Copyright © 1998, Nanette Miner
Permission is granted to reproduce or excerpt this article if proper credit is given in this format:
Reprinted/excerpted with permission. The Training Doctor. Author: Nanette Miner. www.trainingdr.com

Why Training Doesn't Work

Thousands of hours and dollars are spent each year creating training that doesn’t work. How can this be? There are three primary reasons:

1. The training is created by individuals with limited experience and background in the field of training and development.
2. The training is created by subject matter experts.
3. The training is designed without clearly thought-out objectives.

Let’s take a look at each of these.

Trainer’s background

Virtually no one goes in to training as a first career. Therefore, most trainers have limited formal education in training, human resource development, instructional design, adult learning theory, or performance improvement. What little knowledge trainers do have they’ve picked up along the way--and what they’ve picked up is primarily how-to. Albeit dated (1985), the most recent research regarding the education of training professionals discovered that less than eight percent of us have formal education in the field of human resource development.  The preponderance of degrees are in the field of primary education.

Many trainers don’t realize that the mother of training and development is adult learning theory--and scant few individuals have any exposure to adult learning theory and methodology. For example, there are six primary principles of adult learning theory, these are:

1. Adults have a need to know why they should learn something.
2. Adults have a need to be self directed.
3. Adults have a broad range of life experience from which to draw and contribute.
4. Adults become ready to learn when their life situation creates a need to know or need to be able to do in order to be able to perform more effectively and satisfyingly.
5. Adults enter into a learning experience with a task-centered or problem-centered orientation to learning.
6. Adults are motivated to learn more by intrinsic, rather than extrinsic (grades, raises) motivators. (Knowles)

Let’s take a look at some of the common activities in a training program, and how they relate to the adult learning principles.

1. Adults have a need to know why they should learn something. Participants who are told by their boss to attend a training session, rarely experience a successful outcome from the training nor do they contribute to the learning experience during the course of the class session. At a minimum, the course should be introduced by expressing to participants the benefits of knowing the information, or the costs of not knowing. This information can be transmitted through testimony from a successful practitioner or by providing real case studies/outcomes.
   
   
2. Adults have a need to be self directed. Self direction in training can be as formal as a self-study course that the participant engages in when s/he feels the need to attain new knowledge, or individual or small group activities in which the trainer defines the objective but the participants carry out the activity in their own fashion. Or, self directedness can be as informal as asking the group if they would like to work through a break in order to leave class a little early.
   
   
3. Adults have a broad range of life experience from which to draw and contribute. This principle of adult learning goes to the heart of facilitation. An adult learning experience will not be fruitful if it is strictly a lecture given by the trainer. Adults need the give and take of dialog with the trainer and with other participants in order to link new information to their personal experiences.
   
   
4. Adults become ready to learn when their life situation creates a need to know or need to be able to do in order to be able to perform more effectively and satisfyingly. Adults learn best when they voluntarily choose to attend a training session. This principle is often difficult to apply in a business setting since much training is considered to be required. It is best to get the participant to feel for himself that participation in the course offering is in his/her best interest.
   
   Recently, in a course I was conducting on project management, I started the course with a story about a group of project management trainees who were still unable to manage a project despite four weeks of training. I then asked the participants to introduce themselves by telling us what their experience was in managing a project or being on a project team, and what they would like to leave the training session with in terms of knowledge or skills. Thus, in the course of one simple exercise I was able to incorporate the first four principles of adult learning.
   
   
5. Adults enter into a learning experience with a task-centered or problem-centered orientation to learning. Adults see much more value in training that has immediate applicability to their personal lives or their work lives. Adult education and continuing education courses offered by public school systems and community colleges are successful for this very reason. It is important to sufficiently explain to the training participant the value and immediacy of the knowledge and skills presented in the training.
   
   
6. Adults are motivated to learn more by intrinsic, rather than extrinsic motivators. While virtually every industry training program will provide the successful participant with a certificate of completion, one rarely sees them posted on the walls of the workplace. An adult will take on new knowledge for reasons that will benefit him/her personally. Again, it is important that one stress the value of the training and the knowledge for the individual’s development and growth.

The Paulette Principle

You remember the Peter Principle--one is promoted through the ranks of an organization until one reaches a level of incompetence. The Paulette Principle is Peter’s cousin. The misguided logic of the Paulette Principle is this: If you are good at what you do, you must be able to teach others to do it. Training designed by subject matter experts spells disaster in one of two ways: (1) Basic information is left out because the subject matter expert does not recognize what basic means anymore, or (2) the subject matter expert is so hot on their topic that every possible nuance of the topic is included in the training.

Let’s look at each of these in a little more depth.

1. Basic information is left out. In a course I was recently helping an organization to re-design, the original instructional designer--who was the subject matter expert--jumped over basic definitions and introductory information about the topic and moved directly into theory and application. In addition, some of the theory and models that were present were extremely obscure. When searching for these obscure references in order to corroborate their inclusion in the training, a reference could only be found in two dated periodicals. Thus, the topic was eliminated during the re-design as it was not common practice in that field of study.
2. The subject matter expert/instructional designer includes too much information. In conjunction with a subject matter expert, I was recently designing a course in athletic footwear technology (that is, the different types of construction methods used by the various athletic footwear manufacturers). The subject matter expert strongly wished to include a history of each of the footwear manufacturers. When I questioned the inclusion of this information, he asked, “Don’t you have a greater appreciation of something when you know its history?”

While this was a valid argument on his part, I countered with, “Yes, but is it basic knowledge that needs to be transmitted in this course? In other words, would the training participant be able to do what we expect him/her to do without benefit of this knowledge?”

“Yes.”

As a compromise, the history was included as supplemental reading for those participants that wished to delve further into the information--but it was not essential knowledge for the successful completion of the training course.

Making a Round Peg Fit a Square Hole

Making a round peg fit a square hole can be expressed in a couple of ways. First, when the true purpose of the training is not defined, then erroneous learning objectives are a result. Very few corporate training programs are conducted simply to give the participant knowledge about the subject--rather, training is provided in order to increase participant skill. Objectives such as To Understand, or To Know, are not specific enough in their expected outcomes. Training objectives should begin with action verbs such as: list, define, explain, or demonstrate. For example, in a software training manual I recently came across this objective: Be aware of the different configurations of the software. By reading through the manual I became very aware that the software offered flexible configurations--but I doubt that is what the instructional designer wanted me to know. Considering that this was a multi-day course after which one should be able to configure the software oneself, a better objective statement would have been: Configure software for various end-user requirements.

Another example of making a round peg fit a square hole is testing for the wrong thing. A five day training course which was intended to teach participants programming skills culminated in a knowledge-based exam. That is, after five days of application training, participants were expected to answer multiple choice and fill-in-the-blank questions based on what they had learned. The number of participants who passed the exam was abysmal. An obvious question arises regarding this certification exam: Why train participants in a skill for five days and then not test their skill level? The trainees success rate was immediately doubled by changing the certification exam to a performance-based exam rather than a knowledge-based exam. Many trainees can do what you’ve trained them to do, but cannot necessarily answer questions about the theory or the structure of the activity. The certification should match the objective(s) of the program. The intent is to have participants be able to do the work--not explain it.

In order for training to have a successful future in business and industry it needs to be able to substantiate its existence. While the purpose of training is usually not questionable, frequently the design does not work to support the purpose. By understanding the three primary pitfalls of instructional design, trainers can create sound training programs and defensible outcomes.