You've been trained, now perform...if only it were that EASY

Training budgets are usually the first to be slashed when it's crunch time for companies. The reason most often cited is that the Returns of Investment (ROI) in training is dismally poor. This perception is worsened by a variety of factors such as organisational turf battles, responsibility for training being subsumed under the Human Resources portfolio etc. It certainly does not help that most people have the perception that training is the miracle cure to every organisational problem. It isn't, in fact, training must often be supported by other organisational improvements for the desired outcomes to surface.

The analogy we always give is that training is akin to buying seed to transform your yard into a prize-winning garden. Although you've bought the seed, you would need to ensure that the soil is of the right composition and to make sure that the saplings are well-protected from pests and weather hazards. You'd certainly need time to teach others who are assisting you, to tend to the plants with the same care.

Hence, a few key questions need to be answered at the client-end, to help translate training room learning into operational results:

1. Is the problem one that can be solved by training?

Is the problem a result of inherent structural impediments which if removed, would not require training? For instance, are sales contracts being communicated by the Sales Manager to after-sales service and production departments to make sure that key departments know contractual obligations to clients.

2. What results are anticipated from the training?

While all training should ultimately lead to a rise in organisational profitability or effectiveness, it's critical that specific targetted attitudes, skills and knowledge are identified for decision-makers, gate-keepers and consultants. Such a focus puts the key people on the same page, so that when internal marketing goes out to potential participants, no conflicting messages are sent. Should the latter happen, it certainly would have negative effects on the overall success of the training programme.

3. How are results being measured?

Clarity about results requires an equivalent emphasis on the clarity of the measurement systems for success. Kirkpatrick's 4-tiered model of training evaluation showcases the different forms of results and how these are measured. Essentially, his model shows an inverse relationship between data-centric measures and the penetration of training within the organisation. Do all who need to know, know about what results are targetted and how they are measured? If results are to be mapped over time, is there a roadmap for guidance?

4. How is the technology being embedded within the organisation?

Undergoing training is equivalent to buying a new technology. Like we said earlier, it's not enough buying seed. Is there a team championing the use of the technology? Are they suitably trained to handhold the rest? How are key gatekeepers involved in the embedding process? What other organisation-wide innovations or concerns might distract champions or end-users? Are there incentives to promote staff application of the technology?

These questions point to the reality of why it is often wrong to believe that training leads automatically to higher performance.

Noel Tan

Resident Philosopher

(* All text is copyright of Trailblazer Trainers Pte Ltd)