The Winning Teams Blog

Top 10 ways to improve return on training

Photo courtesy flickr

There is a lot of research (Why training doesn’t work – fifty years of research) that shows that training alone is insufficient to improve organisational performance. So how then should you go about improving the return that you get on training and learning activities? Here are my top 10 ways.

1. Provide organisational support for learners

Give your learners appropriate organisational support. Make sure that you allow them time off to complete pre-course study materials. Give them access to materials and resources that will support their learning. Encourage learners to view learning and development as a positive experience that will enhance their skills, and enable them to make a greater contribution. Communicate the expectation that learning must occur.

2. Demonstrate management commitment to learning

Management should model the appropriate behaviours and learning, and create a clear expectation that they expect to see different behaviour as a result of the training. One of the most powerful ways to do this is for management and supervisors to attend training courses, or to participate in other learning activities directly with their staff. This sends a strong message of the manager’s personal commitment to learning.

3. Make training content relevant to the job

Make sure that the training content is tailored to the learner’s requirements, so that the skills that they acquire are immediately transferable to the job. Adults are most interested in learning subjects that have immediate relevance to their job. Avoid off-the-shelf, shrink-wrapped packages that provide generic learning solutions that don’t transfer well to the job. Reinforce the credibility of the content, and it’s applicability in the workplace.

4. Ensure that the content is appropriate for the learners knowledge, skills and abilities

Take care when designing the learning content to tailor it to the learners existing knowledge, skills and abilities. Learners learn best when they are able to draw from their prior experience. Make sure that you evaluate their existing knowledge prior to the development of learning content, and tailor it accordingly.

5. Motivate learners to learn

Boring classroom sessions, and passive learning experiences make it difficult to inspire learners to learn. Bring learning directly into the workplace, and into workplace assignments. Make learning exciting by incorporating active learning experiences, such as case studies, simulations, and role-playing, and learners will be more motivated to learn.

6. Cultivate learning communities

Help create learning communities, where learners can share and exchange knowledge. Start by getting learners to learn together in their natural work-teams, and encourage them to share their ideas and experiences. Encourage group learning activities. “Team-up” - partner weaker learners with more experienced learners.

7. Involve all key stakeholders

There is a growing body of research that shows that stakeholder support is essential to ensure that desired performance follows a learning intervention. The most important stakeholders are executives, higher-level management, supervisors, and HR specialists. It is essential to get the support of all interested stakeholders, and to find ways in which these stakeholders are able to visibly demonstrate their support for the learning initiative.

8. Provide opportunities to practice new skills

Provide opportunities to practice the new skills directly in the workplace as soon as possible after the learning intervention. Monitor the learner’s application of the new skills, and help remove any possible barriers that may hamper their performance. Encourage supportive behaviour from team members.

9. Set goals for the application of new skills

Help your team set goals for the application of their new skills in the workplace. You can use action plans and other tools to set timelines for implementation, and dates for evaluation of performance against plan.

10. Provide support and feedback

Pay attention to the application of the new skills in the workplace. Make sure that your team are demonstrating the new behaviours and attitudes. Provide feedback on their progress, and give advice as to how they can improve. Arrange for personal coaching if necessary.

Why training doesn't work - fifty years of research

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”.