July/August 2008
Featured Article
INSTALLING TRAINING FOR
MAXIMUM IMPACT
Things don't work if they aren't installed properly. A poorly installed HVAC system in an office building can make its inhabitants sick. An enterprise-wide software solution installed poorly can actually erode the productivity of the people who use it. The same is true with training. Without paying careful attention to crucial activities that need to be accomplished before, during, and after a workshop, the training is unlikely to meet its goals or reach its potential.
At Ridge, we believe effective installation is a collaborative activity between the training department, the participants, and their managers. If the training involves an outside organization's course or trainers, they would be additional collaborators in the installation. This article focuses on effective installation activities that work before, during, and after a training program, regardless of whether an outside organization is involved.
Before the Training
The training has a much greater impact when the trainees' managers and the sponsors of the program:
- tie the training to corporate, division, or department goals;
- create accountability for performance goals related to the training;
- invite the employee;
- set attendance expectations;
- think about the group's profile and brief the facilitator as necessary;
- ensure the course content fits the group; and
- attend to the details of the training.
Tying the training to corporate, division, or department goals
Training should be selected not only to meet the specific developmental needs of the participants, but to contribute substantially to work goals. These goals may have been expressed by the corporation, a division, a department, or even a work team.
For example, a large corporation wanted to improve its overall productivity as measured by revenue per employee. They decided that increasing employee engagement was the most effective way of achieving that goal. In an engagement survey, employees gave the company below average ratings. Employees were discouraged by an absence of involvement, recognition, and development. In analyzing the results, the common denominator was managers' behavior. The company decided to train a critical mass of managers in skills and processes to address these gaps so that they became part of the productivity culture of the company. The next year, the engagement and revenue-per-employee improve dramatically, thanks in part to the strategic connection and value of the development effort.
Had this same training occurred without the strategic focus, the outcome may well have been different. Participants and the organization may have viewed the training as nice to have rather than absolutely necessary. Such isolated training loses much of its power, and when training doesn't meet a strategic organizational need, it seldom sticks.
Creating accountability for performance goals related to the training
If the training is tied to important goals, accountability must be built into the process. This is where involvement of participants' managers is most critical. Managers need to know how training supports the goals of the organization, department, or team and be able to connect the dots for their employees. They also need to translate the content of a course into the improved performance they expect.
To achieve this end, we recommend that managers and employees solidify a mutual understanding of expected training-related outcomes. For example, in a sales organization, the sales manager might tell the salespeople that he or she expects to see improvement in how they listen to customer needs and handle objections after attending a particular sales course. Salespeople now know they are accountable for this improvement and will focus their efforts on gaining skills in those areas.
This accountability conversation might seem basic, but it happens less frequently than it should. Managers may not even know that employees are attending the training. Worse, they may not even understand its purpose. Participants are often in the same boat. In either circumstance, accountability for performance improvement doesn't exist. Making sure this conversation happens is vital to follow-through after the training has occurred. We believe it is so important that Ridge has created an agenda that managers can use to lead this conversation, even if they know very little about the training to take place. Click here for a pdf version of this document.
Inviting the employee
One way to create interest, cement accountability, and create the link between training and strategy is to develop an invitation process. A written invitation, preferably from the highest-level person involved in supporting the training, benefits the program and the participant. The letter can explain reasons the training is offered and its desirable outcomes. Ideally a face-to-face invitation from the employee's supervisor should follow the letter. It's best when the invitation is offered enthusiastically (and the employee makes the choice to attend). If you compel the employee to attend, they may resent participating. If they choose to attend, they come as learners. That personal investment reduces the person's resistance and increases his or her openness to the experience of learning.
Sometimes training is mandatory. If that's the case, use the invitation to communicate why it's mandatory and the reasons they must attend. Don't spin or sidestep the real reasons; the more candid you are the better for both you and the employee.
Without an invitation, participants may not connect the dots between what they're learning and their future success. Even training for high-potential employees isn't obvious: many emerging leaders consider training remedial unless they understand the purpose of their participation. In the absence of context, learners enter the training resentful about being there. Needless resistance blocks learning and erodes the effectiveness of the training outcomes unless skilled facilitators lead the program and burn it off.
Setting attendance expectations
Another challenge to a program's integrity is participants missing class time. A manager may call a participant out of class for a meeting; the participant had previously scheduled something that means missing a day of training; members may need to leave early to catch a plane. Even in the training room participants can miss class time, responding to email or checking their PDAs. They're distracted: their bodies are present but their minds are not. That has an impact not just on the individual, but on the group's attentiveness as well.
Some absences and interruptions are unavoidable, but if training is a strategic priority, or if an expectation exists that performance must change as a result of the training, then all participants must be present for the entire workshop. Trainers can address in-class issues, but other policies are needed as well. If a person must miss a significant or critical part of the training, we recommend that he or she be scheduled to attend at another time. We also suggest a policy that clearly defines a participant's expected time commitment and alerts managers not to interrupt the training of their employees.
Think about the group's profile and brief the facilitator as necessary
Learning is a collaborative experience. The group's make-up can either add to or detract from the training's outcomes. When a group of people are put together in a classroom, various factors contribute to the environment, including:
- type of work done by participants
- levels in the organization
- age range
- experience
- prior training
At times a homogeneous group can be most effective. At other times a more varied group will spark better learning experiences. In any case, brief the facilitator on the profile of each class to ensure that he or she is aware of specific needs and can meet them more readily.
Ensuring the course content fits the group
Whenever possible, course materials should be tailored to fit well with the participants' work world. At minimum, refine at least a portion of the course materials. If behavior change is a strategic priority, a full customization of the material is a worthwhile investment: participants need to see how what they learn applies specifically to their jobs.
Attending to the details of the training
Installing a workshop is a big production. Well-executed details are not only invisible to the participants and trainers, they deepen the learning experience. A technical problem can interrupt a positive learning experience, steal time and momentum, require the trainers to redesign on the fly, and result in poor outcomes. Unless the many administrative details receive accurate and thorough attention, the efforts of the trainers and the value of the training can be compromised. Critical details include:
- a training facility and setting conducive to the specific type of learning
- room arrangements that meet participants' learning needs
- logistical support (making sure that training materials are in the room, etc.) that allows trainers to focus on the course and participants
- technical support to prevent disruptions to training
- arrangement of meals and breaks
During the Training
Once participants begin the training, the job of installation isn't over. It's critical to continue attending to the details, working with participants to minimize missed class time, and helping them connect the dots between the training, their work, and the organizational imperative for the training. It's also important to create an environment that is conducive to learning, regardless of other organizational pressures, by assuring confidentiality, structuring the observer's role, and refraining from evaluating employee performance.
Assuring confidentiality
Participants learn best in an environment in which they feel safe. If trainers are doing their jobs well, participants can let their guard down and say things they intend to be off the record. If trainers are perceived as informants, it damages not only the participants' trust of the trainer in that workshop but compromises the trainer's reputation within the organization as well. When setting ground rules, we also ask participants to honor confidentiality: "Feel free to talk about your own experience, just not the experience of others." If you don't have a policy on confidentiality, you might be surprised at the difference it can make.
Structuring the observer's role
It is common for participants' superiors or human resource staff to drop in on the class to see how things are going. They may only be there for a brief time or they may want to sit in the back of the room and observe the entire course. While this role may be important to upper management's buy-in, it has detrimental effects on the program.
In our experience, observers disrupt the learning process regardless of their intent. Participants feel like they're in a fishbowl: it's impossible for them not to feel evaluated. They become self-conscious, inhibiting the risk-taking environment that promotes learning. There are other issues as well: drop-in observers don't know what has happened before their arrival or where the training is headed. What they observe may not be representative of the course.
We recommend that observers attend only as full participants. That way they're as vulnerable as everyone else and, most importantly, become part of the learning team. If they can only attend for part of the session, invite them to begin the program with the group and leave when they must.
Refraining from evaluating employee performance
Sometimes sponsors of the training or employees' managers want information on a participant's performance or attitude toward learning. They may want to see how underperforming employees are responding to skills they need to develop. If training is part of a change initiative, they may want to gauge participants' receptivity or resistance to the change. But resistance and awkwardness are common as people try learning new skills. Safety promotes curiosity and experimentation, the threat of evaluation undermines these essential qualities of effective learning. Participants shift from authentic learning to more protective strategies: withdrawing as participants or role-playing only positive traits, in an attempt to prove how good they are. For this reason, training and feedback on workshop performance or attitude should be kept separate. Encourage managers to set up times after the program has ended to observe and coach employees.
These are critical policies to consider. Handled poorly, each issue has the potential to erode the effectiveness of training. If these problems consistently appear during training and no attempt is made to control the resulting negative impact, the training itself loses credibility. Handled skillfully, each problem can be addressed proactively and resolved.
After the Training
After the training program, a few actions make a big difference in the lasting effectiveness of the program. Managers should continue the accountability conversation, or start it. They should be role models for the program (attending if necessary), provide coaching and encouragement, and create incentive for using the skills. The sponsors should create opportunities for reinforcing the program and creating a learning community. With these actions in place, when the effectiveness of the program is evaluated, its success should be evident.
Continuing the accountability conversation
We mentioned accountability as an integral part of the pre-training installation. After a training program, the participant's manager needs to close the loop of communicated expectations by relating the employee's participation in the course to actual results. This is a professional way of ensuring that the goals for the training were accomplished, as well as showing that the manager is serious about the employee's commitment to incorporating what he or she learned from the training. To help, we've included an agenda to guide this discussion. Click here for a pdf version of this document.
Encouraging participants' managers to be role models
No matter how great the training, the manager sets the tone with his or her behavior. The best-case scenario is for managers to model the same skills that participants have just learned. This creates internal consistency between training and job performance. If such internal consistency is important—we think it is more often than not—the manager might need to be trained in the skills. It can be a misuse of time and money to train employees in behaviors that are not used by their managers.
Offering incentives to employees to use the skills they learned
Employees figure out what an organization values by the recognition it gives—promotions, bonuses, and so on. If an organization frequently rewards people whose behaviors contradict key aspects of the training, the training will be undermined. When organizations reward the behaviors taught in the training programs, people take notice and are more likely to develop the skills they have been learning.
Providing coaching and encouragement
When new skills are applied on the job, positive reinforcement by the manager will help make that behavior part of the employee's repertoire. Sometimes, new behaviors may lack finesse. Providing ongoing encouragement and pointers on how to improve in a particular area can help employees' smooth their rough edges, especially in the early phases of performance change.
Reinforcing the training
If transfer of training is desired, reinforcement is required. Performance change takes time to become habit. When it comes to reinforcement, the more the better. While e-learning is well suited to this need, peer support through concepts like Marshall Goldsmith's "feedforward" can focus learning on application, not just content retention. "Lunch and learns" and webinars can keep the training goals at the front of minds, and brief reinforcement sessions allow participants to discuss and problem-solve their experiences, sharing best practices with each other. If there are in-house trainers who know the course skills well, they may offer individual coaching sessions or group conference calls for discussions and help in using the skills.
Evaluate
Finally, a follow-up survey, done with a random sample of participants, can provide decision-makers with information about the transfer of skills to the job. (That equates to Level III of Kirkpatrick's training evaluation model.) Are employees performing better because of the investment in their development or not? After all, that's the bottom line.
Conclusion
Even if you want to, you can't address all these installation items by yourself. Participants and managers must be brought into the process if successful transfer of learning from workshop to workplace is the goal.
While it's hard to put a dollar value on the importance of installation, it is clear that without attention to the details outlined above the investment will be diluted from the start.
We hope we've pointed out some opportunities to make your training efforts more robust. And if you're discouraged, thinking that it's a daunting task to do these things well or build the partnership you need, start with where you are. Pick a few items that are easy to implement, or that can make a big difference, and begin there. You might be surprised by the difference a few small-but-critical actions can make.
INSTALLATION CHECKLIST
Before the training
- Tie the training to corporate, division or department goals.
- Create accountability for performance goals related to the training.
- Invite the employee.
- Set the expectation not to miss class time.
- Think through the group profile and brief the facilitator on the group.
- Ensure that the course content fits the group.
- Attend to the details of the training.
During the training:
- Assure confidentiality.
- Structure the observer's role.
- Don't evaluate employee performance.
- Continue the accountability conversation.
- Encourage participants' managers to be role models.
- Incent employees to use the skills they learned.
- Provide coaching and encouragement.
- Reinforce the training.
- Evaluate the effectiveness of the training.
©2008 Ridge Associates, Inc.
Copyright 2009 Ridge Associates, Inc. All Rights Reserved.