How to Improve Training Effectiveness

What is your reaction to a headline that reads "Quarter of all training fails to deliver significant performance improvement?"

I am pretty sure it would be one of amazement, but I am not so sure I know why. Are you amazed that as much as "a quarter" of all training is effectively wasted? Or are you amazed that it is only "a quarter" – i.e. as little as 25%?

I have to confess I fall into the latter camp. (I should make it clear that I am talking here about formal work-related training only and not all education.) I believe training is considerably more than 25% ineffective. I find it fascinating to observe how quickly lessons get forgotten and we fall back into our old ways. It’s rather like New Year Resolutions. No matter how good our intentions, we fall short.

Anyway, whatever the percentage there is a problem. The headline, from HR Magazine, was for real! And even more disturbing is that they report this 25% 'failure' costs £9.5 billion a year, which is a steep price to pay. And if you share my more sceptical view, then this cost is likely to be even greater. This makes proposals to make regular training an employee's legal right a real concern. You see, this reduces the likelihood of proper cost-benefit justification.

Cost-benefit justification for training is already weak. Yes, you devote effort to training needs analysis, which arguably equates to benefits, but the emphasis is on costs. You don't permit training unless there is a budget and/or the expense is approved. That is fine, but how much effort do you put into post training assessment to measure its effectiveness? The figures themselves say it is not a lot.

Yet a large proportion of this training waste can be avoided. All it requires is more emphasis on measuring the benefits – the return on investment.

Now you may argue that this is fine in theory but in practice measuring this is too difficult, time-consuming and costly, and so would make the problem worse. You might even claim that some of the benefits are intangible anyway in so far as they simply improve employee engagement. Perhaps, but that's hardly relevant here.

Certainly it is not easy, and it would be naïve to say it was. But, if training costs or a portion of them were capitalised and added to the individual's asset value, in the manner I propose, then you would have a basis for more effective negotiation between manager and employee to justify the training as well as a measure of gauging its effectiveness. The net change in bottom line over the gross increase in Human Asset Value, gives you a perfectly empirical formula. It may not be perfect, but it is at least as good if not better than anything we currently have. Furthermore, if the rules are properly defined and agreed, it is not subjective and cannot be easily manipulated. And, even better it provides a basis for HR and Finance to communicate more effectively, which has to be good for business.

That's what I am putting on the table – a powerful training effectiveness measure. Can you trump that?