Training effectiveness: Rhetoric and reality

Training is everywhere. With economic growth and business expansion, organisations, public and private, tend to focus more on training.

Every day I get many e-flyers about training programs, some interestingly without clear objectives and surprisingly without the name of the trainer. The reality is that training has become a money- spinner for some.

The crux of the matter is, is the training effective? How do you measure its effectiveness? Is there an accepted way of measuring it? Let's explore.

Effectiveness is results-related. Training effectiveness refers to whether it has delivered the expected results. Training is an investment. Therefore, the organisations naturally want to see return on investment. It is also a case of expectations, by the organisation, HR department and the trainees. As such, return of expectations (ROE) matters a lot with regard to training.

The most well-known and used model for measuring the effectiveness of training programs was developed by Dr. Donald Kirkpatrick in the late 1950s. It has since been adapted and modified by a variety of researchers, yet the basic structure has stood the test of time.

According to Kirkpatrick, training effectiveness can be measured at four different levels - reaction, learning, behaviour and results.

It is a case of beginning with the end in mind. As Kirkpatrick said, "Trainers must begin with desired results and then determine what behaviour is needed to accomplish them. Then trainers must determine the attitudes, knowledge and skills that are necessary to bring about the desired behaviour.

The final challenge is to present the training program in a way that enables the participants not only to learn what they need to know but also to react favourably to the program."

I will simplify the four levels of training effectiveness, going by the basic thrust in each of them. For me, they highlight feel, know, do and get aspects. Let's dig deeper into details.

'Feel'

This refers to the reaction level identified by Kirkpatrick. It relates to how trainees reacted to their training. In other words, how much they liked or disliked it. Some organisations are proud of compiling an evaluation sheet at the end of the training and get the overall measure. For me it gives only a 'feel' of the training effectiveness.

Some trainers are smart at declaring a money back guarantee if the evaluation rating is below a specific percentage. It does not cover the reality of application challenges and is a case of thriving on feelings.

My point is that it is good to measure how participants reacted positively or negatively to a particular training schedule, but not good enough to ensure impact with regard to implementation. That's why we need to move forward.

'Know'

It can be either 'know what' or 'know how', with regard to knowledge and skills. This is the second stage which is the learning level according to Kirkpatrick. It is directed at measuring trainees' performance in terms of knowledge, skills and attitudes against the criteria which were set for the period of training.

This generally means an end of the course assessment, comprising either a questionnaire to check the knowledge gained or a test to ascertain the skills acquired.

A person who had undergone training on word-processing may be asked to type a letter, and obviously the letter is expected to be well-formatted and free of errors.

This focuses on the application of training, and refers to level 3 or behaviour level of the Kirkpatrick model. It resonates well with what Aldous Huxley, a British author said a long time ago.

"At the end of the day, what matters is not how much you know, but how much you have done". Knowing should lead to doing and doing should bring the desired results.

At this stage, the focus shifts from training context to work environment. How effectively have the knowledge, skills and attitudinal enhancement gained from training transferred to the job is measured here.

The immediate supervisor can play a critical role in this respect by providing feedback based on his or her observations of the trainee.

Then it is the time to focus on returns at a macro level. Return on Investment (ROI) or Return on Training Investment (ROTI) is prominent in this regard. What Kirkpatrick calls the results level (Level 4), deals with how to measure this important aspect. It includes complex calculations to establish benefits against costs, with many assumptions.

To obtain results, the training should fulfill financial and non-financial expectations. In areas such as sales, it is relatively easier to measure the impact at results level, by using simple comparisons such as sales before and after training. With regard to other areas involving knowledge and attitudinal enhancements, the situation is more difficult with the involvement of multiple contributing factors towards results other than training.

Status in Sri Lanka

Despite the boom in training with the mushrooming of trainers, the measurement of effectiveness has not yet received its due prominence in Sri Lanka.

I see a clarity issue and a commitment issue. The time has come for training effectiveness to be taken more seriously.

This is for the betterment of HR professionals and also for the well-being of organisations. Sri Lankan organisations have significant scope for improvement in this regard.

The writer is the Acting Director of the Postgraduate Institute of Management. He also serves as an Adjunct Professor in the Division of Management and Entrepreneurship, Price College of Business, University of Oklahoma, USA.