the one critical training component you may have overlooked
TRANSCRIPT
The One Critical Training Component You May Have Overlooked
Eileen P. Albert
University of GuelphMaster of Arts (Leadership)
July 2005
The One Critical Training Component You May Have Overlooked
Submitted to Professor Geoffrey SmithSchool of Hospitality and Tourism Management
University of GuelphGuelph, Ontario N1G 2W1
Submitted by Eileen P. AlbertIn partial completion of the M.A. (Leadership)
July 15, 2005
Eileen Albert 2
Table of Contents
Executive Summary…...………………………………………………………………..4 Purpose Statement…………………………………………………………………...4 Literature Review……………………………………………………………………..4 Definition of Terms……………………………………………………………………5 Methodology…………………………………………………………………………..6 Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………………7 Suggested Future Research…………………………………………………………8Literature Review………………………………………………………………………..8Methodology……………………………………………………………………………15Results of Employer Interviews………………………………………………………18 Current Training Programs and Budgets………………………………………….18 Measurement – Post training………………………………………………………25 Results of Training Company Interviews……………………………………………30 Client Training Programs and Budgets……………………………………………30 Measurement – Post training………………………………………………………34Summary of Findings and Future Research……….……………………………….38References……………………………………………………………………………..40
Appendix A – Interview Questions for Employers………………………………….43Appendix B – Interview Questions for Training Companies………………………50
Eileen Albert 3
Executive Summary
Purpose Statement
The purpose of this study is to determine what post training measures (if any),
are being used to facilitate the application of employee learning and self
development once a specific training module is completed.
The type of employee learning and self development this study examines are soft
skills such as communications, team building, time management, and sales
training which may require behaviour changes to produce results for both the
employee and the organization.
The study looks at a broad spectrum of organizations in southern Ontario that
have already provided training to their employees or will be in 2005.
In addition to soliciting the views of employers, this study also examines post
training as perceived by those organizations whose sole responsibility is to
design and deliver training.
Literature Review
A literature review of previous work and research in this area indicates that the
majority of dollars spent by organizations on training and development is
dedicated to the actual delivery of training. Only a very small proportion is being
Eileen Albert 4
spent prior to the training in order to determine needs and prepare the
participants for the training delivery, and an even smaller percentage is being
spent on follow-up to ensure that learning is implemented.
Although there is much evidence that shows the greatest value to organizations
is realized through follow-up, accountability, and the application of learning after
the initial training is completed, there is little evidence that this is happening in a
significant manner to benefit the organization.
Definition of Terms
Pre -training (pre-work) is any activity that happens prior to the training event.
This could include:
- needs assessment
- customization of training material
- reading package for participants to enable preparation before the
training session
Training (learning experience) is the actual event.
Post training (follow-up, follow-through) are the events that happen after the
training to reinforce learning and application of the training.
Participant (employee) refers to the person receiving training.
Eileen Albert 5
Learning process (training process) refers to the three stages, of training and
development.
Stages (phases, steps, segments) are the three parts discussed relating to the
learning process.
Methodology
Primary research was conducted with two distinct groups. The first group
consisted of organizations allocating dollars for training programs for the
employees within their respective organizations. Nine senior human resource
people were interviewed to determine what these organizations do (if anything) to
ensure application of learning after a training session. These companies range
in size from 35 to 3000 employees. They represent the public sector, education,
and private industry. There were two organizations where training and
development is a new initiative1 and seven organizations that have been
providing training and development to employees on an ongoing basis.
The second group interviewed consisted of the owners of training companies
who provide training and development. Eight owners were interviewed. These
owners were able to look at the big picture based on the large number of
organizations they have provided training and development to over the years.
The training companies ranged from a one person independent to organizations
that have just fewer than one hundred employees. All have been in business for
over ten years and have provided a substantial number of training programs to
organizations over this period, primarily in Canada and the United States.
1 Both organizations have been in business less than five years and recognize the need for training
Eileen Albert 6
Face to face interviews were conducted in person wherever possible and by
telephone when time or distance became a limiting factor. Two respondents
e-mailed the answers.
The rational for interviewing the two distinct groups was to determine if there
were significant differences and/or similarities in the answers of the two groups.
A secondary consideration in interviewing companies that provide training was to
gain a broader view, based on their experience, of the percentage of training and
development dollars being spent in the three stages of training process over a
broad spectrum of organizations, based on their experience.
Secondary research was conducted through a literature review to establish
current practice in post training, and to establish to what degree companies
follow through after expenditures on specific training modules.
Summary of Findings
The Conference Board of Canada (2005) reported that North American
organizations are spending $980 annually on average, per employee,
representing 1.95% of payroll on the three phases of training and development.
However this study reveals that, organizations are spending the majority of
money on the actual training, a very small percentage on pre-training and even
less on post training. Moreover the research for this paper, and a review of the
literature, indicates the potential for the most value to both the employer and the
Eileen Albert 7
employee appears to be achieved in the post training phase – i.e. what happens
after the actual training event.
Suggested Future Research
If organizations are aware of the value contributed by the post training phase but
still continue to focus most of their dollars on the actual training event, then future
research should focus on the root cause of why organizations are not spending
more time on post training.
Literature Review
Overview
“If you were to ask 100 people in our profession for the biggest challenge
they face, we believe 90 or more would talk about ways to improve
implementation”2 (Zenger, Folkman, and Sherwin, 2005).
“No area has been more neglected, or offers greater opportunity for
improvement, than follow through in the immediate post-course period. You
have to push people across the learning-doing gap” (Wick, Granger, 2004).
Molinaro (2005) states “One of the main reasons for poor training transfer is that
there is still a strong tendency to view training as an isolated event rather than an
ongoing process. As a result, little attention is placed on pre-course preparation
and even less is placed on follow-up after training”.
2 Implementation in this context is the third phase of training, i.e. post training, follow through, follow-up.
Eileen Albert 8
Segmenting the Learning Process
Zenger, Folkman and Sherwin (2005) break the learning process into three
distinct phases. Phase 1 is what happens prior to attending the learning event.
It could include needs assessments, self-assessments, data to read, or data to
be collected. Phase 2 is the actual learning event and phase 3 is what happens
after the learning event and includes activities to reinforce and strengthen
learning.
Accountability for Phase 3 of the Learning Process
A search of the available literature reveals that there is very little, and in many
instances no accountability, on the part of the trainer, the employer, or the
employee to ensure that new skills gained through training are implemented
when the employee returns to the workplace. Brinkerhoff (2005) proposed that
“Achieving performance results from training is a whole organization challenge.
It cannot be accomplished by the training function alone”. Molinaro (2005)
echoes similar findings in his research indicating “The responsibility for the
effective transfer of learning and the ROI3 of training no longer rests solely on HR
professionals”. The message is clear as Zenger, Folkman, and Sherwin (2005)
conclude that “maximum implementation will occur only when the participant,
manager and trainer accept their role in making it happen and takes their share
of accountability”.
The post training phase
3 ROI means return on investment.
Eileen Albert 9
Brinkerhoff (2005) states “Virtually all training evaluation models are construed
conceptually is if training were the object of the evaluation”. Typically, at the
close of a training event, participants are asked to evaluate if the learning
objectives were met, the ability of the trainer to deliver, the suitability of the
facilities, and the variety and quality of the food provided. Zenger, Folkman, and
Sherwin (2005) propose “what is virtually never measured is what the participant
learned or what they did differently”.
Donald Kirkpatrick (1998), initially proposed back in 1959 that training could be
evaluated at four levels:
1. Reaction: Did the participants like the trainer, the content, and the
facilities
2. Learning: What was actually learned
3. Behaviour: Were there changes in behaviour
4. Results: Does the new knowledge and behaviour change produce
improved results for the organization
Van Buren’s study, 2001 (as cited in Ruona, Leimbach, Holton III & Bates, 2002)
of U.S. organizations for the American Society of Training and Development
(ASTD) found as follows:
- 77% evaluated learner reaction to training
- 38% measured learning or knowledge gained through training
- 14% evaluated behaviour change as a result of training
- 7% measured results from training.
Eileen Albert 10
In a Canadian survey of 150 professional trainers in Canada, Belcourt and Saks
(1998) report similar findings:
- 75% evaluated reaction
- 40% measured learning
- 20% evaluated behaviour
- 20% measured end results
Although participant reactions appear to be the primary method of evaluation
these reactions “do not seem to contribute greatly to predicting the transfer of
learning nor do they seem to predict actual performance improvement” (Ruona,
Leimbach, Holton III & Bates, 2002). When measurement attempts go beyond
participant reaction “research has indicated that many managers are confused
when probed about measurement, noting that they “observed” rather than
measured in the formal sense” (Smith, 2005). “Other than anecdotal evidence –
observing someone doing something after training that they couldn’t or didn’t do
before training – the belief in training effectiveness was more a matter of faith
than hard numbers” (Holmes, Carnes, 2004).
Value of Follow-up
Achieving optimal performance, when the employee returns to the workplace
following training is a challenge shared by most organizations. “Organizations
find they aren’t receiving the full value they expect or could achieve from their
training investments” (Zenger & Folkman, 2004). “A decided fuzziness still exists
however, about what’s specifically being asked of them on the job. Thus one key
Eileen Albert 11
to effective Phase 3 follow-up is a high degree of specificity about what’s
expected of participants” (Zenger, Folkman & Sherwin, 2005).
“Estimates suggest that North American companies spend billions of dollars
yearly on various training programs. The only problem is that this is where the
learning ends. Consequently, employees often never fully apply the learning
from these programs, particularly when it comes to soft skills” (Armstrong, 2005).
Research by Goldsmith and Morgan (2004) reinforce this by stating “too many
companies spend millions of dollars for the “program of the year” but almost
nothing on follow-up and reinforcement”. Without appropriate follow-up systems
in place, “participant implementation action plans, progress, and results are
nowhere to be found. The expected results never materialize” (Zenger &
Folkman, 2004). When training is simply delivered it does little to change job
performance.
When we look at the three stages of the learning process, Dr. Brent Peterson (as
cited in Zenger, Folkman & Sherwin, 2005) proposes that 50% of the value of
any learning and development activity comes from what happens after the event,
however a review of the literature shows that only 5% of the training and
development dollars are being spent on what happens after the training event
(Zenger, Folkman & Sherwin, 2005). This does not mean “that expenditures
exactly parallel the value derived from each phase, but it’s apparent that we’re
significantly under-funding and under-emphasizing Phase 3 activities” (Zenger,
Folkman & Sherwin, 2005).
Eileen Albert 12
Segmenting the Learning Process
The value contributed by each segment in the learning process4
26%Pre-work
24%Learning
Experience
50%Follow-up
How most organizations currently fund the learning process5
10% 85% 5%
Effectiveness of applied learning in phase three – (post training)
One example of the effectiveness of applied learning in stage three of the
learning process is that of leadership development. Most organizations promote
their top performers, ”put them through a few workshops and seminars, and then
throw them to the wolves. They fail, because their companies’ development
approaches fail them” (Shope-Griffen, 2003). “That leadership development
efforts will result in improved leadership skills appears to be taken for granted by
many corporations. Many companies naively assume that leadership
development efforts improve organizational efforts “(Collins, Holton, 2004).
“Organizations appear to believe that improving knowledge and skills of
individual employees automatically enhances the organizations’ effectiveness”
(Collins, Holton, 2004), however unless behaviour changes and results are
measured this belief cannot be validated.
The need for greater commitment
4 Research by Dr. Brent Peterson5 Zenger, Folkman estimates
Eileen Albert 13
If followers are to be successful, leaders should ensure that their employees are
encouraged to implement what they have learned. There needs to be a greater
commitment to ensuring that phase three of the learning process is implemented
after the knowledge, and skills are taught in phase two i.e. the actual training
event. “Committed people care about results” (Blanchard, 2004). Research has
linked follow-up with effective leadership (Goldsmith & Morgan, 2004).
In the research by Goldsmith and Morgan (2004) the following key observations
were made:
- organizations who used follow-up with the participants were viewed by
their colleagues as far more effective than the leaders who did not
- leaders who don’t follow-up are not necessarily bad leaders; they are
just not seen as getting better
- leaders who ask for input and then follow-up to see if progress is being
made are seen as people who care
- there was a higher level of commitment among participants of training
programs if they knew there would be future follow-up
- follow-up measurements created a focus on long term change and
personal accountability
- by following up with colleagues, a leader demonstrates a commitment
to self-improvement – and a determination to get better
A commitment is not an impersonal proclamation issued by a faceless
bureaucrat. It is a highly visible action and managers need to personally get on
board with the necessary commitments (Sull, 2003).
Eileen Albert 14
Change on the Horizon
There is evidence to show that things are changing. Leadership and
management development as a priority increased from 8% in 2004 as one of the
top three priorities to 21% who plan to make it a priority in 2005 (Hall 2005). This
includes implementing a new accountability system. “Under the new system,
managers and supervisors will be required to coach their subordinates, rather
than simply report on the activities” (Willmarth, staff member at Brandon Hall).
Methodology
Secondary research
Secondary research was conducted through a literature review to establish
current practice in post training. This was done to establish to what degree
companies follow through after expenditures on specific training modules and to
what extent organizations have a process in place to facilitate the further
application of training and development of the employee after training.
Primary research
Primary research was conducted using two different sample groups. The first
group consisted of managers from organizations that provide their employees
with any type of formal soft skills versus technical training and development.
There was no distinction made between organizations that provide training and
development through internal personnel or through external trainers or any
combination of the two. The interviews were typically with senior people in the
human resources area, who are responsible for determining and or making
Eileen Albert 15
recommendations relating to the training that will be required. There were nine
organizations that were interviewed in this group. The size of the organizations
for this first group varied from small independently owned organizations with 35
employees to large multinational corporations with 3000 employees. Four
interviews were conducted face to face in the interviewee’s office, three
interviews were conducted by telephone and two respondents filled out the
interview survey without interaction and forwarded it by e-mail. All respondents
added discussion to the interview questions.
The second group interviewed consisted of principals of training and
development organizations that have been contracted by employers to provide
training and development in any or all parts of the three stages of the learning
process. They are all professionals who have owned their own training and
development companies for more than ten years and all have extensive
experience with a broad range of organizations in Canada and the United States.
The purpose for interviewing these people is their ability to provide a broad
overview of the measures organizations use, (if any) to follow-up after training,
and to provide insight as to the allocation of organizational spending on the three
stages of training.
There were eight training organizations that were interviewed. Five participants
from training organizations were interviewed in person and the other three were
interviewed by telephone. Seven organizations interviewed were Canadian and
one was American based in the United States. These organizations range in
number of employees from a one-man show to a staff of close to 100.
Eileen Albert 16
The rational for interviewing the both employers and training providers was to
determine if there were significant differences and/or similarities in the answers
of the two groups.
Some of the questions asked varied slightly between the two groups. The
questions asked of the employers were company specific whereas the questions
asked of the training providers were more general and based on their experience
working with many different organizations. (See appendix 1 and 2 for interview
questions.)
People from both groups were asked a series of questions to determine the
percentage of overall dollars being spent on the three different stages of training
and development and the level (if any), that is provided on post training.
Results of Employer Interviews
Table 1: Employers – Current Training Programs and Budgets
Number of Employees Number of responses
Eileen Albert 17
Under 50 1
51– 250 2
251 – 500 0
501 – 1000 2
1001 – 2000 2
2001 – 3000 2
1-1.
All respondents conduct one or more formal training programs, however the
frequency and types of training varies from “as requested” to as infrequent as
once per year.
1-2.
When asked whether training programs were a) self-selected by employees, b)
were mandated by the employer, or c) a combination of both, all respondents
answered a combination of both. Respondents justifying their answers provided
additional comments as follows:
- “employees are directed where they can take training based on pre-
selected and pre-approved training organizations and then allowed to
select what they take”
- “55% of training is mandatory, employees get to select the balance”
- “depends on the type of training”
- “employees are asked where they want to grow and mutual agreement
is reached on type of training”
Eileen Albert 18
- “in the past employees chose what they wanted to take training in,
going forward it will be a combination of both the employee and the
employer choosing the training”
- “supervisor makes recommendations, then employees have the option
of taking training or declining”
1-3.
All of the respondents indicated they had training and development budgets,
however who controlled the budget tended to vary. The majority of respondents
had human resource budgets and department budgets with one organization
giving full responsibility for the training and development budget to each
department.
1-3a.
Employers were asked to identify how training and development dollars were
allocated. Responses show a largely unstructured way of funding training
activities.
Table 2: Method by which annual training budget determined
Options
Number of “yes”
responses
Eileen Albert 19
Percentage of sales 0
Percentage of human resources
budget 4
Percentage of departmental budget 5
Percentage of payroll 2
Other 2
The number of “yes” responses does not necessarily equal the number of
responses due to the fact that interviewees were allowed to check off more than
one method by which budgets were determined.
One respondent indicated that although training and development dollars were
allocated as a percentage of human resources budget and a percentage of
payroll to individual departments, the amount departments actually spend on
professional development could vary depending on where else the department
needed money. If they needed money in another area of the department they
would reduce the training and development they provided their employees.
Training and development dollars in this organization includes the cost of
conferences, travel, accommodation and meals, therefore not showing true
dollars being spent on actual training and development.
Three of the respondent organizations allocate training and development budgets
to each department and to human resources. In one organization training is
taken from the human resources budget and the development of employees falls
under the department budget. Training was described as “providing employees
Eileen Albert 20
with the skills necessary to do their job” and development was “skills necessary
to be promoted within the organization.” Other comments from respondents
include:
- “a lump sum was allocated to each department which was determined
by the department and the CFO”
- “budgets are allocated based on recommendations made to the
President and approved by the Board”
1-4.
Table 3: Annual spending per employee
Amounts Number of responses
Less than $100 0
$100 - $500 5
$500 - $1000 1
Over $1000 1
Don’t know 3
These figures do not include labour hours missed to attend training.
1-5.
Employers interviewed for this study spend on average 13% of their training and
development dollars on pre-work 79% on the learning experience and 8% on
follow-up.
Eileen Albert 21
Figure 1
1-6.
Employers were asked to estimate the value each segment of the learning
process contributed to improved learning and behavior changes. This value is
very different when compared to how they view the learning process being
funded in figure 1 above.
Figure 2
Eileen Albert 22
Although the percentages from the trainers interviewed differed from the
percentages of Dr. Brent Peterson, the message is clear. The potential value of
follow-up compared to the amount spent on follow-up is significant.
1-7.
Eileen Albert 23
Table 4: Why expenditures on follow-up training is substantially lower than
the dollar expenditure on the actual training event.
Responses Number of responses
Never thought about post training 0
Lack of time 5
Lack of money 3
Don’t know how to track post training 2
It’s up to the individuals taking the
training to be accountable for the post
training and implement what they have
learned 4
Other 4*
The number of responses in each category does not necessarily equal the
number of responses due to the fact that respondents were allowed to check off
more than one reason post training dollars are lower than actual training dollars.
*Comments from respondents who answered “other” include:
- as a new company, they have just initiated training,
- wasn’t considered as part of the training model
- transfer of skills not expected
- follow-up is too much work for one person to do
- cannot control people
- value of training only seen in it’s absence
Eileen Albert 24
- managers don’t own training and therefore do nothing to help
employees transfer training from classroom door to shop floor
- ownership, there is no accountability
- it’s hard to measure intangibles
Employers – Measurement – Post training
2-1.
When interviewees were asked if they measured return on training investment
only two out of nine respondents said they measured return on training
investment, however these measures could not directly and conclusively be
attributed to the investment in training.
Measures that were suggested included:
- higher moral, the organization “cares about me”
- surveys from employees indicating a high level of satisfaction with the
training and development programs seen as a perk
- increased sales
- increased target audience (client list)
- higher productivity
- increased moral due to satisfied employees
In the case where increased sales was mentioned, it was not determined
whether this was a result of the training, better economic conditions, increased
opportunities due to less competition, or other outside influences unrelated to
training.
Eileen Albert 25
2-2.
When respondents were asked “what specifically are you doing to ensure the
newly acquired knowledge, skills, and ability is being applied”, five out of nine
people said “nothing or not much”, while four said, “it was left up to supervisors or
managers”. Only one person responded showing accountability for follow up
being a company wide effort.
Responses included:
- “nothing yet, however post training will follow, possibly two hour
sessions”
- “follow-up is with manager, but it is done haphazardly, their isn’t a real
commitment”
- “follow-up by managers but results are not being tracked”
- “nothing specific”
- “not much, since it is not corporately recognized yet”
- “follow-up questions asking about application”
- “asking questions of managers and attendees”
- “refresher programs and training aids”
- “follow-up article about topics relating to training to enhance their ability
to use information”
- “development plan is put in place to identify areas for improvement and
supervisor always follows up”
- “employee provides progress reports which are evaluated by
supervisors”
Eileen Albert 26
2-3.
The majority of respondents indicated that participants attending training
sessions are not required to make clear public statements about their
commitment to themselves and the company as to their actions after the learning
experience. One respondent said “employees are required to make clear public
statements to their manager who then provides the tools for the employee to use
the new skills”. The employee’s skill level was then compared to the skill level
prior to taking the training. Another respondent indicated that it’s difficult for
employees to make clear public statements that they can and will commit to for
two reasons. One is that it’s difficult to change behaviours and the other reason
is that managers are not around all the time to see if employees are using the
skills they learned. One other respondent said, “employees were required to set
personal goals however these were personal and did not have to be shared with
others”.
2-4.
Only one of nine respondents indicated that some system of follow-up was a
mandatory requirement of the people providing the training and in this case the
answer was “somewhat” again suggesting that it was haphazard as opposed to
being consistent.
2-5.
This question was asked in the context of mentors and or coaches being
assigned specifically to support and encourage employees as a follow-up after
training. Five out of nine employers indicated there are coaches or mentors to
Eileen Albert 27
provide support and encouragement as a follow-up to training and all except one
felt it was an effective post training tool. Four respondents indicated there were
no coaches or mentors in place and all indicated it would be an effective post
training tool. One person responded that although there was no formal mentor or
coach, some supervisors and managers took it upon themselves to act as an
informal coach with some employees. One of the companies said “not yet”.
2-6.
Table 5: Respondents opinion on who should be accountable for follow-up
in the post-training phase
Options Number of responses
Participant 0
Employer 0
Trainer 0
All of the above 8
Any combination of the above
(participant and employer)*
1
*The “employer” in table 5 could refer to an employee’s supervisor, a member of
the human resources department or anyone the organizations determines to be
accountable for follow-up of the employee after training.
One respondent indicated that in reality they believed that the participant and the
employer should be accountable for follow-up on training, however in the perfect
Eileen Albert 28
world felt that the participant, the employer and the trainer should be
accountable. This response was included in “all of the above”.
2-7.
The following table shows the number of organizations that do or do not tie
application and implementation of skills training to performance reviews.
Table 6: Is the application and implementation of skills tied to performance
reviews?
Responses Number of responses
Yes 2
No 3
Sometimes 4
The comments from the four respondents who answered sometimes include:
- “although not directly tied to performance reviews, goals noted on
employees development plan that are achieved would positively affect
their year end bonus”
- “performance reviews are not taken seriously and unless an employee
challenges their manager to include skill development in their
performance review nothing will happen”
- “up to the individual managers to make that decision”
- “the organization makes a feeble attempt however, the reality is they
tie performance reviews to the dollars the company earns”
Eileen Albert 29
Results of Training Company Interviews
Client Training
1-1.
The owners of the training companies were asked whether they knew how their
clients budgeted their training and development dollars. There were very few
definitive “yes” or “no” answers to this question. The majority of the respondents
said they “sometimes” knew how their clients budgeted the training and
development dollars.
1-2.
When respondents were asked if their clients asked for their input, four indicated
they were asked, two indicated they were not asked and two indicated they were
asked sometimes. Of the four that indicated they were asked, one noted that it
was usually indirectly based on other information being discussed.
1-3.
When asked if they make recommendations on how clients should spend their
training dollars all eight respondents said they did. Six indicated they only make
recommendations when asked while two indicated they make recommendations
whether they are asked to or not. One of these two indicated they make
recommendations, based on the process that is set up through the needs
assessment. One respondent indicated that they try not to make
recommendations, however, they will suggest ways that have worked well for
other organizations.
Eileen Albert 30
Table 7: Training and Development Budget
Question
Number of “yes”
responses
Number of “no”
responses
Knowledge of clients
training and
development budget
1 1
Clients asking for input 4 2
Giving recommendations
on clients training and
development budget
8 0
Giving recommendations
on clients training and
development budget only
when asked
6 2
1-4.
Clients spent on average13% of their training and development dollars on pre-
training when including all eight respondents. This number drops to 9% when
one respondent is dropped out of the equation. This respondent was extreme at
40% for pre-work. Another respondent’s work was split between the private
sector and the Federal Government. The work with the private sector was
consistent with other training organizations and is averaged into the figures in
table 7. The work with the Federal Government is very different by comparison
with 25% of the training and development funds being spent on follow-up. His
Eileen Albert 31
work with the Federal Government would increase the overall average being
spent on follow-up to 10%.
Figure 3
1-5.
Trainers were asked to give the value they estimate is gained from the three
stages of training. This estimate is significantly different from the dollars
organizations allocate on the three stages of the learning process.
One trainer said “prior to pre-work there needs to be a vision and that the dollars
spent on pre-work, the learning experience and follow-up really didn’t matter
unless there was a vision. The vision made all three stages of training come
alive and without a vision it just doesn’t matter.”
Eileen Albert 32
Figure 4
Although the percentages from the trainers interviewed differed with the
percentages of Dr. Brent Peterson’s research the message is clear. The
potential value of follow-up compared to the amount spent on follow-up is
significant.
1-6.
There was a unanimous “yes” to training companies specifying new behaviours
as one of the learning outcomes of a training session.
1-7
Four people responded that people attending training programs did so on a
voluntary basis, three indicated training programs were mandatory and one
person didn’t know. One of the respondents said that if training were mandatory
Eileen Albert 33
it would not be as successful as voluntary training and another respondent said
that companies have a responsibility to make it mandatory.
Measurement – Post training
2-1.
The number of responses in each category does not equal the number of
respondents because interviewees were allowed to check off more than one
reason why the amount spent on post training is substantially lower than the
amount spent on training.
Table 8: Why expenditures on follow-up training is substantially lower than
the dollar expenditure on the actual training event.
Options Number of responses
Never thought about post training 2
Lack of time 3
Lack of money 3
Don’t know how to track post training 2
It’s up to the individuals taking the
training to be accountable for the post
training and implement what they have
learned
3
Other 4*
*Comments from respondents who answered “other” include:
Eileen Albert 34
- no commitment
- there is minimal support provided for individuals to implement what
they’ve learned
- lack of management support
- lack of resources
- managers don’t want to take accountability
- it’s so much work just to put on the event
2-2.
Seven out of the eight organizations interviewed provide all three stages of
training and development and one organization only provided pre-training and
training.
2-3.
All eight training organizations interviewed indicated that they encouraged clients
to implement post training.
Eileen Albert 35
2-4.
When asked whether there was an extra charge for post training, the results
varied as follows:
Table 9: Extra expenditures for post training
Comments Number of responses
Yes 3
Yes, however cost is built into initial
price
2
No 1
Yes, if live on location, no for on-line
but built into initial price
1
Yes, if coaching is required, no for
follow-up
1
The majority said that clients did not take advantage of post training.
2-5.
The number of responses in each category does not equal the total number of
respondents because respondents were allowed to check off more than one
person accountable for follow-up after training.
Eileen Albert 36
Table 10: Training organization's view of who should be accountable for
follow-up in phase 3 after the training event in phase 2
Options Number of responses
Employee receiving training 7
Manager of employee 5
Human Resources Department 2
Training Company 4
Other 5*
*Some of the areas that training organizations felt were accountable for follow-up
after training included:
- all of the above, including the person writing the cheque
- person bringing in the training
- none of the above, it must come from the top of the organization
through commitment and vision
- person with the budget
- person choosing the training company
Additional comments relating to who is responsible for follow through of training:
- “training companies have a responsibility but no authority”
- “Human Resource Departments have a responsibility to create a good
process for follow-up”
- “company philosophy must support the training for it to be effective”
Eileen Albert 37
- “not enough time devoted to practice of new skills”
- “people are not looking for extra jobs”
Summary of Findings and Future Research
The present study clearly reveals the lack of post training initiatives in
organizations that provide their employees with training. This information is
further validated by training organizations who provide post training based on the
fact that even when training organizations provide post training at no charge or
the cost is already included in the cost of the training the majority of
organizations do not take advantage of post training.
Employers and trainers acknowledge that the positive value of post training is
much greater than the effort and dollars currently being allocated.
The findings of this study in respect to the money organizations are spending in
each area of the learning process are consistent with the literature that suggest
organizations spend 10% of training and development dollars on pre-training and
even less on post training. The majority of training and development budgets are
being allocated to the actual delivery of training. Although the findings suggest
that organizations have knowledge of the impact of post training there is a huge
know-do gap. In other words, although organizations know the positive potential
impact post training can have on the overall performance of the employee and in
turn on the organizations, they are not doing anything to make it happen. There
appears to be a lack of commitment on the part of employers to provide post
training and many respondents suggest this is based on a lack of time and
Eileen Albert 38
money when in reality it may simply mean a reallocation of funds to the different
stages of training.
Only one of the nine respondents indicated that some system of follow-up was a
mandatory requirement of the people providing the training and that they are
primarily looking to work with training organizations that provide follow up.
Most organizations only measure employee reactions to the training program and
are not measuring what the employee learned, what behaviour changes have
occurred, and the impact the training has had on the organization.
As organizations look for ways to increase effectiveness and become more
efficient in the global marketplace there appears to be tremendous opportunities
to increase the potential of human capital. Organizations need to view their
people as assets and not as an expense and readdress the way they spend their
training and development dollars.
Eileen Albert 39
References
Armstrong, G. (2005). The Training Gap: Here’s One Crucial Training Element
you may have missed. HR Professional, June/July, 16.
Belcourt, M., & Saks, A. M. (1998). After Delivery. Canadian Learning Journal May, 9-10.
Brinkerhoff, R. O. (2005). The Success Case Method: A Strategic Evaluation
Approach to Increasing the Value and Effect of Training. Advances in
Developing Human Resources 7, 1, 86-101.
Blanchard, K. (2004). Commit to Greatness. PM Network, June, 20-21.
Collins, D. B., Holton III, E. F., (2004). The Effectiveness of Managerial
Leadership Development Programs: A Meta-Analysis of Studies from 1982 to
2001. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 15, 2, 217-248.
Goldsmith, M., & Morgan, H., (2004). Leadership is a Contact Sport, Strategy +
Business, Fall, 71-79.
Hall, B. (2005). The Top Training Priorities for 2005. Training, February, 22-29.
Holmes, C., & Carnes, T. (2004). Measuring Results. Industrial Distribution,
New York: April, 93, 3, 61.
Kirkpatrick, Donald. L. (1998). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels
(2nd ed.). San Francisco: Berrett-Kohler.
Eileen Albert 40
Molinaro, V. (2005). Training ROI requires attention to follow-up. Canadian HR
Reporter, Toronto: March 24, 16, 6. 13.
Parker, R.O., & Cooney, J. (2005) Learning and Development Outlook. (The
Conference Board of Canada e-Library, 2005).
Ruona, W. E. A., Leimbach, M., Holton III, E. F., & Bates, R. (2002). The
Relationship between Learner Utility Reactions and Predicted Learning Transfer
among Trainees. International Journal of Training and Development, 6, 4, 218-
228.
Shope-Griffin, (2003). Personalize Your Management Development, Harvard
Business Review, March, 113-119.
Smith, G. W. (2004). Return on Investment in Training Accommodation Sector –
Front Desk Agents. University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.
Sull, D. N. (2003). Managing by Commitments, Harvard Business Review, June,
82-91.
Wick, C., Granger, K. (2004). Six Ways to Shorten the Learning-Doing Gap.
Electric Perspectives. Washington: Nov/Dec, 29, 6, 61-63.
Zenger, J., & Folkman, J. (2004) After the Learning: Implementation. T + D,
December, 57-59.
Eileen Albert 41
Zenger, J., Folkman, J., Sherwin, B. (2005). A Formula to Make Learning and
Development Stick. Unpublished.
Zenger, J., Folkman, J., & Sherwin, B (2005). The Promise of Phase Three. T +
D, January, 30-35.
Eileen Albert 42
Appendix A
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR EMPLOYERS
1- SECTION ONE – CURRENT TRAINING PROGRAMS AND BUDGETS
1-1. In a typically year do you conduct one or more formal training programs?
_____ Yes _____ No
1a. If “yes”, How often do employees receiving training? (e.g. Once
yearly, monthly, upon hiring only)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
1-2. When formal training is offered do participants self select the training they
receive _____, is the organization making the decision as to who will
attend _____, or is it a combination of both _____?
Eileen Albert 43
1-3. Do you have an annual budget for training and development?
_____ Yes _____ No
3a. If “yes”, How are training and development dollars allocated?
_____ A percentage of sales
_____ A percentage of human resources budget
_____ A percentage of departmental budget
_____ A percentage of payroll
_____ Other, please specify ____________________________________
1-4. What would you estimate your organization spends per employee annually
on training.
$_______
Eileen Albert 44
1-5. Typically there are three stages to training and development. Stage one is
the pre training, which could include a needs assessment and program
design. Stage two is the actual training and stage three is the post
training to follow up to ensure participants apply what they have learned
when they return to the workplace.
What percentage of your training and development dollars are spent on
each area?
Pre-training _____ %
Training _____ %
Post training _____ %
1-6. What do you believe is the value contributed by each segment of the
learning process?
Pre-training _____%
Training _____%
Post training _____%
Eileen Albert 45
1-7. If the dollars spent after training has taken place are substantially lower
than the dollars spent on training itself, which of the following best
represents the reason?
_____ Never thought about post training
_____ Lack of time
_____ Lack of money
_____ Don’t know how to track post training
_____ It’s up to the individuals taking the training to be accountable for the
post training and implement what they have learned
_____ Other, please specify ____________________________________
2 – MEASUREMENT – POST TRAINING
2-1. Do you measure your Return on Training Investment?
_____ Yes _____ No
1a. If “yes”, how? (reduced turnover, higher moral, better motivated
employees, increased sales, increased customer satisfaction)
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
Eileen Albert 46
2-2. When thinking about activities that follow training, what specifically are you
doing to ensure the newly acquired knowledge, skills, and ability is being
applied?
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
2-3. Does the training require participants to make clear public statements
about their commitment to themselves and the company as to their actions
once back in the workplace and after training has taken place?
_____ Yes _____ No
2-4. Is some system of follow-up a mandatory requirement of the people
providing the training?
_____ Yes _____ No
Eileen Albert 47
2-5. Are there coaches or mentors to provide support and encouragement as a
follow-up to training?
_____ Yes _____ No
5a. If “Yes”, Do you find it an effective post training tool?
_____ Yes _____ No
5b. If “No”, Do you think it would be an effective post training tool?
_____ Yes _____ No
2-6. Who do you believe should be accountable for follow-up on training
initiatives:
_____ the participant
_____ the employer
_____ the trainer
_____ all of the above
_____ any combination of the above, please specify
Eileen Albert 48
2-7. Does the organization tie application and implementation of skills training
to performance reviews?
_____ Yes _____ No
Eileen Albert 49
Appendix B
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR TRAINING COMPANIES
1 - SECTION ONE – Client Training Programs and Budgets
1-1. Do you know how your clients budget training and development dollars?
_____ Yes _____ No
1-2. Do your clients ask for your input on how to spend their training and
development dollars?
_____ Yes _____ No
1-3. Do you make recommendations on how clients should spend their training
dollars?
_____ Yes _____ No
3a. If “Yes”, do you only do so when asked?
_____ Yes _____ No
Eileen Albert 50
1-4. Typically there are three stages to training and development. Stage one is
the pre-training, which could include a needs assessment and program
design. Stage two is the actual training and stage three is the post
training to follow up to ensure participants apply what they have learned
when they return to the workplace.
On average what percentage of your clients’ training and development
dollars are spent on each of the following areas.
Pre-training _____ %
Training _____ %
Post training _____ %
1-5. What value to the organization do you put on each of the 3 phases of the
learning process?
Pre-training _____ %
Training _____ %
Post training _____ %
1-6. When designing the training programs do you attempt to specify new
behaviours as one of the learning outcomes?
_____ Yes _____ No
Eileen Albert 51
1-7. Do the majority of people who attend your training sessions attend
voluntarily or is training mandatory?
_____ % Mandatory
_____ % Voluntary
_____ Don’t know
MEASUREMENT – POST TRAINING
2-1. If the amount spent on post training is substantially lower than the amount
spent on training, which of the following best represents the reason?
_____ Never thought about post training
_____ Lack of time
_____ Lack of money
_____ Don’t know how to track post training
_____ It’s up to the individuals taking the training to be accountable for the
post training and implement what they have learned
_____ Other, please specify ____________________________________
2-2. Do you provide all three phases of the training and development process?
_____ Yes _____ No
Eileen Albert 52
2-3. Do you encourage clients to implement post training?
_____ Yes _____ No
2-4. Is there an extra charge for providing post training?
_____ Yes _____ No
4a. If “Yes”, Do you think it would discourage the use of post training?
_____ Yes _____ No
4b. If “No”, Do your clients take advantage of the post training?
_____ Yes _____ No
2-5. Who do you believe is responsible for follow through of training to ensure
training is being implemented?
_____ Employee receiving the training
_____ Manager of employee receiving the training
_____ Human Resources Department
_____ Training Company
_____ Other
Eileen Albert 53
Eileen Albert 54