Search
Close this search box.

Why training fails when used as a tool for change

The function of Human Resources is undergoing a significant accountability crisis. HR is struggling to find a seat at the Strategy table and isn’t sitting on Finance’s right hand, as it ought to. Being a ‘business partner’ has been HR’s mantra over the last two decades, but this hasn’t exactly panned out.

The function of Human Resources is undergoing a significant accountability crisis. HR is struggling to find a seat at the Strategy table and isn’t sitting on Finance’s right hand, as it ought to. Being a ‘business partner’ has been HR’s mantra over the last two decades, but this hasn’t exactly panned out. 

HR business partnership effectively means that Human Resources has positively impacted a company’s customers and profitability. Part of this proof of impact is in the world of HR analytics, which includes metrics such as employee engagement, productivity, employee turnover, customer satisfaction and employee performance among others. Training and development has been under the HR analytics spotlight ever since Kirkpatrick introduced his 4 levels of training evaluation in the 1950s. However today in 2016, clear ROI data from training is still elusive, especially in the areas of transfer of training, i.e. applying learning back on the job. 

Even though this sounds dim, the good news is that several research studies and meta-analyses have pinpointed the source of low transfer of training. It has to do with conditions of the social environment that training overlooks. Skills will not be demonstrated as job-related behaviors or performance if employees do not have the opportunity to perform them (Arthur et al., 1998; Ford et al., 1992).  The social context and the favorability of the post-training environment play an important role in facilitating the transfer of trained skills to the job (Colquitt et al., 2000; Facteau, Dobbins, Russell, Ladd, & Kudisch, 1992; Tannenbaum, et. al, 1991; Tracey et al., 1995; Williams, Thayer, & Pond, 1991) Most training evaluation was done for off-site training; there is still a paucity of on-site training evaluation results (Arthur et. al., 2003). 

This study points to a lack of scientific research in the internal post-training environment after on-site programs such as on-the-job training. The researchers also list the lack of team training initiatives as a limitation of their study. There’s no doubt that transfer of training has been hurt by an organisation’s contextual environment. This view has been summarized well by Dr. Paul Leone, I/O Psychologist and Senior Leader of Evaluation and ROI at Verizon: “After 12 years of conducting impact and ROI studies for some of the top Fortune 100 companies in the world, it became glaringly obvious to me that the biggest factor (of low ROI in training) had little to do with the complexity of the training or the diversity of participants, and everything to do with the immediate work environments employees were returning to right after their training was done.” 

Many training initiatives fail because leaders are still resorting to them as a tool for behavior change. Below are my top 3 insights on why training shouldn’t be used for behavior change. Provided also is a taste of what I recommend and a sample of questions to assess your situation. The work environment may not support training objectives. No matter how great your training program, no matter how relevant your content, no matter how amazing your trainer, and no matter how entertaining your training session is, no change will come about if employees have to go back to an environment that does not allow them to show what they’ve learned. 

What To Do: When conducting training needs assessments, do not skip evaluating your organisational culture when undertaking a risk and resource analysis. If you answer yes to the following, this factor could be preventing training success: Does organisational politics come in the way of new behaviors? Will immediate managers discourage trainees to think and act differently? Is your organisation’s culture about low risk and late adoption? Training won’t lead to change if it does not target the group. Most training programs focus on individual development. However, if training focuses on the individual, the people he or she works with usually end up on a different page. This may unintentionally lead to team misalignment. Organisations are inclusive systems whether leaders treat them that way or not. Focusing on individuals out of the group context delays performance breakthroughs when collaboration is paramount. What To Do: Design programs that target the team as a whole because alignment and trust are what will create breakthroughs beyond individual development. 

Questions to assess your risk for this situation: Do you do the same training time and again hoping to see tiny changes? Does your training focus too much on individual rather than team/group? Even if your team is technically brilliant, how high are their trust levels? The role of Corporate Trainers does not guarantee sustainable change. Trainers no longer influence sustainable learning, change or growth. As knowledge is readily available, the need to hire specialists is dying. Information per se is not as powerful as knowing where to find information that’s relevant for right now. Empowering learners to decide for themselves what is relevant is the part of the bedrock of breakthrough change. 

What To Do: Seek or develop internal Change Agents who design and facilitate learning initiatives that empower learners more than the outside experts, trainers, speakers, etc. Assess how your current training provider fares in enabling learning and change:

Is there anything the trainer knows that your team doesn’t know already?
Does your trainer allow your team to select what they need to learn? Have trainers followed up strategically to test behavior change post-training? My burning suggestion is to relook at training success rates within your organisations and institutions. The observations I list above may provide clues to why HR doesn’t produce the analytics that business leaders need for a competitive edge. 

References
Tannenbaum, S. I., Mathieu, J. E., Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. A. (1991). Meeting trainees’ expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. Journal of applied psychology, 76(6), 759. 

Williams, T. C., Thayer, P. W., & Pond, S. B. (1991). Test of a model of motivational influences on reactions to training and learning. In Sixth Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, Missouri. 

Ford, J. K., Quin˜ones, M., Sego, D. J., & Speer Sorra, J. S. (1992). Factors affecting the opportunity to perform trained tasks on the job. Personnel Psychology, 45, 511–527. 

Facteau, J. D., Dobbins, G. H., Russell, J. E. A., Ladd, R. T., & Kudisch, J. D. (1992). Noe’s model of training effectiveness: A structural equations analysis. In Seventh Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. 

Tracey, J. B., Tannenbaum, S. I., & Kavanagh, M. J. (1995). Applying trained skills on the job: The importance of the work environment. Journal of applied psychology, 80(2), 239. 

Arthur, W., Jr., Bennett, W., Jr., Stanush, P. L., & McNelly, T. L. (1998). Factors that influence skill decay and retention: A quantitative review and analysis. Human Performance, 11, 57–101. 

Colquitt, J. A., LePine, J. A., & Noe, R. A. (2000). Toward an integrative theory of training motivation: a meta-analytic path analysis of 20 years of research. Journal of applied psychology, 85(5), 678. 

Arthur, W., Bennett, W., Edens, P. S., & Bell, S. T. (2003). Effectiveness of training in organizations: A meta-analysis of design and evaluation features. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 234 –245.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

The allyship revolution: 8 tips for building allies with impact

26 March 2024

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

University of Cambridge – Judge Business SchoolSalary: £32,332 to £38,205 pa, pro rata

University of Cambridge – Judge Business SchoolSalary: £29,605 to £33,966 pa, pro rata

University of Oxford – Blavatnik School of GovernmentSalary: Grade 5: £28,759 – £33,966 per annum (with a discretionary range to £37,099)

Software Development Director (Exec Team Seat). Remote Working with Ellesmere Port Office-Based Minimum 1 Day Per Week. + Contribution towards membership fees. £120,000 – £140,000

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE