UK 
United States
Following on from training initiatives needing to be ‘Outcomes-driven’ and for there to be clear Accountability for getting the desired results, the third success factor is Collaboration.
Any ‘system’ by definition comprises multiple components, working together to achieve the common objective. To be effective, an organisation’s Learning Transfer System requires the collaborative efforts of the stakeholders - principally the L&D professionals and the relevant line managers, but also including the learners themselves. In most organisations there is inadequate collaboration between the line and the L&D function for the desired business outcomes from training to be consistently achieved. Why is this?
One key reason is that many managers are sceptical about the added value that L&D makes to their team’s performance. The McKinsey Survey suggested that senior management is often negative about the effectiveness of training. Was this why, according to the CIPD, two thirds of employers cut their training budgets during the recent recession and why many are now doing so again?
"Only 25% of business managers said that training and development
contributed measurably to business performance“
Survey by McKinsey and Co www.mckinsey.com
What does L&D need to do to reverse this spiral? It needs to spearhead and drive an effective learning transfer system, clearly demonstrating that training does produce performance improvement when it is fully supported by the line. Success engages managers’ minds.
Building the credibility of the L&D function is key. When senior L&D personnel demonstrate the needed consultancy skills and show they really understand the ‘operational language’ of the business units and the performance pressures they are under, the seeds of collaboration are sown.
Then, involving line managers in the definition of meaningful business outcome measurement criteria at the outset gets their buy-in, encouraging a sense of shared ownership of the results. Continued involvement at every stage maintains that momentum and their cooperation.
Where the responsibilities of the parties are clearly agreed and set out in a Memorandum of Understanding, this serves as a potent reminder throughout the programme. When line managers know they will be themselves held accountable for the results and failure will have negative outcomes for them personally, the ‘what’s in it for me’ factor motivates a more collaborative attitude than is otherwise likely the case.
Note; HRM policy and practice may require review to support the critical importance of engaging line managers with the learning transfer agenda. While managers’ job specifications may well include reference to people-development, few are held to account in measurable ways. Managers tend to do what they are paid to do, what their job specification requires and hence what they are accountable for. Where collaborating in learning transfer activities sits outside these parameters many will avoid involvement claiming ‘more important priorities’.
Finally learner motivation is key to effective transfer. When learners understand the relevance of a training course to them, how participation will benefit their on-the-job performance and how failure to apply the learning will be negative to them individually, they become motivated collaborators in their own learning.
Summary; The decisions we make to collaborate in any situation are largely predicated on the ‘what’s in it for me’ factor. In an effective Learning Transfer System, the three partners; L&D, the line and the learners, need to clearly understand how active participation will benefit them. This prompts their willing collaboration.
The TAP Programme includes workshops focused on how organisations can improve Learning Transfer. For details or to discuss this article contact The Training Foundation 02476 411288 or email [email protected]
