I came across a 2010 article written by Jane Bozarth on this very subject on the Learningsolutionsmag.com site. Bozarth is the Director of Research for The eLearning Guild, and has written many books on the subject. She discusses a grid she uses (see figure below) when speaking with leaders to determine if training is the best course of action for their staff.
Image source: https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/442/nuts-and-bolts-when-training-works
Quadrant A of the grid is pretty basic - it could be that the employee is simply not a fit for the job and should likely not have been hired in the first place. Bozarth talks about red flags that can indicate an employee falls into this quadrant, such as frequent absenteeism in their first weeks on the job and complaining about core job duties. Bozarth says of these employees, "training will not make the person more inclined to learn or perform."
Quadrant B moves on to employees that know their core functions, but do not seem motivated to perform them. These are employees that can have some longevity in the organization, and typically know how perform their tasks correctly, but have had recent dips in productivity. Bozarth discusses how employees in these categories are likely struggling with issues training will not fix, such as personal issues, boredom with the tediousness of their tasks, or, in some cases, even suffering the effects of a bad manager. In these cases, training will not be able to address the root causes of the decline in their work.
Moving to Quadrant C, we now have employees that are skilled and able to perform their core duties, but performance targets are not being met. Bozarth places people in this category that have issues getting the support and resources they need to complete their tasks. These resources can come in the form of physical equipment needed to do the job (keys, office supplies), technological issues (access to required computer programs), or not having access to subject-matter experts. Bozarth talks about how, in these situations, it is often "the supervisor making the request who really needs the training - in managing performance problems."
Bozarth is very specific in stating that the only time training is deemed the solution, are for employees that fall into Quadrant D. These staff members are motivated to perform, but truly do not know how. She does caution, that even these employees may not require actual training, but instead "a job aid or performance support tool may be better than a training solution."
Considering the time and resources it takes to develop training programs, tools like these can be instrumental in determining which situations actually warrant training. By taking the time to sit down and have these conversations with managers, companies can better determine how to allocate limited training budgets and resources to employees that would best benefit.
Source: https://www.learningsolutionsmag.com/articles/442/nuts-and-bolts-when-training-works
Erin, I agree that it is so important to conduct a needs assessment before selecting a training program. It may be that the issue needing to be addressed is something entirely different than the pre-selected training program would offer. My question for you is, if a manager had already decided on a generic training program, how would you convince them to consider a needs assessment first?
ReplyDeleteGreat question! This could be tough, too, depending on the personality of the manager and whether or not they were digging their heels in about the content. I would likely approach it through a fiscal lens, and let them know the full cost of the training program, along with the cost of the lost productivity of the employees that will be attending. Since most managers have budget and productivity goals to meet, I think this would help them see how the training would have a very low likelihood of being a return on investment.
Delete