While it is relatively easier to provide tools and impart skill during a training programme, bringing attitudinal changes and imparting knowledge are challenging issues. A good combination and convergence of all these four elements in a training session would only be able to lift performance. An effective training program needs to focus on all these four elements in its design and implementation to avoid the pitfalls mentioned in the article.

This article outlines the colossal waste of time, energy, and money in school districts across the country. Training and so-called professional development for most, is nothing more than a “get away” from the grind. Urban education and school turnaround efforts would benefit mightily from a coherent professional development and training approach that emphasizes building internal capacity and knowledge sharing. Unfortunately, this is not how people in education roll.

Keeping the Dreyfus model of skill acquisition in mind, the matrix to motivate people from novice to expert has proven to be most effective in my management consulting experience.

It is quite a challenge to keep the team positive when we hit the bottom of Virginia Satir’s model on progression of change. Unfortunately, there is no silver bullet to address all concerns around training people and coaching them for change and optimization.

Teams have to be motivated by identifying the individual passions of most of the team members and then tailoring the change programmes accordingly. This helps in steering the thought process of individuals and teams towards a strategically aligned direction.

Rob Brinkerhoff and I wrote about these issues in our 1994 book, The Learning Alliance: Systems Thinking in Human Resource Development. At the time, we were estimating that only 10% to 20% of training is applied to achieving business results. It appears that not much has changed in the past 16 years. That’s a sad comment on the field.

There are many comments here that I have to completely agree with, especially from those who want to chase (most) learning out of the classroom. Kevin Avery’s comments about his program of mentored learning-by-doing at Cisco are particularly refreshing.

But sadly, it seems to me that many companies don’t know how to make this happen. They still see training (as opposed to learning) as something that is ‘done’ to their people. It is managed as a discrete activity and measured in training days and instant feedback scores.

And this leads me on to my only beef about your article. The paragraph on measuring impact starts by saying that ‘measuring impact seems basic.’ Well the principle may be, but its application is certainly not. As someone rather clever once said: ‘not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted’.

For relatively straight-forward tasks, measuring performance improvement is not so difficult. But when it comes to tacit interactions—a topic covered in depth elsewhere in your publication—it is often next to impossible to directly connect learning with meaningful and measurable outcomes.

The class room and chalk & talk training methods hardly sustain and the retention rate is low. The absorption rate is poor. Application-oriented training blended with simultaneous mock drilling would perhaps enhance the effectiveness of the training input. The training should be made purely optional and need/demand based and any thrusted training is a waste of resources.

Shifts in individual performance need a behavioral scaffold for the individual employee and the work unit. It’s easy to send people to training. It’s much more meaningful to involve them in finding the barriers to high quality achievement, and creating the coaching environment that replaces the barriers with new patterns of thinking and action embedded in the work. Formal training doesn’t work because no one is accountable for the behavior changes that matter.

A couple of other points that could be borne in mind:
1. Where does this training feature in terms of the preferred future skill set of the individual?
2. Is there a sense of dissatifaction in the individual with the present?
Exploring these questions through a dialogue with the individuals (intending to go on training) and bringing the training to the “context” of the individual will, in my view, greatly enhance the impact.

Leveraging off Charles Jenning’s point on breaking free of the course mindset and most learning is on the job, perhaps the answer is specific training provided in the workplace environment. The ascendance of impactful online training may be the key to successfully embedding learning at the pace the individual needs it to improve job performance.

Training is a hammer that organizations know how to swing. Despite training (alone) being (well-documented as) unsuitable for various needs, the existence of an internal training organization—along with typical activity-masquerading-as-success metrics—makes this sort of waste a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Outside of our formal training organization, I designed, drove creation of, and have been running a program seeking to convert successful ($200K+/yr) technology salespeople to a discovery-based, consultative approach. We’re taking a radically different, learn-by-mentored-doing approach, chiefly because we embraced the brutal reality that successful people have little motivation for change. Implication: plausible upside is necessary but not sufficient. Successful people also require low risk, and training cannot address risk. For this reason, we provide only a thin slice of training around the big ideas (mindset plus “practical finance”), complemented by a less-is-more array of tools with super-strong usage context—wholly aimed at achieving milestones in the selling process—and expert mentoring which allows them to build comfort and confidence with new mindset and associated skills without personal or execution risk.

There’s a great HBR article called Deep Smarts that provides academic support for what I drew from experience working on this problem for the last 15 years.

Pilot Metrics: $50M and counting of competitve displacement, plus salespeople opting in, tell me we’re succeeding.

Now can someone help me overcome top management ADD and ready acceptance of artificial limits on the possible?

A good article. In addtion, companies could also look at alternative methods of learning beyond the classroom by using the 70:20:10 model where 70% of the learning could take place on the job, 20% through assigned projects or by individual coaching and mentoring, and 10% in the classroom. While most conceptual knowledge is acquired in the classroom, the employees may internalise the learning better by applying the skills and competencies in the work situation and then reflecting on their experience.

Bob Dick’s comment mirrors my own thoughts. The article provides good advice to help make training ‘stick’, but doesn’t move that little bit forward to break free of the ‘course’ mindset. Most learning that workers carry out in order to do their jobs effectively, they achieve whilst doing their jobs. An effective strategy for supporting workplace learning in context will always trump away-from-work training. In the 21st Century, work and learning are merging. We should be exploiting that, not making better carriage wheels.

As a corporate trainer/executive coach, here are the two biggest problems I see. 1) Many companies are adverse to surveying/assessing upfront. And, 2) usually there is very little assessment of prevailing mindsets, which, as the authors state, prohibits good training from ‘sticking.’

Oh...and a third: most managers, if they are in the room/on the Web with their people, are there in body only—minds disengaged.

I, too, am reluctant to take on a client where the manager says, “Fix my broken people.” I typically find it is them who needs the most help.

This article brings out some important issues in creating value from training. Some practical aspects which can also be kept in mind include:

Make the Trainee a Trainer:
Encourage personnel attending training programs to share what they have learnt with their colleagues who have not attended the same program. Apart from enhancing the learning in the organisation this also encourages employees to pay more attention to the trainings they attend.

Implementation Plans
Trainees should make a plan of action on what learnings from the program can be implemented. Tracking these, in a time-bound manner, will encourage better utilisation of these learnings.

Impact Measurement, which the article has appropriately mentioned, rounds off the value add.

Research conducted by Fort Hill Company (Wilmington DE) and described in Pfeiffer’s Six Disciplines of Breakthrough Learning shows that training professionals believe that as much as 80% of all learning goes unapplied. This unused training can be viewed as “learning scrap,” or product that doesn’t meet specifications and must be discarded.

Talking to executives and managers about an 80% scrap rate in learning helps them appreciate the unacceptable waste that is being tolerated in their organizations and how important it is to make driving down the scrap rate a top priority. Where would Fed Ex be if only 20% of their packages arrived on time? On the other hand, where might we be if we could get six sigma principles earnestly applied to training, with a goal of only one failure in every 300,000?

It’s also critical that training goals and objectives be in alignment with overall business strategy. If trainees understand that their performance can impact the bottom line, then they will be more engaged. It also promotes the idea of “ownership” of individual performance.

I agree that standardizing training diminishes efficacy. In our experience, private training over a 3 to 6 month period is best for lasting behavioral change.

I am Director of a Chicago-based coaching and training firm. Comparing October 2009 to October 2010, we’ve seen a 60% increase in corporate requests for private coaching for strong performers. Companies see this as a way to reward and incent their strong performers and are willing to pay the price for select individuals.

It’s been a number of years since I left the ranks of independent consulting to return to education, but I see the same basic problems still existing today that were present when I was actively in the field. As I interact with both retail and manufacturing/wholesale organizations, I see little change at the top. In fact, a new factor has entered the environment to a much greater extent than it was present 20 years ago, the temporary CEO. Today CEO’s are more prone than ever to see themselves in their position for only a short time (3-5 years), so they are prone to look for only short-term solutions. Fewer and fewer senior managements are creating long-term plans for their organizations using the excuse that “things are changing too quickly”. All good training must begin with a solid, long-term plan for the organization, and a senior management totally steeped in understanding and implementing that plan.

I refused to work with any organization whose senior management did not actively participate in the training. The highest level executive that had any role in the decision-making coming out of that training was expected to participate in it fully. He did not leave to take calls, put out fires, or conduct any of his normal duties. His secretary rescheduled appointments, and served as a buffer taking messages until the end of the training day. He was a “full” participant, and when he walked out of that room, he could make a learned decision as to whether the training was on target, and whether it really met the needs of the company/project. Every person down the line that would have any input to the implementation of the training was in the training. The role of each was fully explored, and each understood how his role affected all the other roles above and below him/her.

A fundamental method of measuring was set up before the training began. As the training was implemented, measuring was adjusted based on the results expected.

These authors give a good outline of the problems that training faces. The key to recognizing what training is needed, though, lies with the management team. They must fully identify the problem they need to deal with. As to what the training is, and who administers it, they must also decide.

I recommend looking around for outstanding performers within your own organization, evaluate them for their ability to transmit to others what they do, and use them at every opportunity before you bring in outsiders. They understand the nature of the organization, the culture of the organization, and they have a greater desire for the organization to succeed than any outsider could ever have.

A good consultant is a consultant, who starts out from day one to work himself/herself out of a job as quickly as possible. If you use an outsider, this is the type to look for.

Excellent article, and an issue which is not focused on properly. In risk management, the focus is on imparting training, however very little focus is on ensuring that the training is actually put in practice. And risk managers are concerned that their efforts are not having any impact. I think the suggestions given here should help them.

In our experience, the biggest challenge for training is that subject matter experts (SME) are being put into training positions and, although they have expertise in their field, they are unfamiliar with how to design training to be measurable. In addition, they rarely understand enough about analysis to be able to ensure training content is applicable.

We promote an accountability metric which requires managers who request the training to be active participants in the design of the program and in the measurement of transfer. Since a comparison between a training post test and a transfer test can show retention/use of the newly gained knowledge, skill, or attitude, the manager is held accountable for losses between the post test and transfer tests. This accountability has had several benefits, one of the most important has been more time is being given to conduct training and programs have been much more applicable to required outcomes.

As your article points out, support of senior leadership is essential. We have found our greatest success comes from introducing our program at this level. Often trainers do not want their work to be measured even if their program budgets have been cut to the point where their courses have limited chance of being successful. They fear measurement will only add to their budget cuts. However, when a program of measurement is introduced at the senior level much of the resistance goes away. Trainers are willing to do the work to create these types of programs if they believe senior leadership will support the effort.

We have found two important things:
• Requiring instructional designers and managers to identify key performance indicators (KPIs) when they create a course has helped organizations to focus on results and identify their training analytics. Once KPIs are determined, they easily correlate to organizational metrics.
• Teaching an organization the process of measurement is not enough. Tools are needed to support the organization through the steps and to “drive the process”. If you follow the process and have the tools, you are able to provide dynamic feedback on learning and provide reports to senior management on the results. Tools are important to ensure the process “sticks” and lasting improvements are made.

Without being able to show behavior changes and subsequent changes to the organization, leadership will never be able to accurately use training as a predictor of outcome or a method to execute strategy. I have hope that given the right tools organizations will follow the processes you outlined in your article and the training profession will embrace accountability.

Training is a vital part of any organization, it’s true that there are varying types of training depending on where the focus of the training lies. But many organizations—and more so managers—tend to take training as a liability rather than an opportunity to groom, teach, or develop the workforce. It’s in the mind set; if the teacher does not believe in his/her teachings, the student will not be any better.

What’s required is constant focus and changing training modules as per the situations need, the toughest challenge is to arouse a genuine acceptability to change and better one’s performance.

This article has brought out beautifully all the practical difficulties that stand in the way of making a training program a hit. Training is successful only when the trainees are successful in practicing the newly acquired skills in their job. Learning is not practicing. And practicing is not completely in an individual’s hands; it depends on one’s unit leader, mind set, and environment. Trainees should be given incentives to practice their new skills on their jobs. This incentive doesn’t need to be in the form of monetary benefits. In fact, to be effective, incentives should be in the form of support from their superiors and conducive milieu to practise their new skill.

The findings on relevance of corporate training programmes are something most companies already know but find difficult to implement beyond a certain point, universally. My experience while leading business excellence training in an organisation suggests that the initial first batch of any training programme is the brand ambassador for the subsequent batches to follow. In addition to what the article suggests, I recommend the following:

- Network the participants of each training batch by letting them choose an identity name—one batch chose “path breakers,” for example—and an informal leader within the group chosen by the group, who then becomes the single point of free discussion/chat or enable meetings on a free-flow basis after the training.

- The suggestions and observations that the participants wish to share on the effectiveness of the skills and methods learnt while they apply the same in work place are circulated to all group members, not necessarily through the typical HR channel.

- The trainer tracks the good suggestions/effectiveness and at least once a month nudges the concerned business heads of that SBU to take note in a positive manner as it shows results. This builds the informal leader of the training group through forums/referrals/meetings and the trainee’s leader if he or she is showing improvement.

- Each participant chooses very practical improvement projects without too much jargon and attempts to reduce the PONC (price of non-conformance) in his/her business area against a specific reduction target (not necessarily zero defect to start with).

- Every quarter these cross-functional training participants meet/discuss/chat and carry forward the connection.

- On-the-spot awards within the departments/shopfloor recognition informally instead of yearly/sixmonthly functions to reward the ones that made a difference, even marginally.

As a training and performance improvement consultant, I am acutely aware of the lack of formal needs assessments and the lack of measuring results beyond the “smile” sheets.

One problem is that it is very easy to cut corners due to time and budgetary constraints, yet very easy to point the fingers at training for the subsequent failures or mediocre results.

This is a situation that should be familiar to management consultants, where they experience the same kind of management sabotage and scapegoating.

Over the years I have learned to read signs of hidden agendas, but this has also resulted in considerably less work, which is corroborated by your statement that 70% of organizations are not measuring.

This means most companies are only paying lip service to training (for appearance, likely).

Generally this starts at the top: If top level executives are not willing to submit themselves to the training programs of their employees, this sends a powerful message to middle managers that training is only for the plebes.

In fact the best way to improve performance buy-in is to make the CEO and the exec VPs take the training.

I agree with almost everything the article says. I wonder, therefore, why not take the next small step to ask: for most learning needs, why use training? Why not design an intervention to address the learning shortfall?

For those who find these arguments compelling, buy and read Bob Mager’s book What Every Manager Should Know About Training. It’s tone can be a little harsh at times but the content is pure gold.