The Impact of Training on Workplace Performance and Business Results
High Impact Learning (Perseus, 2001), by Robert O. Brinkerhoff and Anne M. Apking, approaches the topic of “transfer of training” with several fresh perspectives. For starters, the book introduces the practice of “impact mapping,” which determines the linkage between specific business results, workplace behaviors, training, and individual performance shortfalls. The rationale is that training isn’t likely to transfer to business results if there is no cause-and-effect relationship.
The authors say that part of the problem is the conventional view of training as an event. They emphasize the need to see training as an extended process that includes a system of performance support that encourages and empowers improved performance in the workplace. Most importantly, they declare that this extension of formal training is a part of the organizational culture and therefore owned and controlled by line managers and senior executives—not the learners or the trainers. Whether management is conscious of this dynamic or not, they are responsible for impeding or supporting performance improvement.
One of the most striking new ideas in the book is their view of Kirkpatrick’s four levels of training evaluation. Because Level 3 addresses the impact on workplace behavior and Level 4 addresses the impact on business results (see Levels of Training), the model is potentially useful to the transfer of training. However, the authors make the point that Kirkpatrick’s model is flawed, because trainers and training can’t be held responsible for Level 3 and Level 4 impacts. Improved workplace performance and business results, if they occur, are caused not just by training, but also by a myriad of other organizational influences, which are beyond the control of trainers.
Therefore, Level 3 and Level 4 evaluations should address line manager behavior, incentive systems, hiring practices and a host of other aspects of the culture that influence workplace performance and business results and are owned by line managers and senior executives. Because management is responsible for performance support, Level 3 and Level 4 feedback should be given to them. To make this happen, the authors suggest an alternative approach to Level 3 and 4 evaluations, called “success case evaluation.”
They also believe that traditional instructional systems design (ISD) methodologies are archaic and unwieldy, favoring instead a simple analyze, design, create and try-out loop, which involves the customers of training and introduces prototype programs as quickly as possible, with design changes and improved prototypes coming in successive programs.
Slaying these sacred cows may make HR professionals and other executives nervous. But I found myself in agreement with the authors, and the people who make training decisions probably need to feel nervous. Tens of billions of the dollars they invest in training each year are essentially wasted because only a small fraction of corporate training translates to improvements in workplace performance or to business results.
Dennis E. Coates, Ph.D., CEO, Performance Support Systems
|
