-based project.
3 Behaviour or skill change level: Monitored back on the job – observed and reports on progress – concerned with what the learner has to do in the workplace.
4 Outcome or organisational level: Concerned with the impact that training has on the organisation – impact of training – has the problem that precipitated the training been solved – long term?
Just recently, a well-known Australian organisation reviewed its leadership
training programme, one it had been undertaking for the last three years
to develop its leaders and potential leaders for the future. When they
undertook Kirkpatrick’s level 1 and 2 evaluations, things seemed
to say that the participants had a most inspirational learning event and
that everyone had an enjoyable and memorable week. But upon reviewing
levels 3 and 4 indicators, there was little joy to be had!
It wasn’t that the organisation did not know about evaluation or how to go about it. It was simply that they looked at leadership from the training perspective only, from a one-size-fits-all event rather than by linking the learning outcomes to the business outcomes, goals and vision and also to individual participant needs. With much wisdom, they have now gone back to the start to review what they need to do now to make training work.
For example, recent overseas research indicates that leading others in a successful fashion requires a high level of EQ or emotional competencies. With quite a ‘hostile’ environment of customers, colleagues, superiors, the marketplace, the environment –having internal fortitude is required even more in modern management. Leaders are now expected to do more with less, and indeed leaders are now expected to manage and lead more and more events that are full of the challenges of complexity, uncertainty, massive change, ambiguity, technology advancements, constant demands of shorter time to market and at the same time to get others excited and motivated about their roles in the organisation! So how do we ensure that training in these endeavours gets to see the light of day in new, changed behaviours back at the workplace?
Those training programmes that seem to be the most successful in allowing participants to transform their skills are those that are designed to give time to participants for review, reflection, trials and refinement. When workplace follow-up, coaching and mentoring are done as part of a long term planned process, training programmes on leadership are successful. When individuals do more than simply cramming in theory and are involved in continuing professional development with relevant skills practice, they and the organisation they work for benefit tremendously.
I have overheard some senior managers talk about training programmes in this vein: ”Well, we give them the training programme, now it’s up to them to show us what they’ve learned!” I’ve attended and been through a multitude of training programmes myself, and being told that, “It’s up to you to show your ability to make it happen” didn’t exactly help me to see that remark as a supportive statement! I don’t think anyone today would view that as a supportive statement either.
Programme designers, trainers, HR management and others who are involved with the training and development initiative in organisations need to ask more questions in order to make training work in the long-term. I would suggest that we ask more questions such as those below to establish a more rock-solid foundation for return on training investment:
Pre-programme
• Are the business goals of the organisation linked with the components of the training programme?
• How are the people selected/nominated/invited to attend? Do they have the right attitude towards learning?
• How involved and committed are senior management and the CEO to the material being taught, and to the conduct of the programme?
• Are the managers of the delegates involved? Have they undergone a management support briefing either by HR or by the trainer/s?
• What period of time is the ongoing learning and formal supportive structure made available to participants and their managers? (6 months? 12 months? 18 months? 3 years?)
• Has a proper training needs analysis been performed? How comprehensive was this, and is training the only solution to solve the problem/s?
• Are the learning outcomes appropriate for the individual, the department, the division, the organisation?