Dinesh Divekar
Business Mentor, Consultant And Trainer
Director Of Company
Hr Manager
General Manager - Hr
Officer Hr
+3 Others

I am a student of HR. I am currently doing a project where i am studying the application of learning theories while designing training prgrams in organisations and why organisations mostly do not use them despite the greater effectiveness of doing so. Can anyone help me out with relevnat information?
Even cases of training programs not having as much effect as desired, in organisations would be good to know as i could then study those to see if lack of focus on learning styles and theories have anything to do with training ineffectiveness.

From India, Mumbai
Hi Yashaswini,
The effectiveness of a training program is dependent on many factors. Learning style and theory has one of the role to play however in my opinion it can be one of the easiest parameter to track and correct.

From India, Hisar
yes, there are many reasons why programs are ineffective. but have there been any examples in your organisation where u could trace ineffective transfer of learning or disinterest of participants or lack of impact of the program to its faulty design?
From India, Mumbai
Dear Yashaswini,
I am into training field for quite some time. Taking into account my own experiences, I had written an article "Why Employee Training Fails?". It was published in Deccan Herald (second largest publication of Bangalore) on 13 Aug 2008. The link to the article is as below:
<link outdated-removed>
For ROI on training, employees of the company are far more responsible. If the investment on the training is not linked to their performance, training is bound to fail.
After reading my article, I was invited to give guest lecture on this subject. I have given guest lecture on this subject at couple of management institutes. The presentation is attached to this post.
Dinesh V Divekar
Soft Skill and Behavioural Training Consultant
+ 91
E-mail: - dineshdivekar(at)yahoo.com

From India, Bangalore

Attached Files
File Type: ppt Why Employee Training Fails.ppt (288.0 KB, 1306 views)

What I think from the messages posted is that, unless their is involvement of the participants in the Training Program, we can'nt achieve the fruitful results. Despite the fact, we try for the 2 way communication from the them, it is found that, unless we do add some of the interesting, humor or eye catching facts in the training prog, we cannt get the expected ROI.
A Training prog, should be based or to be executed on the participants background. I do remeber a true incident told by friend, during a Training prog for Non Teaching Staff of a reupted educational institute in Delhi, the Speaker used english language to address the prog, Here, the language is also a major issue where the training prog fails. Speak to langague where the participants can grab the right thing from it.

From India, Nagpur
Dear All,I also have some issues related to training & Development. I am taking care of T&D cell in my organization.............things are systemized till training is conducted...I wanted to know more about traning effectiveness, Training feedback form is used after training program, but I wanted to know how to evaluate the performance of employees after training. Kindly guide me for the same.Thanks and RegardsMandeep Gill
From India, Gandhidham

This is a chicken and an egg question which every organization dapples with, there are multiple issues with it especially the soft skills part. Research have proven that soft skill training improves the productivity yet there is no particular method of assessing the same.

Here are some of the major issues.

Training need analysis; is usually done as an appraisal process and not as a development process. The challenge is when it is done as an appraisal process the line manager and the associate is taking stock of the situation only once in 6 months or one year. The appraisal is more a discussion on the performance delivered and the performance required rather that developing a plan based on capabilities and the gaps. Most of the Line managers themselves believe that training is not for them and is only for their associates. This leads to multiple challenges as the need is not particularly defined and identified. HR gets a smoky picture like my team needs teambuilding or some crap like my team does not have motivation and they are supposed to wipe the shit out of team member’s ass without understanding the real requirement. I have heard this statement time and again in the organizations I have worked before (all fortune 20 companies) and most of my clients, i.e. PEOPLE ARE MY NUMBER ONE ASSEST. But no one has a strategy for that. That follows by

Identification of the training source; in today’s market every tom dick Harry, marry, Jane and sue are trainers. I really get upset when I see people who do not even have business experience doing bookish training programmes (Remember the information is only as good as its source). What kind of result do you expect of such trainers? Most of them have not even seen business situation properly and the content they use is a general ones. It is the business experience which adds value and some of the training companies I salute adhere to hiring trainers who have that kind of experience. The main challenge is that HR people get pressurized to do the programme at the earliest and they go not have the time to find the right vendor.

Post training follow up: this is where experience counts. When all research indicates and is a principle in training the 80% result will be attributed to post training follow-up and proper retention cum development plan no one sees to bother about it. Trainer delivering the programme is just a medium and if someone is sincerely wanting results they have to be serious in this step. If there is not plan there is no result all money and time is just down the drain

Training is a scientific process and unfortunately there are not too many professional who know the trick of the trade. Hope all the trainers make and effort to move in that direction.

From India, Bangalore
Hello Yashaswini:

>I am a student of HR. I am currently doing a project where i am studying the application of learning theories while designing training programs in organisations and why organizations mostly do not use them despite the greater effectiveness of doing so. Can anyone help me out with relevant information?<

Managers often don't use everything that is available to them and all too often they use the wrong tool.

>Even cases of training programs not having as much effect as desired, in organisations would be good to know as i could then study those to see if lack of focus on learning styles and theories have anything to do with training ineffectiveness.<

More often than not the wrong people are trained therefore the training program, no matter how well designed, fails to achieve its goal.

For employees to find job success...
  • talent is necessary, but not sufficient.
  • skills are necessary, but not sufficient.
  • training is necessary, but not sufficient.
  • orientation is necessary, but not sufficient.
  • knowledge is necessary, but not sufficient.
  • competency is necessary, but not sufficient.
  • qualifications are necessary, but not sufficient.
  • effective management is necessary, but not sufficient.
  • successful interviews are necessary, but not sufficient.
  • appropriate behaviors are necessary, but not sufficient.
Talent is the only necessary condition for job success that employers cannot provide their employees and schools cannot provide their students. Employers must hire talent, see the book "First, Break All the Rules,What the world's greatest managers do differently."\

Most employers don't measure talent so they can't hire for talent even if they do hire the best and the brightest.

Competence and talent are necessary but they are not the same. The following ties competence and talent together in a short guide for selecting the right people for a position. Talent and competence are necessary but they are two different things. Selecting for competence and talent avoids many performance problems. There are two conditions, see 3A and B below, when competent people should not be hired or selected for a position. Each position has its own talent requirement.

Job applicants can have
1. Excellent Talent ... greater than 85% job suitability
2. Adequate Talent ... 85% to 70% job suitability
3. Inadequate Talent ... less than 70% job suitability

Job applicants can also be
A. Highly Competent
B. Competent
C. Not Competent

The following is the order in which applicants and/or employees should be selected for positions.
1A = Excellent Talent and Highly Competent
1B = Excellent Talent and Competent
2A = Adequate Talent and Highly Competent
2B = Adequate Talent and Competent

The following should be selected if they can become competent.
1C = Excellent Talent and Not Competent
2C = Adequate Talent and Not Competent

The following should not be selected.
3A = Inadequate Talent and Highly Competent
3B = Inadequate Talent and Competent
3C = Inadequate Talent and Not Competent

Talent must be hired since it cannot be imparted or acquired after the hire.

From United States, Chelsea
Response to Yashaswini
Training fails... when...
1. The objectives are not defined well
2. The design did not take into account the past experience, learning styles etc., of the participants
3. The program was done just as an eye-washer. (Example: Some departments ask us for a 'Team Building' program to overcome a 'low morale' situation because of a poor pay revision. The situation cannot be changed with training)
4. The content is not experiential/ practical
5. The participants do not know 'what is in it for them'
Response to Mandeep
Training effectiveness can be measured using the following means:
1. Training Feedback (Reaction Level)
2. Test; Pre test and post test (Learning Level)
3. Performance On the Job (Transfer Level)
4. Surveys (Transfer Level)

@ bob and anand.
thank you for the succint replies.
how many organisations actually evaluate efectiveness of training programs based on all four kirkpatrik levels? reaction and learning are relatively easy to measure. but behavioral changes might not be. can drawing up an action plan and reviewing it be a good way to measure transfer of learing?

From India, Mumbai

This discussion thread is closed. If you want to continue this discussion or have a follow up question, please post it on the network.
Add the url of this thread if you want to cite this discussion.

About Us Advertise Contact Us
Privacy Policy Disclaimer Terms Of Service

All rights reserved @ 2021 Cite.Co™