Why, Who, and How to Create Results from Training
The Transfer of Learning Challenge
Just as a pole vaulter uses a pole to catapult themselves over a horizontal bar, learning can propel an individual forward and upward.
However, with conventional approaches to training, an average of just 10-20% of learning makes it back into the workplace and contributes to better business outcomes (Olivero, Bane & Kopelman, 1997). Reinforcement, sustainability and transfer of learning are not only hot topics, but with an increased emphasis on efficiency and cost-effectiveness, the pressure is on trainers to make learning truly valuable. Successful learning is not just about good content and well-executed programs but about finding ways to facilitate genuine behavioural change and accountability in the workplace, creating tangible business impact.
L&D professionals are often traditionalists and almost all the current instructional design models used in business today are variations of the original ADDIE model (Analysis; Design; Development; Implementation; Evaluation).
The first three stages of ADDIE – Analysis through to Development – are all concerned with how training is created with focus on what happens before the training. Implementation is concerned with everything that happens during the training – and L&D has become very adept at honing the transfer of information and skills to participants in a controlled learning environment.
Evaluation deals with what happens after the training and this is where things start to really fall apart, since so much training is still ‘measured’ by the dreaded ‘Happy Sheet’. In reality happy sheets are more a measure of how good the training was as a piece of entertainment, rather than the kind of measures needed to truly reflect successful training investment.
The real priority of the ‘after’ phase of the training should be to ensure that the new knowledge is being applied in the workplace through behavioural change. Without transferring learning through an ongoing process to support employees to operate differently in the workplace, yet another piece of learning will become just a new statistic in the legacy of failed organisational training. And, another colossal waste of time and money.
Clearly there has to be something missing in the ‘instructional design process’ (IDP) – and the answer is a proven solution for the transfer of learning.
Learning’s missing link – why it’s been missing for so long
The individual elements of the IDP have been perfected over the years but since training still fails, this means there must be a missing link; but why is this link missed?
- No Ownership: too often the different parts of the IDP are divided up across resources and there is no common finish line for each stage and that means no ownership.
- Wrong Objectives: When planning a program, the wrong objectives are often set. Rarely do people set objectives to actually deliver results after the training. If the objective is to finish on time and collect some ‘happy sheets’ about what participants intend to do then it is very easy to fudge success but it stops short of delivering business impact.
- Obsession with Content: L&D functions have become obsessed with finding new and innovative ways of getting content delivered, especially through technology. All this has done is make people think that if they improve the content and deliver it in a slightly more innovative way – whether it is a blended approach or solely online – there will be a miraculous change in behaviours as a result.
- Obsession with Evaluation: training evaluation represents the Holy Grail of learning and development but it does not create change, it only measures the extent of it – forget the Happy Sheet!
- Focus on Learning Not on Change: effective learning transfer needs change strategies. If the training’s primary goal isn’t to create behavioural change then nothing much will ever happen.
Learning’s missing link – the solutions so far…
Most people in the L&D industry are fully aware of training’s dismal record in affecting behavioural change, with a growing recognition that the missing link is the transfer of learning. Organisations believe they are addressing learning transfer issues when they adopt a supplementary activity such as; “managers conducting training follow up”, “holding discussion groups”, “offering executive coaching”, or “creating an online community”.
These and other tactics currently used in an attempt to improve training effectiveness, is testament to the fact that people recognize the problem. But the question is, do they work?
Well, not often.
Using the managers as the facilitators of learning transfer is by far one of the most popular approaches. Management responsibility as an approach to the transfer of training was an idea introduced by Broad and Newstrom (1992). They suggested that after training, the manager was the top element critical to successful learning transfer. It was also touched upon by Huczynski & Lewis (1980), who found that the “the management style and attitudes of the trainee’s boss were found to be the single most important factor in management training transfer.”
But haven’t we been trying to get that model working since the nineties with very limited success?
McKinsey & Company are prolific reviewers in the area of training and learning and they wrote an interesting article in 2010 where they found that only 25% of managers surveyed felt training programs measurably improved business results. This was followed up in 2014 by McKinsey who looked into ‘Why leadership-development programs fail’. Clearly their research is showing us that we have a problem, and I discuss this further in my response to McKinsey.
As Learning and Development professionals it is essential that we contribute to business results to remain relevant.
However, expecting managers to be able to create accountability is unrealistic – particularly without proper training in a proven transfer of learning methodology. They simply don’t have the tools, time or training to make it a reality. Perhaps it is about time that we cut managers some slack and become open to the possibility that they may not be the best person to facilitate learning transfer – at least not unless they have been thoroughly trained to do so.
While the various initiatives mentioned may be designed for change, unless individual reflection, ownership and accountability (and NOT through ticking the box) are included over a period of weeks these initiatives fail. The initiative may be implemented successfully, but what is true success? Is success the behavioural change that is delivered or still merely attendance and/or participation? To create sustained change we propose a much more robust and a truly holistic approach.
The Learning Transfer Solution
So what is the solution to the Learning Transfer problem – and who does it belong to? The who will follow, but for now let’s consider what the elements are of an effective Learning Transfer solution. Our specific approach is called Turning Learning into Action™.
Turning Learning into Action™ (TLA) is a proven learning transfer methodology that truly solves the problem. It’s driven by a series of specific and accountable one-on-one conversations that occur at various intervals after the training event, supplemented by a measurement methodology.
Training will increasingly become less about the learning and more about change. The TLA change methodology contains a coaching approach at its core but is tailored to address change post learning specifically. It allows people to identify what needs changing and helps them hold themselves accountable to follow through on those changes and get business results. Turning Learning into Action™ empowers the individual to take control of the learning process and increase its value and their productivity for individual and collective success.
TLA follows a three-stage process of Preparation, Action and Evaluation
- Preparation: Setting expectations and developing an ACTION plan at the end of training
- Action: A 5-step process designed to hold individuals accountable to follow through on the ACTION plan
- Evaluation: Changed behaviours are observed, evaluated and collated by individuals and/or their managers
Making Learning Transfer Happen
The volume of TLA required and the relative importance of the training will clearly impact who is best placed to roll it out. There are two internal options: the manager of the participant or an internal specialist and two external options: the trainer/facilitator or an external specialist. Whether you select internal or external will also depend on the maturity of the organisation and development of your managers.
Both options internal and external have pros and cons. I mentioned the issues with using managers earlier. The tendency can be for managers to just tack learning transfer onto the agenda of another conversation – this won’t create the required outcomes. It can also be difficult to show enough vulnerability to change in the conversation with the manager – given the managers direct influence on the participant’s career and salary. Using an external specialist can create greater vulnerability and honesty because there is no pre-existing relationship or politics, which can make for more focussed and productive learning transfer conversations.
So, how do you know if a specific learning transfer methodology is needed for a particular learning or change initiative? It is a vital component of any soft skills training programs, such as leadership, communication skills or sales training. Fundamentally, it is best suited to anything that seeks to alter the way people operate in their working lives.
If a training program is really visible or critically important to the business, it’s fool hardy to begin the initiative without a robust learning transfer methodology in place.
The Secret Weapon
The telephone is the secret weapon for productive and cost effective learning transfer rollout, irrespective of the numbers of people involved. Our experience has proven time and again that telephone-based coaching is much more effective in the process of change than face-to-face meetings, plus infinitely more time efficient.
Change comes about through a process of self-reflection and personal contemplation.
It is initiated from within and is facilitated by encouraging the individual to listen to their internal dialogue; effectively having a conversation with themselves. This process is made far easier on the phone because the questions and conversation goes straight into the individual’s ear, accessing the internal dialogue directly.
Using the telephone for TLA follow up means the individual can’t see the coach and that way they feel less self-conscious, therefore more likely to be open, honest and vulnerable. It can feel as though the person is actually having a conversation with themselves and the coach is simply shepherding the conversation and supporting them toward sustained behavioural change.
CONCLUSION
There are many different stakeholders in the training design and delivery process; managers, CEOs, L&D professionals, participants, facilitators and so on and so forth, and whilst their perception of an ideal outcome is quite different, effective transfer of learning will offer each stakeholder different benefits.
If an organisation is looking for behavioural, real world change back in the workplace, which involves an improvement of soft skills like leadership, sales or communication etc. then they need to develop training with a transfer of learning component – otherwise they will not get the gains they are seeking from the training.
When buying any training there must be some very serious discussions, involving all of the decision-making stakeholders, about what the learning transfer strategy is going to be, ensuring a decision is reached about who will be the owner for driving the change and delivering measurable improvements in business results. I implore you as an L&D specialist to work with the business on this, support them, make it easy for them. Take a solution to the table, not a problem.
Good instructional design and a proven transfer of learning methodology are crucial in liberating the benefit that training has promised for so long but continually failed to deliver. Only when the two components start to work together will businesses finally experience the benefits they were seeking that prompted the training in the first place. Only then will training failure finally be eradicated, and will learning start to have the all important seat at the leadership table it deserves.
Organisations don’t need to start from scratch or source a new type of training or find new training suppliers; they just need to shift their perspective to include a transfer of learning methodology. Do that and the ROI would be of interest to even the most cautious of investors.
Hundreds of L&D professionals have expressed interest. What’s stopping you?
