December 2007

Employee Development
Who’s poisoning your well?

Recently, the corporate training landscape has dramatically changed as more chief learning officers and heads of organizational learning struggle with the alignment of training programs to business goals, strategies and objectives. As well as how to measure, evaluate and report the results received through training efforts in a meaningful way. This embeds the element of accountability into all levels of the learning and development function from the head of learning down to the learner receiving the training.

For training to be fully effective, it requires the support and cooperation not only of senior managers, but all organizational managers. They influence how training will be received and transferred within the organization. This influence is great and impacts the success or failure of any training program much more than one can imagine.

According to research published in Chief Learning Officer magazine less than 20% of organizational managers strongly and actively support the learning and development function. These managers see training as highly important to company success and encourage the participation of their employees.

Between 40% and 60% of managers are responsive to learning and development. They see training as a responsibility and allow participation of their employees, but their level of buy-in is not as strong as the supportive manager.

The next two categories of managers are corrosive and dangerous to both the success of the learning and development function as well as the prosperity of the organization.

Between 20% and 30% of managers do not support training and the development of their employees. In fact, they actively discourage their employees to participate in training activities.

Additionally, between 2% and 11% of managers are highly critical of training and will work actively to prevent any employee participation.

Think about the impact that approximately 28% of managers have on the success of training in the workplace and the organization’s ability to manage change and transform itself to sustain its competitive position and overall success. These individuals are activists working against the best interests of the organization to undermine its success.

The impact goes beyond the resistance to training, and inhibits the transference of skills, ideas and concepts learned in the classroom to the workplace. Their employees return to a hostile and infertile environment where the enthusiasm and excitement generated in training is immediately unwelcome and squelched. This impacts personal motivation, productivity and ultimately results. This provides these managers with the data they need to support their position that training is ineffective. But they fail to share the responsibility that their influence has had on the impact and effectiveness of the training provided to their employees.

The top three reasons why managers do not support training include: time, results and costs.

Approximately 60% of managers don’t support training because of the time constraints already placed upon them. They are already busy with increased demands and perceive that requests for any training support will limit what little “free” time they have left.

Approximately one half of managers are not convinced that training adds value in terms that they understand and can appreciate. This is a complex issue. There is no doubt that learning and development departments have contributed to this perception by offering courses that have failed to provide either substance or relevance to job performance. However, the environment that employees return to after training and the support and influence provided by their managers, impacts the overall results received from training.

The third reason that managers cite for the lack of support toward training efforts is cost. In many companies, employee training costs are expensed to the managers’ budget. This irritates many and is further complicated by the loss of productivity when employees are taken from the workplace to attend training. When they view the costs against the results, they see no value for their investment.

What alternatives do chief learning officers or heads of corporate learning have, when faced with these statistics? One of the recommended solutions includes educating managers about the power and influence they have over the success or failure of training. In many instances, this education will improve the support for the learning and development function.

Training for training’s sake is no longer a workable model. Chief learning officers or heads of corporate learning must build and communicate the sustainable value offered through training. This is often made much easier by gathering input from managers regarding the training process to develop ownership of the training function. Only if a base of support is established, and managerial buy-in to the need for and potential of employee development obtained, will training successfully accomplish its goals and objectives.