I had the good fortune recently to interview Roy Pollock, a learning transfer expert based in the US. From the interview we have created an article for the Training & Development magazine, and it is a really great article with some very useful information in it. Re-reading Roy’s interview, I was reminded of the confusion that often surrounds the manager’s role in learning. In fact, it’s the only point in the article where our views differ.
Roy refers back to the Broad Newstrom study which claims that the most important role in the transfer of learning is the role of the manager, in particular the role of the manager before the training begins.
I can imagine that from the viewpoint of the trainer or the facilitator, that this intervention by the manager before the training program does have a big impact on the attitude that the participant brings to the program. However, I really can’t believe that it is the biggest driver in the level of transfer. I often see that the attitude of a participant plays a big part in how they behave in the training program itself, but more often than not, by the end of the training program the participant has really seen the value of the program for themselves. The result is that participants then often have a higher level of ownership than if they have just followed their manager’s words or their manager’s blessing.
Does this mean that I believe that the manager doesn’t have a role? No, certainly not. I think it is absolutely their role to support and encourage both before the training is attended and after training. This will help paticipants see the relevance to their role. After their training program, the key thing for participants is having someone to support them implement what they’ve learnt, and this could be a manager or it could be someone else.
In all the conversations that I’ve had with participants, I don’t think I’ve ever once had a participant say to me, ‘No, I can’t implement something because I don’t have my manager’s backing’.
I’ve said before that people learn in groups, but they change individually. Of course, it’s great to have the support of their manager, but I don’t think it stops them implementing if they see value in it themselves and if they are actually in control of their role. It may be partly influenced by with the level at which you’re working at within an organisation, but generally I see that people take a lot of ownership for what they need to change, through training.
Looking in from the outside, the manager is probably the easiest person to blame for lack of transfer, but much more attention needs to be given to the level of ownership the participant has. The level of transfer really needs to be put at the participant’s door, making sure that they’re given adequate support. If it is the manager that is expected to give that support, then the manager needs to be correctly trained and briefed. This could be with a coaching one pager for the conversations we’d like them to have, making really clear what the role is we want from the managers, giving them the skills and tools to fulfill that role properly.
In summary, I don’t believe that necessarily the manager role has the greatest influence on results before the training but I certainly think their support afterwards is essential.
What are your thoughts?