UK 
United States
Reports consistently reveal that less than 20% of formal training gets applied in the workplace. Here are 3 reasons why…
Improving learning transfer is today’s hottest L&D issue - understanding why it has been such an intractable problem for more than 40 years is the key to finding a solution.
There are 3 systemic factors that to a greater or lesser degree affect many organisations. How about yours? Do any of these apply? If so, how can you navigate around them and still improve the effectiveness of your training budget?
the typically hierarchical structures of
post-industrial revolution organisations
Many 21st Century employers remain constrained by a silo-driven culture. This makes implementing a systemic, cross-functional approach to learning transfer, which requires collaboration and shared
accountability, difficult to administer because
frequently nobody is taking responsibility for it.
Generally, the Training or L&D function believes its job starts and ends with a training course. Many line managers believe that all training, including application to the workplace, is the responsibility of the Training department. Lacking a coordinated approach involving pre and post-course clarity and performance support, trainees are often left to sink or swim back in the workplace. While around 70% do try to implement the new ways learned, this rapidly falls to less than 20% once problems are encountered. If no support or encouragement is provided, old habits and practices resurface.
training is seldom perceived as strategically important
Many managers at all levels regard training employees as purely a necessary business overhead to meet today’s operational demands and not as an investment in tomorrow’s wealth creation. Corporate investments are subject to routine ROI scrutiny, which means measuring the results – however, overheads are not. This can lead to training functions not being required to actually prove their effectiveness. Many managers regard direct reports attending courses as inconveniences and are either neutral about application or even discouraging to trainees on return to work. In such a workplace environment there is little chance of effective learning transfer.
an incompatible management paradigm Many managers still follow the last Century management command-and-control paradigm. They tend to have been selected on the basis of their technical, subject matter knowledge and expertise. Often overlooked is whether they are emotionally and psychologically suited to engage the hearts and minds of their team members and bring out their best performance. This is perhaps why less than 40% of line managers see coaching their people as an important part of their job. If their default style is task-focused they have little time or interest in supporting, encouraging or otherwise assisting learners to apply what they’ve learned. New management paradigms are replacing this outdated approach but that can take some years to embed (www.nextgen.management)
the solution… We believe that solving this complex issue requires a systematic approachdesigned to enable, support and measure learning transfer. Our submission is that there are 5 drivers of learning transfer and each of these is vital for transfer excellence. Give any one or more inadequate focus and attention and the value chain is broken and transfer will inevitably suffer.
The 5 Drivers of Learning Transfer White Paper will be published by The Training Foundation on HR Grapevine on 22nd April. Over the next 5 Fridays, the daily newsletter will carry articles focused on each driver. Readers may register to receive a free copy of the White Paper at www.tap.training.
Ensuring that learning does transfer from the classroom to real performance improvement is one of the hottest HR and L&D topics today. The TAP Programme includes workshops for L&D managers focused on how they can improve Learning Transfer in their organisation. For details, or to discuss this article with the author, contact The Training Foundation 02476 411288 or email [email protected]
Trish
Some companies do too much training rather than more intense and without follow up. Ongoing line mgr support should be given regularly within peers to discuss wins and challenges, share best practice.Targets should also be set for LM,s to measure effectiveness of coaching skills. Benefits of training should be very clear from top down so all buy in.
All training should be reviewed by top mgm and best practice captured and shared. Staff should also be given opportunity to give feedback on quality and support of training and this should also be reviewed and where appropriate gaps highlighted discussed with trainers.
Learning needs to be kept alive not buried in a draw when participants return to desk which all too often happens. If managed and followed up properly by all it makes performance management much more robust. I have seen people given training when their performance is below track but no follow up or buy in by individuals has been done and either still not improved as the training not effective or supported or there was an underlying issue with individual which training was never going to resolve.
My steer is to ensure the right people deliver training, very clear objectives, clear measurements, consult all levels whilst designing material, train LMs prior to teams and have a robust implementation plan with follow up.
Pre brief staff prior to training set any prep work, LM check it done if not participant needs to explain why not and if no valid reason they should not attend, and performance plan may be required around will.