Why Do Training Programs Often Fail? Seeking Insights on Learning Theories in HR

Hi,

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 organizations and why organizations mostly do not use them despite the greater effectiveness of doing so. Can anyone help me out with relevant information? Even cases of training programs not having as much effect as desired in organizations would be good to know as I could then study those to see if the lack of focus on learning styles and theories has anything to do with training ineffectiveness.

Regards,
Yashaswini

Hi Yashaswini,

The effectiveness of a training program is dependent on many factors. Learning style and theory play a role; however, in my opinion, it can be one of the easiest parameters to track and correct.

Rakesh

Yes, there are many reasons why programs are ineffective. However, have there been any examples in your organization where you could trace the ineffective transfer of learning, disinterest of participants, or lack of impact of the program to its faulty design?

Dear Yashaswini,

I have been in the training field for quite some time. Drawing from my own experiences, I wrote an article titled "Why Employee Training Fails?" It was published in Deccan Herald, the second-largest publication in Bangalore, on August 13, 2008. Unfortunately, the link to the article is no longer available.

In my opinion, the return on investment (ROI) in training largely depends on the employees of the company. If the training investment is not correlated with their performance, the training is likely to be ineffective.

After the publication of my article, I was invited to give a guest lecture on this subject. I have delivered lectures at several management institutes. The presentation related to this topic is attached to this post.

Thank you,
Dinesh V Divekar
Soft Skills and Behavioral Training Consultant
+91
E-mail: dineshdivekar(at)yahoo.com

Hi,

What I gather from the messages posted is that unless there is active involvement of the participants in the Training Program, we can't achieve fruitful results. Despite our efforts for two-way communication with them, it is evident that unless we incorporate some interesting, humorous, or eye-catching elements in the training program, we cannot achieve the expected ROI.

A training program should be tailored to suit the participants' backgrounds. I recall a true incident shared by a friend during a training session for the Non-Teaching Staff of a renowned educational institute in Delhi. The speaker used the English language to address the program. Language barrier is evidently a major issue leading to training program failures. It's essential to communicate in a language that participants can understand easily to grasp the content effectively.

Thank you.

Dear All,

I also have some issues related to training and development. I am taking care of the T&D cell in my organization. Things are systemized until training is conducted. I wanted to know more about training effectiveness. A training feedback form is used after the training program, but I wanted to know how to evaluate the performance of employees after training.

Kindly guide me on the same.

Thanks and Regards,
Mandeep Gill

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.

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 organizations 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 organizations would be good to know as I could then study those to see if a lack of focus on learning styles and theories has 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.

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. (For 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 or 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 succinct replies.

How many organizations actually evaluate the effectiveness of training programs based on all four Kirkpatrick 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 the transfer of learning?

Training is one strategic way in draining your ill-gotten money. That is how many firms in India fill their budget blocks. Unwanted staff are put in the training department and watched for fun. Barring a few in the IT sector, where training is used to reduce incubation time for freshers, that too for saving their heads from the ever-increasing attrition rate, policymakers at the top often spray a few words for news lines about training. Training is meant for lower levels (operational). Firms impose the so-called training without giving reasonable wages for their hard work. They demand miracles from trainers to produce positive results for all the coercive acts against poorly paid, hard-working pillars of progress. In India, the gap between words and deeds is so big that even the Almighty seems to be baffled. Eat this bitter pill for the day.

Fantastic. In my opinion, if the management goal is not aligned with training needs, it fails. Secondly, management should be interested in understanding that behavioral development training is much needed in addition to on-the-job training (such as software and hardware knowledge). Thirdly, management should be interested in focusing not only on earnings and returns all the time but also on helping HR personnel interact with employees for their development.

I hope my thoughts align with the discussion.