… What went wrong … and what to do about it.

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?

During the programme

• What are some of the informal support structures and processes to ensure continual ongoing support by peers/mentors after the formal training programme has finished?
• How easily accessible and timely is the support available to participants and their managers? What if external training providers are used?
• Does the training programme ‘dove-tail' or ‘fit' with the other training programmes being run in the organisation?
• Where does this particular training fit in the overall developmental picture of staff in the organisation?
• What measures are put in place for ongoing individual mentoring, coaching, feedback and learning planned, monitored and measured?
• Is the application of the knowledge learned focused back into the culture of the organisation or is this a ‘generalist' approach?
• What feedback mechanisms are in place for participants' direct reports and team members to give them feedback on the growth/development/application?
• Are there reward and recognition processes in place that support the learning, risk-taking and achievements of the participants?

Post programme

• Are the participants involved in the ongoing assessment and development of the programme at Kirkpatrick levels 2, 3 and 4?
• Do the participants get invited back to the programme as mentors of later participants or to present case studies of their learnings and successes and mistakes?
• As the participants progress after their training, are they invited to give any feedback to modify and further improve/develop the ongoing programme?
• Is the programme regularly reviewed to ensure an ongoing match between the business goals and the planned growth and development of the organisation?
• Outside the training room, who else can add valuable insight into the outcomes of the training? What about the managers of the learners? What about co-workers? What about customers?
• What sort of reporting is currently used? Are evaluations reported to the proper people in the organisation? What decisions are made about the training programme as to its worth or value to the organisation?
• What evidence you do have that the learner has achieved competency in a particular skill or knowledge back at the workplace? How do you assess for this evidence?
• Is assessment made a valuable part of the ongoing process of training?
• Is feedback provided to the learners, assuming that assessment activities are carried out?
• If assessment is carried out as a matter of procedure after training, who does it? Is the trainer involved? Is feedback given to the learner's manager?

I believe that if a learner likes and enjoys a training programme, this does not guarantee that learning has taken place. I have also learnt that the demonstration of learning in the training room does not guarantee that new learning is later applied back on the job.

So in what other ways can we make training work? For training to be worth anything, learning that occurs off the job must be implemented when the learner returns to the job. The organisation must involve all concerned, and especially the trainer, to assist in meeting the post-course needs of learners. In the same way that you would expect a surgeon to carry out regular checks on the post-operative needs of a patient, so we must give the ‘after-sales service' of training. And, in addition, the only true test of competencies is assessment in the workplace.

Very often, I find that learners learn material in the classroom but fail to apply or improve their performance on the job. This is called encapsulation of training – the training is not released but contained in a capsule, and not applied to the work situation. Why is this? It could be a supervisor's or peer's resistance to change, inflexibility in the system, a lack of motivation, a poorly designed learning experience that does not transfer the learning back onto the job, or even the inability of the learner to cope with the tension produced by change. Whatever the cause, encapsulation is one of the major reasons why training doesn't work and training therefore fails to produce results.

Rewards are important to everyone, but if rewards are not in the learner's working environment to reward the extension of new behaviours beyond the training room, again, training doesn't work. Sometimes these new behaviours are punished, for example, by sarcastic comments made by subordinates, peers or even by defensive supervisors!

So what else can we do to ensure that training works? I suggest we look at follow-up programmes that are comprehensive and planned, involving the trainer/s and others in the process. Some examples of follow-up activities include group workplace projects, individual workplace projects, action plans, individual guidance, coaching or mentoring, formal sessions, bringing in guest speakers, seminars and other workshops to extend the knowledge of learners while reiterating the core concepts of the training.

This would avoid ‘spaghetti training', ie one-off training that is like throwing spaghetti onto the wall and hoping that some learning sticks!

©Mindset Media Pty Ltd – All rights reserved

About Ricky

Ricky specialises in programmes for individuals and organisations on communication skills. Ricky has breakthrough practices for creativity in all human enterprises. He enters into a high energy dynamic partnership with his participants. His genius for creating innovative paradigms for personal and professional fulfillment is unexcelled.

He is a professional speaker on change, customer satisfaction and communication skills. He also provides executive speech coaching and sales training.

Ricky is based in Sydney and works in the South East Asian region.
http://www.mindsetmedia.com.sg