Why Training Fails and How to Make it Work.

After working for than 35 years, I have witnessed my fair share of failures in training, wearing different hats as manager, HR, participant and trainer. Now, I know there are various reasons why training fails to deliver results. But, among the most glaring and overwhelming reason is because there is no authentic integration among the key stakeholders in deciding if, at all, training is the most appropriate and effective solution. The problem is not so much acute with “hard” technical skill trainings like MS Office, 7 QC tools, Forklift Driving, Machining, Wiring, etc. The biggest challenge lies those “soft” skill areas relating to attitudinal and behavioral change, which very much depends on applying it at the workplace, where the rubber meets the road. And, it is very convenient to make a scapegoat in putting the failure on the external training  provider or trainer. 
                   

I have personally gone through many trainings that have not served me nor the organisation much benefit, other than to meet the metric of completing the training hours per employee per year. I still can’t believe. We are into the 21st century and I still come across such metrics even amongst global MNCs! This goes to indicate how few organisations consider training, more precisely learning, seriously enough as a leadership functional responsibility in ensuring that the time and monies spend towards improving the competency of people yield returns.   

For years on now, training business and organisations have grappled with the difficult challenge of measuring training success. Many have used ROI as a means to measuring the benefits. Once again, this may be simplistically true in so far as hard skill areas where one can quantify the results in dollars value. But, when it comes to soft skills it is not so straight forward. How do you measure leadership or emotional intelligence in terms of dollars?. These skills are not the lone domain of individuals, rather requires the holistic support of the environment in which the individual interacts with. Training is a collaborated undertaking, not an isolated undermining!. There are no short cuts to tasting the fruits of labour. Training has a methodological structure  and process and if you .       

In 1998, unknowingly, I was roped at the eleventh hour into attending a leadership cum motivation training. The training was speared by the top leadership in consultation and collaboration with none other than Dr Paul Chan of HELP Institute. There were about twenty odd participants, mostly senior officers with many years of experience but who have been passed over for promotion. It was not until the opening address by the top gun that I realized this. By lunch time, my adrenalin was already peaking to ask why was I there. Shockingly, I was told that I was among the few ‘thrown’ in to inspire and motivate the others, into believing there is light at the end of the tunnel, to their career. To cut the story short, upon returning to base, I took the leadership to task, through a written report, questioning why had they blatantly departed from the fundamentals of the training cycle and had failed to engage the 'few' participants in letting them know in advance what was expected out of them before, during and after the training. And, this happened at the most unlikeliest of places – Army Training Command Headquarters, where I had served my last posting before retiring as a SO2 Doctrine & Evaluation.     

Herein, lies the problem - Leadership !. Many managers and bosses out there don’t think and act responsibly in treating their people with the same humility, maturity and respect. They have a “I know best” stance and don’t feel the need to listen to what their staff have to say with regards to matters involving their personal learning and development. These so called “leaders” are flawed in thinking that training is a unilateral decision and they are doing their staff a favour. These leaders know only of one style of approach - command and control. They communicate in one directional – to do to the staff, not with the staff.

We all know that soft skills are difficult to perceive and measure in a constant and consistent manner, hence why many leaders and participants alike, feel hesitant and pessimistic in investing in it. Because it is connected to psychology and character makeup of individual people, the returns may take a lot longer than what most leaders are willing to patiently wait. In addition, the training may even be a total waste, if the root cause lies elsewhere in the system. Training is not a panacea and to think it is the shiny silver bullet to all people problem is foolhardy.

The way in which I feel organisations can make training successful is to first make the connection with those who stand to benefit most – Participants or Trainees. After all, aren’t they the direct benefactor of the learning process and outcome. How does it help if they are not consulted and clearly informed of what they are expected to deliver or demonstrate upon returning from a training program?. Managers should sincerely and trustingly discover and communicate the agenda of closing employee performance gaps, be it in the current job or future growth plan. This will save the manager, staff and company a lot hassle and wasted resources. 

The other important area to improve would be to make measuring training outcome more realistically simple and plausible. When it comes to soft skills, instead ROI, managers should consider using what Donald Kirkpatrick calls ROE – Return on Expectations. Yes, what better way to measure that which training is required to close - the list of gaps and expectations of leaders, translated in competency and behavioural indicators. Meeting the expectations would cause to produce the desired effects.

Training is the single biggest change initiative that organisations invest in people with intent to help them improve their performance and their purposeful contribution. Yet, many do not see the benefits from it because of certain disconnect in the training cycle. Training or learning, is not taken to a conscious level of ownership and commitment by the stakeholders. What is meant to be a diagnostic, collaborative, integrative and synergistic undertaking, ends up being a annual calendar based intuitive wish-list activity, designed to offer employees breakaway time-off from work.

In my humble opinion, for training to succeed, the management must  step up to appreciate and understand the concept of training cycle and how it generates – learning, both formal and informal. It is highly recommended that managers attend training workshops on the 5 phases of training cycle – TNA, Design, Development , Execution and Evaluation. It is too elaborate and serious of a business to be left to HR Department,  who may not necessarily be best positioned to articulate the strategic and operational needs of people. Many organisations take the easy way out by outsourcing the training function and hoping the external trainer or provider knows best in offering the answers and solution. Whilst this may work for some, for sure no external party will know better the internal environment challenges and if the training is going to be applied at work. In worst case scenarios where there is a lack of expertise, managers should take ownership of the beginning and end of the training cycle – TNA and Evaluation. This way, they can keep sight of the identified learning objectives and how to effectively measure the outcomes.