When the training ends - learning, behaviors, results

"All men by nature desire knowledge."Aristotle

Training at the workplace provides both the employees and the company with benefits that make the costs and time invested worthwhile. The only condition is that the employees will also apply what they have learned  during  the training.

At one training I have been a couple of years ago the participants agreed at the end of the first training session that they will adopt and implement a certain working model for 40 days. After this time, there will be a  second training session and the employees will have to report on how did the implementation of the method go, what were the results, what was their general feedback. What do you think it happened?

Form a group of 10 people:

-  3 said they tried to apply the model for a couple of days but they returned to their old system because it was more convenient for them

- 5 applied just some parts of the model and only occasionally

-  2 people applied the model entirely and through the whole period of time

Of course this is just an example and it can’t be generalized. However, I realized one again how important is to measure the effectiveness of training.

Most training sessions, especially those that are done  with  an external trainer, usually end with  a questionnaire regarding the perception of the participants. This  kind of  measurement is only showing if the participants were generally ‘happy’ with the training but they don’t give any information on how much they have learned, what is the probability for them to apply the things they have learned and most  of all what are the end results.

The organization through the line managers and up to the board of directors should be the ones having the greatest interest in evaluating and validating the training and learning. In this regard they should ask for support from the trainers and  most importantly to support all the that is being presented during the training.

On the other hand, every employee has the responsibility to take the most of every training and apply it, at least when it comes to the ones paid by the company. More than a moral responsibility this should be seen as an opportunity for personal and professional development. Applying the new things learnt in training will take us most of the times out of our comfort zone.  Nevertheless, as Kristen Wiig said: ’When you go out of your comfort zone and it works there’s nothing more satisfying.’  

Bad employees vs. bad managers

Despite all leadership and management theories, books and materials, in real life there are still many managers who have learned how to lead from one of their bosses, added a bit of their personal touch and just went with the flow. 

How many people, before coordinating a team, read something about it or go to training? How many managers question their leading style and try to improve it?

 In my opinion, all of them should do that. There should be a mandatory course for all of those who want or already coordinate people. Before influencing someone’s career, professional performances and life they should know what the role means, what are the responsibilities that come along with it.

One of them is the responsibility for the performance of the team and of each member of the team. When an employee is not performing, the first who is evaluated should be his manager. Has the manager properly trained that employee? Did the manager offered right induction, clear assignments, feedback and advice on improving his performance or any guidance at all? Has the manager done his job in providing for the employee the right environment to perform?

Only after all these questions have been answered, should be questioned the capability of the employee to perform on his position and in that specific organization.

Often, employees are evaluated and considered weak performers or even fired because of the incompetency of their managers. For the higher management it's most of the times more comfortable to believe what the team managers say rather than questioning how things were done. After all it’s harder to replace a manager than an operational employee.

This is one of the reasons why multinational companies are preferred by employees. There you have a training system put in place, an induction procedure and a performance appraisals process which at least offers the minimum premises for the employees to perform on their positions.