Dear Mr Dinesh,
Well done. You have driven home some valuable insights.
However, I would like to bring to attention a serious flaw in conveying the accountability for learning. You said, "The query that you have asked does not fall within purview of training professionals. This is HR challenge.". I am sure you will agree that, as with most other KRAs, training or more specifically, learning is a top leadership challenge. HR are mere "facilitators" acting, at best, as advisors and process experts. I am assuming HR have the capability to do so. If they are not competent, then they should seek the expertise or engage external help. It gives away a good feel of how serious training and learning is treated in an organisation.
Why do you think learning fails, in most cases?. Invariably, you will find it is due to lack of buy-in or support from either top or line leadership. That's why you get the feedback as shared by UK Mitra. Why blame training for the failure of learning transfer (In Mitra's case, it's Off Job). By learning, I am refering to the ultimate achievement of "unconscious competence" level. If we are serious and genuine on learning, then there is no room for acknowledgement and cognizance to systemic excuses such as busyness, memory lapses or how politics impacts the operating culture.
In fact, you have supported this in saying, "Convince your management first to assign this task to someone of follow up and then go ahead with the training.". Yes, assigning a dedicated person sure goes a long way to demonstrate seriousness of top leadership accountability. The next level would be having your own organic learning division and institutionalising learning as a performance task.
I serve as a HR practitioner cum Trainer. The biggest challenge to HR is not employees but rather leaders who have less faith and commitment in the dynamic potential of people. This alone is good enough to keep the training & development role in the back burner.
Dear Mr Bhavesh,
If your focus is effectiveness, then do the right thing - Revisit your entire training /learning cycle. From what you have described it seems you have missed the elephant in the process. Evaluation is the tailend and to put that right would require you to go back to the start - TNA stage, where you are suppose to engage the sources/beneficiaries in determining the objectives, both enabling and terminal. Unfortunately, many people (even trainers) don't go deep into this and end up with superflous objectives that does not help translate into measurable results or demonstrable behaviours. It will also lead you to agree on how the learning will be manifested upon return from training.
Unfortunately, many leaders at the line don't have a clue of what their responsibility and accountability to their charges, in ensuring improvement to results and/or behaviour occurs. And, when it does not, then they need to solicit feedback and engage to identify if there are other non-training interventions that is needed to turnaround employee performance and growth. If you ask me, make TNA or Organisational (ONA) a mandatory learning KRA for line leadership - supervisory & above.
The only way for HR to get this is to hold the leadership accountable for learning. It should form part of their KRA/KPI. If you follow the Kaplan & Norton's BSC, it is "common sense" to realise business results is derived from learning. Sadly, common sense is not so common, afterall.
I am sure you would agree the recent global crisis had, more so now than before, highlighted the biggest challenge that needs attention - LEADERSHIP. And, what always comes to my mind is the quote, "The fish rot's from the head".
Also, remember Einstein's quote, "Not all that counts is measured and not all that's measured, counts"
Yuvarajah
Malaysia