Training – an act of faith?
Training has been described as “an act of faith” from organisations – training and development programmes are delivered in the hope, rather than the certainty, that they will deliver increased performance.
So perhaps it's time to be clear. Firstly, there is little unequivocal evidence to show that training increases performance in organisations – not, perhaps, because it doesn't, but because it's so difficult to measure. Many organisations don't even take the basic step of defining and agreeing training objectives for participants. Measuring impact is a long term, not short term exercise.
There are also a number of sometimes erroneous assumptions about “doing training” – for example, that the performance issues are with the individuals , rather than the organisation.
Other assumptions are that the training being given will improve performance. Research has shown that training needs for employees, worked out with managers in appraisal sessions, often are more reflective of the manager's training needs than those of the employee!
So if training is commissioned on incomplete information and not strongly linked to the organisation's business objectives – it's hardly surprising that the benefits it yields can be ill-defined.
In addition, there are a number of assumptions which are rarely challenged about why training is done at all. For example, a major assumption is that training is used to train people…..not always so. It can be used for a variety of organisational objectives, including communication, awareness of issues (diversity training would be a good example here), to promote the image of a decent employer (Investors in People is often seen as a good “badge” to have), and as a perk (time away from the office).
Conversely, training can also be seen by the people who attend training courses as a punishment – where workloads are not juggled to make time to be away from the office and where there is little discussion before or after the training to ensure any learning is used. How many people go on training courses and never use the skills they're supposed to have acquired but keep the manuals gathering dust on the shelf?
As experienced trainers, fe 3 consulting has put together a list of ten top tips – not on how to organise the perfect training, but to help you think through the implications of “doing training” in your organisation.
- Training, if successful, means change, often pushed from lower down the organisation. How far do your senior management understand this?
- Why are you doing this training? Be honest. Is it as a reward? To improve performance? Because it's expected of an organisation of your size? To demonstrate that someone needs “improvement”? Understanding the real reasons behind training can help you manage expectations.
- There is little hard evidence that large numbers of employers accept the importance of training to organisational performance. You can tell the organisations which don't count training as important, where participants leave to take calls from the office or where senior managers ignore the fact that employees are, to all intents and purposes, unavailable. Does this sound like your organisation?
- Training does not always equate to “training course”. Conducting more rigorous training needs analysis will help define the requirements – to make sure that training is in fact the answer to the needs of the organisation, that you're providing the right training in the first place, and that it is directed at the right people, in the right format.
- Involve the participants in defining the solution. They'll know better than you can what they need to work more effectively. Are you sure your trainers are speaking THEIR language?
- For training to be successful employees must feel encouraged and empowered to apply what they've learned. This requires organisation-wide support, not just day release from your desk. Is this understood?
- Any skill, from managing people to playing tennis, requires practice to maintain it and develop it further. Participants need specific opportunities to try out their skills. It might mean that thing take longer to do the “new way” – it may be that performance goes DOWN after training as people strive to put their new skills into operation. How clear do you make this to line managers?
- We think that organisations who adopt their brand values through the organisation have some advantages. For example, training organised to support delivery of the brand values supports the commercial activity of the organisation – which should mean greater support at senior management level
- In addition, if the culture is developed to support the values, there should be fewer issues with the transfer of learning back into the workplace
- Training is only part of the story - Academics believe that training has limited ability to generate competitive advantage in isolation, but needs to be linked to other HR practices to yield benefits. Is your training strategy linked to performance management practices, reward, recognition and succession planning?
Back
