Converting Training Effort To Cash

Desikamani G, Director Mentor Learning Services, Chennai

Of the three key pillars of Human Resources Management – Talent Acquisition, Talent Transformation and Talent Management – the one that has got the least amount of attention and capability building from HR managers is the Talent Transformation piece. Largely called as Training and Development, this area has been dealt with in a far less scientific manner than it deserves.

I often compare the approach many organizations take to training with prayer. Since prayer stems from belief and not logic, it is done with the hope that things will change. Lord Kelvin, the philosopher scientist said it beautifully “knowledge of any kind remains insignificant if it is not measurable” training and development effort that doesn’t get measured, does not get managed well.

Over the last 12 years of my research I have observed that organizations spend between 0.3 – 1.1percent of their revenues in some form of learning and development. Today for CEOs spending on Learning has become a catch-22 phenomenon. If you don’t spend enough the board questions sustainability of performance and questions hard on returns if you spend more. Either way the demand is clear – “do you know why and how you spend money on Learning? Where are the numbers?”

Challenge 1: What do we train employees on?

Organizational learning can be Approached in two ways. Cognitivist approach – to make learning happen intellectually by getting people to think what is the right thing to do, expect the learner to make his choices and transfer them to environments for application - has been used heavily by academia since it is easier to administer. Whereas the behaviourist approach – to make learning happen by doing what needs to be done, inducing trial and making sure that the learner is capable of transferring skills to the environments for application - is harder to design. The difference is game changing.

Moving away from the conventional Knowledge-Skills-Attitudes division and designing learning with the confluence of the three – habits is the way forward. This helps defining learning objectives clearly and more importantly measure it effectively. Is it always possible? Well, difficult but certainly possible. The trick lies in how we view learning – do we want to do the activity or pursue outcomes? In the last 13 years I have seen less than 5percent of HR Managers question me on design and instead focus more on the delivery experience and corridor feedback. HR Managers can do better to invest more effort in design than in coordination of delivery.

Challenge 2: How do we make it stick?

In a recent TV commercial for a particular cleaning liquid I saw the lady spraying a bit on her glass top and immediately wipe it with a cloth. Bingo, the grease is gone. How is that possible? Chemistry tells us that you must allow about 4 seconds for the solvent to dissolve the grease on the surface. If you don’t give the time you are wiping away the solvent and not the grease/dirt.

I have seen HR Managers preferring to use the Single Stimulus Model – bring them to the class room, show them, leave them to take care of themselves – which is logistically easier to manage. The issue with this model is that we are not sure if trials will happen, hence skills will transfer to work environment.

On the other hand, if we can have a Multiple Stimuli Model which attempts to systematically induce trial will we achieve a higher skill transfer. Over the last 24 months as we experimented and measured skill transfer with both models we saw very interesting trends.

1. Skill transfer in the single stimulus model averaged at 5-8percent whereas with the Multiple Stimuli Model we saw it going up to 32percent
2. When you add the same amount of time spent in the classroom, outside the classroom systematically inducing trial, it happens – resulting in higher skill transfer.
3. Roughly, for 1x additional investment of time you get 6x returns on skill transfer. Learners realized this through the Multiple Stimuli Model.

If you give it enough time, engineer the process effectively and encourage the learner to focus on getting more out of his learning effort (remember, its not just the money the organization invests, its also the time the learner puts in!) you get better returns out of your learning money invested.

The most probable reason why HR Managers shy away from Multiple Stimuli Model is the logistical difficulties, lack of established measurement processes and the belief that its difficult to engage adults over long periods of time. I will argue that it’s worth the effort.

Challenge 3: How can the ownership for learning be transferred to employees?

When in university I remember worrying about my learning all the time. There were consequences of not clearing the gate. However the moment I went into an organization, I did what I was told, attempted to achieve the goals fixed for me. I succeeded some times and failed in some. But I somehow never felt that I have to own my learning, I waited for my manager to nominate me to training. Is there an insight here?

Most CEOs and HR Managers I spoke to acknowledge the importance of this issue but submit their inability to manage it. The critical part here is to connect employee rewards not just to immediate task/business outcomes but also to potential/readiness to perform. Unless it is incumbent upon the employee to prove his readiness the importance of learning will never sink in.

I was inspired by the learning management policy in an MNC where if an associate doesn’t complete 80 hours of accounted for learning in a year, both he and his supervisor were not eligible for the top performance ratings. Though here there’s only activity focus, it still works. With some thinking it is possible to establish specific behaviour/outcome focus as well.

Challenge 4: Where is the talent and bandwidth to manage learning?

As I further discuss the issue of transferring ownership of learning HR Managers point out the major bottleneck. If you are mandating learning to be accomplished – both activity and outcomes – then you must be in a position to provide the necessary infra structure and manage it. With minimal staff devoted to learning and development coupled with the evolutionary nature of the talent managing is aspect of business it is near impossible to achieve transfer of ownership.

I have noticed that Learning and Development Management is as intensive as managing an operation. So what can HR Managers do? Here are a few suggestions…

1. Get your CEO’s attention to the Learning needs and planning. Ask him what he wants and therefore co-create your Learning Management Strategy with him.
2. Engage your vendors in a meaningful way by working together to co-create learning programs with renewed focus on measuring skills/habits transferred.
3. Pay enough attention to creating the organizational learning strategy and the plan by linking it as closely to Business Objectives as possible
4. Most importantly ensure that every aspect of your learning plan is bought in by the relevant functional/line managers who matter. Only they will drive learning not the HR function.

The bottom-line; HR Managers must treat Learning and Development as a high potential area for them to value add to the business. Given enough focus this can be the highest ROI maker for an organization.