Research over more than fifty years shows convincingly that training alone is ineffective in improving organisational performance.
“There is a growing recognition of a ‘transfer’ problem in organisational training today” (Baldwin and Ford, 1988).
The term ‘transfer of training’ is used frequently, and refers to “the effective and continuing application, by trainees to their jobs, of knowledge and skills gained in training – both on and off the job” (Broad & Newstrom, 1992). Swinney (1989) calls it “that almost magical link between classroom performance and something which is supposed to happen in the real world". When we can see that work behaviour has a changed as a result of training, we say that training has transferred.
However, there is little evidence in the research that training programmes transfer to the job, and result in changed behaviours in the workplace. This is particularly the case with training in conceptual, judgmental and cognitive skill areas, such as problem solving, management development, and interpersonal skills training. There is a better track record with training in procedures and motor skills. However, much corporate training is in the problem solving domain, and here the evidence is clear - most training programmes are simply a waste of time and money. Yet, organisations continue to spend enormous amounts on training hoping to produce different results.
Before we look for alternatives, it is useful to review the research that has been done on the low levels of transfer. Many people have used these research summaries to build a strong business case for alternatives to traditional training approaches, since they are credible, compelling, and persuasive.
I have drawn heavily from the research which has been summarised in Mary L. Broad’s excellent book, Beyond Transfer of Training, 2005. (Mary L. Broad is a distinguished author, international consultant, and recognised expert in the field of transfer of training.) This is certainly not an academic article, and I apologise in advance if I offend the academics.
Researchers: Fleishman, Harris, Burrt (1955)
This 1955 research study is the first to identify problems of transfer of training to performance. The focus of this research was on the desired behaviour changes following a training intervention.
The researchers performed a study of International Harvester foreman, who were trained in leadership principles and techniques. Following the training, most of the foreman exhibited the desired behaviours. However, after several months most of the foreman reverted back to their original behaviours before the training had been given. This demonstrated that even though the foreman had been trained, they failed to convert their new knowledge into actual performance on the job.
The researchers went further. They observed that the few foremen who continued to demonstrate the desired behaviours on the job, worked for supervisors that also demonstrated the desired behaviours. This observation was important in that it laid the groundwork for later researchers to show the importance of involving all stakeholders, including workers, supervisors and management in the transfer of training to improved workforce performance.
What is also significant about this study, is that the problem of transfer of training was first highlighted more than half a century ago.
Researcher: Mosel (1957)
The focus of this research was on the impact of training on workforce performance improvement. Mosel, was the first researcher to show the link between an unsupportive organisational climate and transfer failure. He concluded that training will only transfer to the extent that supervisors support and practise the same behaviours that the staff are taught. In other words, irrespective of the training, most learners will adopt the behaviour of the organisational role models in their immediate work environment. If training is not congruent with what management is informally teaching and reinforcing day by day, it will not be practiced by those returning to the work environment.
In essence, Mosel concluded that training often “makes little or no difference in job behaviour”.
Mosel's insights were largely ignored for twenty years, but during the last decade researchers have begun to recognise that learners returning to a favourable work environment are more likely to apply what they have learnt.
Researcher: Newstrom (1985)
This researcher studied the perceptions of learning professional who were members of ASTD, the world’s largest association dedicated to workplace learning and performance professionals. Obviously these perceptions don’t accurately reflect real-life case studies, but there was a commonly held belief amongst these training professionals that training was not effectively transferred to the workplace.
The perceptions were as follows:
- Only 40% of the training content was applied to the job by the learner immediately following training.
- Only 25% of the training content was still applied to the job by the learner after six months.
- Only 15% of the training content was still applied to the job by the learner after one year.
The researcher then polled the learning professionals as to why they believed that their training efforts (and spend) where not being translated into improved performance. They identified the following barriers to transfer of learning to performance:
- Lack of reinforcement by supervisors on the job.
- Difficulties in the work environment.
- Non-supportive climate in the organisation.
- Learner perceptions of new skills as impractical.
- Learner discomfort with change.
- Separation from the instructional provider.
- Poor design and delivery of training programmes.
- Negative response to new behaviours by their co-workers
Interestingly, most of the perceived barriers to transfer of learning, were factors of the work environment, and were unrelated to the training. This confirms other research by Rummler, and Brache (1995), who believe that 80% of performance problems relate to factors of the work environment.
Researchers: Baldwin and Ford (1988)
These researchers conducted a survey of the academic literature of the time on training effectiveness, and concluded that:
“not more than 10% of the estimated $100 billion spent each year on training by the American industries actually resulted in transfer to the job”.
Although some doubt has been cast on the validity of this particular statement, in terms of the exact percentage, and even on the estimated spend, it was later confirmed by Ford and Weissbein (1997).
The Baldwin and Ford literature review is very comprehensive, and contains a number of findings related to training outcomes.
Researchers: Tannenbaum and Yukl (1992)
These researchers conducted a review of the available literature, and concluded that the transfer of learning to job performance was generally significantly lower than desired.
They report that relatively few learners, as low as 5%, applied what they had learned in the workplace.
Researcher: Stolovich (2000)
Working with an automotive company, the researcher conducted a four-month study on learning and performance support that drew on data from almost 400 large North American companies. It involved a review of major literature databases, an examination of internal documentation and detailed interviews with key persons responsible for learning and performance support in fourteen organizations.
In this study of best practices, the researcher concluded that: “training alone is not effective in achieving on-job application of knowledge”.
His research indicates that:
“there are low transfer rates from training ranging from 10% to 30%, with most on the low end”.
Comments