Does Training Really Pay?

How much does it cost to maintain Training & Development in your company, especially when you consider how much product must be sold in order to create the amount of profits needed to pay for it all?

What do we really gain from training? How good are we at assessing the real returns on this investment?
Those connected with training will argue that training is a fundamental necessity that helps determine the morale, productivity and performance of employees at all levels, including managers.
Although the underlying premise is true, the question is whether it is actually happening. The mere fact that training is undertaken does not automatically result in added value to the trainees or to the company. The only people who are guaranteed to gain are the trainers.

There are two factors to consider:
 - The lack of effective assessment of value added, if any.
 - The barriers preventing us from obtaining value from training

To really make a difference, we need to go back to fundamentals.

Why train?
From a business perspective, it is the application of learning to bring higher performance. For the individual, it brings job satisfaction and potential advancement in terms of rewards.
This is where our training focus should be and where our measurements should be.

Currently, in many organisations, there is little, if any, feedback on such issues. There are (what I term) the “Happy Sheets” at the end of the course. These tell us what participants think about the content and delivery: relevance to their work, clarity of what was taught, etc. Hopefully, there will be some useful critiques to help us further improve the training experience into the future.
What does all this tell us about the efficacy of the training?
Nothing — it gives no assessment of subsequent performance improvements.
One can correctly argue that the participants have not had time to put the learning into action yet. This therefore demands that we get more measurements later. But do we collect them?

Let’s get real. I am sent on a training course. Great stuff, enjoyable and informative. I get back to my desk and the pending work has grown and I have to get re-settled. I put the training notes in a drawer to refer to later and get on with tackling the pending items and the daily things that need to be done. The next time I see the training notes is when I move to a new role and have to clear my stuff from the desk.
The performance input has been a big, fat, nothing.

What about performance appraisals, one might ask. By the end of the appraisal period, who can remember what difference, if any, has occurred in my abilities and performance?

What has been the cost of the training? What impact has it had on my performance? How have the organisation and myself benefited?

If the forgoing is not enough, there are other contributory factors that create barriers to effective training outcomes.

Are we sending them to the right course?
Is training the right solution? If a person isn't performing effectively, then train them. One of the most pertinent examples is leadership training. Having worked with psychometrics, I've seen so many cases of non-leaders (by nature) being made to attend training on how to lead, when the behaviours required for this are almost completely uncomfortable for the individual — and most likely always will be, and therefore not actioned.

Are we cramming too much into the course — nice to know vs need to know? I want to resolve a specific situation, so how do I deal with that? Why spend your time and mine by going into other topics that I may possibly need one day (but will have forgotten what you've taught me by then)?

Do I really need to attend a formal training session or could the input I need be given by my manager or someone else close by? Bite-sized learning, on demand, as needed, and put into action immediately.

Especially for behavioural inputs (e.g. leadership, motivation) and areas such as problem solving and creativity, to what extent are the new behaviours supported by the culture of the organisation?
Unless the behaviours expected are enacted and encouraged by the CEO downwards, we cannot expect any differences from training people in them — except for a higher level of cynicism, of course.
Similarly, do the processes support these ideas and concepts?
And this includes performance measurement and appraisals?

An example is in the training function itself. What are the key aims? What are the targets set? What are we measured on?
If our trainers only have goals such as numbers of courses run, number of participants put through, the feedback (scores) given by participants at the end of the course, and keeping within a certain budget, then the plot has already been lost.

It is easy to criticise but how do we do things differently and more productively?

I would start by asking a question. Can you tell me about a time in your working life when you had a great learning experience that really made a difference to you and your ability to perform?

Our greatest learning points, by and large, have most probably been with our manager having one-to-one discussions with us based on our current, pressing, needs, where there has also been follow up support and encouragement.
Especially too when our manager also recognises the kinds of challenges we enjoy and which will stretch our abilities — and makes a point of throwing us into them.
These gave us a step up in our performance as well as a great feeling of achievement, together with respect for our manager. S/he showed an interest in helping us better ourselves.
The subject matter of the discussion was an immediate issue, enabling us to put it into practice straight away and see the benefits — making it a real lesson learnt.
The cost was basically the two of us having taken time out for the discussion.

Question
Isn’t the best and most effective training really undertaken by a person's direct manager?

If this raises the response that there aren't many managers in our organisation who are capable of doing this, we get even closer to some real issues on performance. Three main points:

1. Are we recruiting/promoting the right people into management or, to be more precise, are we using the right criteria for selecting them?
2. AND are we, as senior managers, ensuring we create a culture of coaching and mentoring our direct reports in this positive manner?
3. AND are we ensuring the processes in use support a positive way forward rather than undermining people's ability and willingness to be great performers who get a great deal of satisfaction from producing great results?

I have witnessed, first hand, a person being coached and supported by a direct boss in the manner suggested here. The employee's confidence and abilities grew, so did his performance, his dedication to results, and his comfort in working with that boss, whom he greatly respected.

I have also witnessed a manager insisting he attend the training he wanted undertaken to help his team move forward. His reason was practical — to enable him to better support his team in applying what they are learning. This commitment paid dividends in morale and performance.

So this is no fancy pipe dream. It's hard reality, but how many of us are prepared to accept it and, most of all, work at it?
.

Easily Dispense with Lack of Engagement and Poor Performance.

Why do apparently excellent people sometimes underperform? I have found the answer can be found in a psychometric approach to performance appraisal.

I worked with a financial institution to achieve just this. Between us, a radical new approach to the appraisal process was created, with dramatic results.

The company had been using The McQuaig System™ to support the substantial recruitment that the company's meteoric growth demanded.

The organisation realised that the annual appraisals were not being used effectively, and this was confirmed by an in-house survey. A typical comment was: 'Managers aren't interested in the appraisals - it's just a chore for them.'

Appraisals should be constructive, and proactive. The system needed to be re-designed and, in discussion with my clients, it was quickly apparent that, to make appraisals more effective, managers need a better understanding of the way their people approach their work, and how they relate to management style.

By introducing the behavioural factor of both managers and staff, an element of self-realisation was brought into play to establish just how important effective management is in its effect on staff performance.

The approach
To tackle this, middle managers and their direct reports undertook a McQuaig assessment. However, before doing so, it was essential for those managers to understand exactly what they were hoping to achieve through the improved appraisals process. For this, I tailored and delivered a seminar on “Making Appraisals Motivational”.

The next stage was for all staff to complete the McQuaig. Being on an unrestricted license for the entire organisation, this did not cost them anything extra.

The McQuaig Word Survey® gives an extremely accurate indication of how a person will tackle a job and interact with other people. The skill lies in accurate interpretation of the results, for which training is required.

I sat with each manager in turn and discussed the profiles of each and every direct report, including, of course, the profile of the manager him/herself. The evaluations caused a revelation every time.
Why? Because they revealed that the roots of performance problems did not necessarily lie with the staff member, but sometimes with the manager.

Armed with an objective understanding of the personalities involved, managers are in a position to relate this to each person's performance and discuss the results at the appraisal. As one senior manager commented, ‘The beauty of the McQuaig approach is that it not only identifies the presence of performance problems, but actually indicates their source.’

What happened?
Following this strong intervention, management changes were implemented in two ways to solve problems that had been identified.

 - Certain job specifications and responsibilities were altered, to move people into areas to which they are more naturally suited.

 - Managers have deliberately refined their leadership styles as appropriate to their staff.

For example, a typical management problem revealed by the assessment, and then tackled in the appraisal, was of a person in a supervisory role.

'Whilst excellent at the job's technicalities, there were problems with the team he was leading,' the client observed. 'A record of bad absenteeism and coordination had developed amongst these volatile characters in his team, damaging productivity.'

Personal evaluation, followed by an open and frank appraisal session, indicated that he was not naturally suited to the middle management role. Further, the somewhat abrupt criticism from his senior manager was causing him additional stress.

The solution was simple but effective: the responsibility for people was removed and the technical workload increased in the new role to which he was willingly transferred.

The company added that 'his senior manager, following assessment and, in turn, appraisal, has recognised the need to smooth the edges in his own management style in order  to get the best from the middle managers.'

The lessons?
Situations of this kind are far from unique, but rarely identified under standard appraisal practices. People are mismanaged or left to underperform in jobs for which they have no natural affinity. It is much better to isolate problems, identify the source, and agree a course of action.

The clients’ redesign of the Appraisal system proved to be a great success. As they stated: ‘All the managers who attended the one-day appraisal seminar have been unanimous in their praise for the training they received. Appraisals have now become a positive management tool and all managers believe that they are better at their job in respect to the man-management skills.’

We Can’t Get Qualified Talent!

Especially in India, industries bemoan the fact that there are insufficient graduates and, to make matters worse, those they do find expect enormous rewards. Yes, there is also the stark issue that the graduates are not really properly prepared for industry. They’ve learnt what they had to in order to pass exams but not learnt how to apply concepts in real life. They cannot walk into a company and start working on important projects without being “trained in” sufficiently — which takes time.

My question in all this is simply … are we looking for the right people?

Particularly in the Indian context, there are a lot of people who have had minimal education. Are these individuals incapable of being great in engineering if given the opportunity to learn it? Just because their families’ financial circumstances were such that schooling and especially college education remained well out of their reach, does this mean they cannot achieve?

The two cornerstones of high performance are Willingness and Ability. If a person is willing to put in time, effort and focus into growing their ability, they are likely to be eminently trainable and become high performers. It takes time — but with these individuals, it is an investment.

Am I a dreamer?

No.

A few years back, I was working with an Indian manufacturing client who was based way out of a city. They too complained about getting qualified people. I asked them ‘Do you want someone who is determined to learn and grow and willing to put in the effort to succeed, or do you want a highly qualified graduate?’ I then added ‘You are far from a city but, surely, there are local people who would be willing to put effort into learning and working in order to keep their family and educate their children. Could you consider taking them in and giving them a chance to meet their aspirations?’

The CEO answered. ‘We've recently tried this. We took on a local, unqualified man and taught him to do a fairly straightforward job on a simple machine. He learnt that and became very efficient and turned out good work. We then decided to give him something more difficult and taught him the ropes. Again he applied himself and became an expert.

‘During this time, he mentioned he would like to get an engineering qualification, so we paid for him to take a course and he obtained that qualification.

‘His work continued to be excellent and he happily took on more complex duties, but felt he should learn English to be better able to read the instructions and settings on the machines.’

The last I heard was that the company was funding this for him also.

So the question is: instead of fishing for those who are money-minded, “me”-minded, showing no willingness to learn, and expecting the world to be given to them on a platter, why not consider a less well-educated, determined person with a strong work ethic and give them the opportunity to achieve their potential as well as making them better able to support their family and educate their children?

Do you want someone who is dedicated to the company because it is giving them a chance to build something so very positive in their life?

I see this as a strong “win-win” situation that requires recruiters to stop blindly following the academic approach they learnt in order to get their qualifications — this almost total reliance upon skills, knowledge, training, qualifications and experience — and extend it strongly into the much more productive behavioural traits and strengths: temperament, maturity, stability, attitudes and values, and self-motivation, together with speed of thought.

These are the ingredients that help you recruit winners, which has been proven hundreds, if not thousands, of times.

What is stopping you from experimenting in this way?

(And, if you need help in making the change, get in touch — I will be happy to help, train and coach you towards your objective.)
.

Believe it or not, This IS How Companies Are Run!

 

Most companies are losing out heavily on performance. Not just “losing out” but losing out heavily.

How can I say this? Quite simply, from experience. I have seen the inside of companies across many industries, in a variety of sizes, in a number of countries, and never cease to be amazed at how wilfully they waste potential. Few seem to understand this and, when they have been advised of it — even had it proved — they do not consider changing things for the better.

Then they wonder why there is a high level of both disengagement and staff attrition eating away at customer service, competitiveness and profits.

So, what is happening?

 

Take a look at the diagram below and imagine yourself working through this apparently simple filing process using the assets as labelled.

Thus, in the first step of the process for example, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset (as pictured — the filing cabinet.

 Now, I am sure you will say:

1. This is ridiculous.
2. No-one would use these assets in this manner. It would be totally inefficient.
3. People would get stressed trying to cope.

The truth about each of these statements in turn is:

1. Correct. It is ridiculous.
2. Wrong! This kind of thing is done every day in the workplace in most companies.
3. Correct. This is happening as a result.

Using items to do things they are not built to do will ruin performance. Trying to change their properties, like turning the “desk” (filing cabinet) on its side to use it like a desk, remains far from ideal and it is still difficult to operate this way.

But is item 2 really happening? Are assets being used for purposes other than those for which they are designed? Yes. Absolutely. Definitely. Most certainly. Let me illustrate further.

Come back to reality – the reality of people as assets.

 

Take a look at the illustration below, where the people are “labelled” as being in certain roles but behaviourally “built” for something different.

I have used the same labels and pictures but added behavioural assessments:

The behaviour “pattern” demanded by the “job” (the Label).
The natural behaviour “pattern” of the “person” (the Picture) placed in the job.

Thus, in the first step of our process, we have the “job” of being a desk (as labelled) being undertaken by an asset — the filing cabinet (as pictured). There is clearly a strong mismatch.

You will notice there is one exception where behavioural assessment shows a person suits the behavioural demands of the job: the hole punch. We have an asset with the right behaviours for the job to be undertaken comfortably and well.

Ask yourself the question: how would a person feel about:

• Being forced to take on a role for which they are not behaviourally “built”?
• Being pushed to produce results in spite of such limitations?

When you consider that around 70% of people are disengaged at work, does this not begin to explain one of the major reasons for it? Does it not also begin to say a great deal about morale, performance and attrition?

Yet this can be so easily prevented to a great extent 

 

... By careful and objective behavioural assessment of both job demands and of a person’s natural strengths. Organisations who have taken this step report higher levels of performance, morale, engagement and retention. (I can supply live cases that illustrate this fact.) 

Isn’t it time to re-think how selection is undertaken in your organisation?