The Winning Teams Blog

Demonstrating the Value of Learning

Learning and development professionals have always been under pressure to demonstrate the value of learning interventions. The hierarchical model first identified in Kirkpatrick’s 1975 study, is still widely used today to evaluate the effectiveness of training, although of late, the focus has shifted towards a stronger reliance on ROI measures. But, other models that don’t rely on ROI are emerging.

ROI Revisited

The idea is relatively simple, calculate the incremental value added by the intervention, and express this as a percentage of the investment. Now why would ROI not be a useful tool for measuring the value of learning? Surely, economic return on investment is the correct tool to measure value added? Well, yes and no. ROI is a great tool to measure the value created by investments in plant and machinery, and in other capital budgeting decisions, but it is a fairly blunt tool for measuring value created through intangibles such as human capital. Sure, there are methodologies for measuring intangible value, but in my experience, these methods place too much reliance on questionable and sometimes tenuous assumptions.

Even more importantly, ROI evaluation is a very poor tool for considering strategic choice. It is a relatively clear cut decision whether to rent or buy plant and machinery, or to provide a training course to meet a tactical training problem, but once the decision-making context moves beyond tactical into the strategic area, then ROI is simply the wrong tool for the job. In the same way that ROI is of little use in deciding whether to fundamentally change the way in which an organisation does business such as launching a controversial innovative new product, ROI is of little value in deciding how to plot an organisation’s future human capital strategy.

As a human performance improvement consultant with a professional finance background, I find it surprising that the learning and development profession places so much reliance on ROI, when there are alternative strategic evaluation models. Too often the tool of choice is ROI, which is not always appropriate when evaluating strategic value.

Beyond ROI

The CIPD (Chartered Institute of Personnel Development) has a similar view, and urges training professionals to move away from traditional evaluation methods such as ROI, towards measuring the value learning and development contributes to strategic business objectives. This is the central argument presented in ‘The Value of Learning: from Return on Investment to Return on Expectation’ (published on November 26, 2007) by the CIPD commissioned Valerie Anderson of the University of Portsmouth Business School, to examine ‘how organisations are currently measuring and reporting on the contribution of learning to strategic value’.

The research was conducted because: “The development of learning capabilities has become a key feature of people development strategies in many organisations. Executive decision-makers, are becoming aware that intellectual and knowledge assets form a large part of the intangible value of their organisation. To manage effectively their investment in human capital they require timely and relevant information to assess the extent to which investment in learning is contributing to organisational performance.”

In essence, learning and development is important, and it is important to measure its success.

Martyn Sloman, CIPD Learning, Training and Development advisor, said: “The development of a new approach to valuing learning is long overdue. For 30 years, we have regarded a hierarchical approach based on return on investment as the only way to approach the problem – it has become a holy grail for the profession. The world of learning has changed and new models are needed.”

The report acknowledges that although evaluation is a fundamental part of the work of learning and training professionals, it presents many challenges, some of which include:

• 80% of HRD professionals believe that training and development delivers more value to their organisation than they are able to demonstrate.

• Learning and training practitioners find ‘serious’ evaluation to be too time-consuming.

• Practitioners find that line managers rarely show interest in ‘traditional’ evaluation data.

• Only about one-third (36%) of UK organisations seek to capture the effect of learning on the ‘bottom line’.

Sloman continues, “Trying to measure learning by figures and financial results is a bit like driving with your eyes fixed on the rear view mirror. Return on investment can be a valuable measure in some circumstances but it is not the answer on its own."

Return on Expectations

So what kind of model does the report suggest? The report argues for a shift away from trainer-centred and return on investment models of evaluation, towards "return on expectation" models. It argues that effective value and evaluation processes require L&D professionals to develop and use measures that are relevant to organisational stakeholders, and the needs of the business. It concludes that measures of "return on expectation", rather than return on investment are more likely to meet these needs.

A careful reading of the report shows that the author is not simply suggesting that L&D give managers what they ask for – ‘training’ is good so long as the manager says it is good – but rather that there are particular types of measures that are valuable to stakeholders.

Learning interventions are particularly valued by key stakeholders when they can be shown to contribute to:

• The ‘strategic readiness’ of employees

• The delivery of performance improvement

• The delivery of cost-effective labour

• Career and talent-management

The true value of the findings of the report is that it forces L&D professionals to re-examine their approach towards demonstrating value from learning interventions, and to align their services closer to those of the business.

CIPD research findings – learning and the line (part 3)

The is part 3 of my review of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s (CIPD) ‘change agenda’ report entitled “Learning and the line: the role of line managers in training, learning and development”. In the first part, we recognised that line managers play an important role in learning and development, and that they undertake a number of activities supporting learning and development. In part 2, we examined the authors’ views as to what factors leads busy line managers to devote time to development activities for their staff, and themselves.

In this part, we will look at the implications of the research for HR practitioners seeking to strengthen the role of line management in leading and developing staff. The authors identify five key recommendations:

• Organisations need to encourage line manager’s buy-in to learning and development by clarifying their responsibilities through job descriptions, performance appraisal, and reward systems. They need to send a clear message that demonstrates the importance and value of development-related activities.

• Organisations need to allow managers the time to carry out their learning and development activities, as well as performing their traditional management duties.

• Line managers need training and development programmes to develop their learning and development skills.

• Senior management commitment is essential to create the appropriate culture, and leaders need to be encouraged to act as role models.

• It is important to select line managers carefully, paying particular attention to behavioural competencies that facilitate learning and development in themselves and others.

CIPD research findings – learning and the line (part 2)

The is part 2 of my review of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development’s (CIPD) ‘change agenda’ report entitled “Learning and the line: the role of line managers in training, learning and development”. In the first part, we recognised that line managers play an important role in learning and development, and that they undertake a number of activities supporting learning and development.

We also saw however, that not all managers believe that learning and development is their responsibility, some use it as a reward system which may be detrimental, and others are not properly skilled to perform these functions. In part 2, we will examine the authors’ views as to what leads busy line managers to devote time to development activities for their staff, and themselves, and to develop the skills to do this well. The authors identify 4 integrated activities:

• A focus on key staff: - line management are likely to place greater emphasis or attention where employees need either high levels of technical or generic skill to perform their duties, or require high levels of a ‘unique’ skill that is organisation specific.

• Building a language of learning and development: - the language associated with learning and development (used initially by learning and development professionals) is spreading to line managers, and is helping to embed learning and developing behaviours.

• Creating a culture of performance where learning and development is highly valued: - line management are most likely to engage in learning and development activities where senior management deliberately create a culture where people are helped and encouraged to learn, and to cooperate with others.

• Developing line managers themselves as a distinctive occupational group: - the authors found that where line managers themselves were encouraged to learn and develop, they were more likely to exhibit these behaviours themselves. The importance of senior management involvement cannot be over-stated.

In the next part, I will look at the implications of these findings for developing line managers in supporting learning and development.

CIPD research findings – learning and the line (part 1)

The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) recently published a ‘change agenda’ report entitled “Learning and the line: the role of line managers in training, learning and development”. This April 2007 report looks at research undertaken on managers’ roles in influencing activities concerned with the training, learning and development of their staff, and themselves. The report provides a very useful summary of the emerging trends in the role played by line managers in HR, and what follows is a summary of the major findings contained in the report.

The report starts out by highlighting the importance of line managers in supporting learning and development. They quote the findings of their annual CIPD survey of learning and development professionals (CIPD 2007) which confirms increasing line manager involvement in learning and development (almost three-quarters of respondents report that line managers have taken on greater responsibility for these activities in the last two years) and indicates almost universal support for the view that line managers are important in supporting learning and development.

With this as a starting point, they examine the wide range of line management involvement in learning and development activities, including induction, providing formal training, job rotation, secondments, career development, and coaching and guidance. They draw three important conclusions from the wide range of line manager involvement:

• Not all managers are convinced that learning and development is actually part of their job, with many not taking these responsibilities seriously. (In my experience many organisations do not recognise the importance of line managers in learning and development, and consequently don’t create the necessary supportive organisational policies.)


• Some line managers use their influence on learning and development as part of their reward system, with some managers using training activities as a punishment. (How often are under-performing staff told that they are going to have to go on a training course!)


• Not all line managers are equally effective at leading and developing their staff, with many not having the appropriate HR skills to carry out their responsibilities. (In my experience, this is particularly the case with those skills that focus on longer-term staff development, such as talent nurturing, mentoring etc.)

In the next part, I will look at what conditions the authors consider necessary to support effective line management involvement in learning and development.

What is human performance improvement?

There are a number of different interpretations of this new and developing science. Here is my best description:

"A systematic process of identifying the cause of human performance improvement gaps; planning for future improvements in human performance; designing and developing learning and non-learning interventions to close performance gaps; guiding the change management process; and evaluating the financial and non-financial results."

Any comments or offers from fellow professionals would be most welcome.

Winning Hearts and Minds

Engaged employees are more productive, more profitable, more customer-focused, safer, and more likely to withstand temptations to leave.

According to research conducted by The Gallup Organization, there are three types of employees: engaged, not-engaged, and actively disengaged:

Engaged employees "work with passion and feel a profound connection to their company. They drive innovation and move the organization forward."

Employees who are not-engaged "are essentially 'checked out'…sleepwalking through their workday, putting time—but not energy or passion—into their work."

Actively disengaged workers "act out their unhappiness," and "undermine what their engaged workers accomplish."

A further Gallup survey concluded that actively disengaged employees cost UK business somewhere between £39b and £48b per annum, and that 80% of employees in the UK are not engaged at work.

According to the U.S. Employee Engagement Survey, 69% of US workers are either not-engaged or actively disengaged on the job. Approximately $370 billion is lost annually in the US due to lower productivity from actively disengaged workers alone.

But what makes the difference? Why are some people engaged and others are actively disengaged? How can companies ensure that their people are actively engaged? I will offer some views on this in forthcoming posts.

Can customer service be taught?

As we know, (Senior managers are delusional) most senior managers say they’re focused on the customer, but customers think differently. Can customer service be taught? A lot of people say no it can’t - it depends on attitude.

I think that this misses the point. Clearly, training is important, but like most things in life, it is not the initial effort that is to blame, it is the sustained follow-up that creates the difference. Customer service training usually involves bringing a roomful of people together with a motivational presenter, and exploring how to please the customer. Everyone leaves feeling very motivated.

In reality, it is not the training itself that matters; it is how the trainees are:

• held accountable for changing their behaviour
• how their competence is measured
• how they are recognised for their changed behaviour, and
• how their knowledge is reinforced

Think management responsibility, coaching, performance assessment, and recognition. (Ahem, Winning Teams.)

Can customer service be taught? Re-framed, can management act responsibly, coach for performance, assess performance, and recognise achievements? Isn’t this what management is supposed to do?

Zopa - linking borrowers to lenders

There’s a new type of financial service that’s recently been launched. Entitled ‘Zopa’, this online financial service has been around for over 18 months, and reportedly has over 90,000 members.

The concept is simple, people with spare money lend to creditworthy people who want to borrow money. No bank is involved, which means that costs and lending rates are lower. Zopa stands for ‘Zone of Possible Agreement’, and is the overlap between the lowest someone is prepared to get for something and the most another person is prepared to give for something. This zone determines the final price that people will agree to through bargaining.

The Zopa management team are no financial lightweights. Richard Duvall, Zopa’s CEO, led the team that created Egg, and he has brought several of his Egg colleagues onboard. Zopa is backed by Benchmark Capital, the venture capital firm which backed eBay and Skype.

They offer several methods to reduce risk including credit scoring all of the borrower applicants, diversifying loans among a lot of people, handling collections, and offering protection against identity theft.

Zopa relies on the explosion of social community development on the internet. It shows the potential power of Web 2.0 when applied to traditional internet banking channels. Zopa is currently only active in the UK, but expansion is planned in the US. Is this the start of a challenge to the established order? My prediction is that Zopa will be hugely successful, particularly in the US, where social community development is now becoming well established.

Senior managers are delusional

In his book, 'The Ultimate Question: Driving Good Profits and True Growth', Fred Reichheld, a long time Bain & Company partner, says that ‘Senior managers are delusional’. He reports that 96% of senior managers said they were focused on the customer. 80% believed that they delivered a ‘superior experience’ to their customers. However, when their customers were surveyed, only 8% of their companies were given a superior rating.

In a follow-up blog, we find the following gem: “If the customer service revolution depended on our leaders, we'd all be in serious trouble. Most of them confuse customer service with lip service. They say the right things, but generally do not understand what they're saying. Outstanding customer service will not happen just because our leaders say they're customer-focused, or customer-centric, or whatever the current buzzword is. Almost as soon as top managers realize what it really takes, they lose interest. There's nothing sexy, or flashy, or fast about customer service. It's the tortoise, not the bunny”.

I was reminded of this today, when we were conducting a survey of 620 bank branch managers, 91% of whom reported that they believed that their customers would recommend their company to their friends and family. This is the ultimate question, but can we truly believe the response?

Perhaps, but not likely.

Customer complaints via the web

I want to share with you my experience this week with an airline company. Being a very frequent flyer, I checked in at the Executive check-in. I arrived 45 minutes before the flight was due, but the queue moved so slowly that I by the time that I got to the front, the flight had been closed. Now this in itself is a prime example of poor customer service, but it is not the point of this article.

Relaxing in the airport lounge, whilst waiting for a later flight, I decided to write to the airline’s customer service division. I went onto their website, and I was easily able to find their ‘Customer Care’ section of their website. The marketing speak went as follows:

I am not sure why an exclamation mark was necessary, but I soon found their customer care website submission form, and began writing about my experience. After carefully composing the text, I pressed the submit button, only to receive an error message indicating that my session had expired!

Now you must appreciate that the website did not require me to login. This was anonymous access, yet after spending all that time writing to the airline company, they chose not to let me submit my comments. Ordinarily, the ‘Contact Us’ page is built to allow the customer a way to communicate with the company, and allow the company to receive this information in a format and manner that can get the company to respond at the lowest possible cost.

After re-typing and submitting my comments, I was relieved to see that the company did send me an email confirmation. However, two whole business days have now gone by, without a response to the issues that I raised.

For the sake of this airline company, and others, here are my tips for using websites and email to service customers:

1. If you are using a ‘Contact Us’ page, review your required fields carefully to establish whether you really must have the information, or whether it is nice to have. Make it easy for customers to contact you.

2. Treat webpage submissions and email as seriously as you would treat an incoming phone call, or face-to-face contact.

3. Don’t put your ‘Contact Us’ page in a password-protected area of your site, or stop customers from submitting because of session timeouts.

4. When you receive a ‘Contact Us’ request, send a confirmation email immediately, and then get a human to telephone or email the customer within one business day of receiving the request.

5. When you send a confirmation message, follow good email usability form. It would also be wise to let the customer know that you actually intend to resolve the problem, or that you are pleased to hear from them.