A Real Time Case Study - The Training Manager

This case study is a real incident that happend to me while I had taken up my first
organizational level training assignment after being promoted as a Training
Manager in one of the best ITeS companies in the world that manufacturers
computers. This was a learning experience that took place during the year 2006.
I am sharing this so that others can learn from these mistakes that were made.

Once upon a time a competent young training manager of a fairly large ITeS
organization was asked to do a professional analysis of the training needs of all
the organization’s 5000 employees. What a great job he did!

Skill matrices were completed for all the employees and checked with each of
them for accuracy, as well as in-depth interviews to analyze competency gaps for
the office staff and the managers. Armed with an ocean of data, his department
designed and organized the delivery of a series of top-class training programs -
each one created with behaviorally stated learning objectives to help participants
close their competency/skills, knowledge and attitude gaps.

The end-of-course evaluation sheets completed by every participant showed

unanimous satisfaction with an average overall score of four out of five.

However, three months after the training courses had all been completed, the Vice
President of the L&D department called the training manager to his office and told
him that the company results were worse than they had been before the training!

What went wrong???

Following an investigation in to what went wrong, the young training manager was
able to establish:
1. Insufficient connection between the training design and the mission of the
organization. The mission wasn’t clearly defined so the training that was
delivered missed the mark.
2. A lack of focus on the business goals and objectives that training could have
supported
3. The existing culture was resistant to the changes being put forward in the
training, eg. People were rewarded for rapid output while being trained to slow
down and improve quality.
4. The organization’s structures and processes did not support the training
messages (eg. 14 layers of hierarchy existed while the training emphasized the
empowerment of staff)
5. The technology needed to implement the new skills was not available back on
the job
6. The company compensation system rewarded individual effort whereas the
training concentrated on team work.

Analysis results

The investigation clearly pointed out that:

1. The training is not transferred to the job - either for cultural reasons (no
interest or reward from the organization for people to change their behavior
and apply the learning) or structural reasons (barriers to or lack of opportunity
to use the new skills)
2. Training design and/or delivery is poor and therefore not seen as useful or
relevant
3. The participants are not willing, able or ‘needy’ to learn.