Every year, a sizable amount of employees take part in training within and abroad. A significant amount of money is spent for providing training opportunities to employees by the organization. Upon return, a report is normally submitted. It is not sure how the lessons learned are being tested in the organization. At some point in time, the employee is transferred to another department, requiring new skills and knowledge. While the training could be a motivational factor as a process of self development, I do feel that there is a poor relation with the productivity of the employees, especially in the public sector organizations. Does the process of employees development (such as job placement, project work, team) contribute more to enhance the productivity?
Training & development is certainly a part of corporate strategy to improve performance in a growing organization. Unfortunately, when the leadership is not progressive, the cynicism about the training prevails. Training brings about attitudinal changes, improves skill, thereby improves job performance. Human capital development takes place through employee training, which concentrates on operational, technical and other related areas; as well as management development, which focuses on managerial and behavioral skill and knowledge. Both eventually help in re-orienting attitude towards job and result in improvement in job performance. I feel, job rotation, job expansion, job enrichment are motivational effort. The role of leadership is to get extraordinary performance from ordinary people, and training & development programs are organized with specific objective to contribute to company's competitive challenge.
My experience in any corporations big or small is that:
(1) for technical training and development of employees in specific disciplines such as being a laboratory technician; a mechanic or an instrumentalist; dealing with how to use an equipment or instrument, then one can assess them on the quality of service or products. And it also means that this kind of training and development can and do link to the effectiveness and efficiency of productivity. However, when I look at:
(2) the leadership and management training, development courses for supervisors and managers, I find it very difficult to assess and link with their job performances or company productivity.
Yes, Sik, I do have the same feelings. I have attended numerous training, in Asia and in Europe and America, these training are quite helpful in enhancing my knowledge, which indirectly do contribute to organizational performance, but there are no direct established systems through which learned lessons are being implemented in the organization.
I do feel that there has to be an established formal system to disseminate the learning and evaluate whether these learning are implementable in the organization. Unfortunately, such mechanism is missing in most of the organization. We do take granted that training enhance the performance without establishing a proper system to look into this important issue.
Accountability is an important issue. Employees attending training must be accountable to change the situation, or be responsible to fill the gap that exist in the organization. But many of the training opportunities are offered to create motivation, leisure, financial gain but less the objective of learning in the public sector organization.
Agree with you, Binod.
There are some organisations that encourage employees to have performance appraisal twice per year. This includes the so called 360 degree feedback where employees receive feedback from their supervisors, peers and subordinates on how well they perform in a team or project or any other activities such as services or delivering products. This may encourage employees to be aware of how others perceive their performances or their behaviours towards other. This would help employees to self-improve themselves in theory but in practice this kind of appraisal is time consuming and may distract and use up too much of their working time.
Dear Binod,
I fear your feeling about the poor linkage between training and productivity is not confined to the public sector. Also other sectors have problems in linking productivity to staff development.
Unless you actively start managing your employees' skills aimed towards productivity like an asset, or you will have trouble overcoming this gap.
Training effectiveness is best measured in the field: Employees doing a new thing or do familiar things more productive - these are the ultimate metrics you can strive for. Training attendance and other factors are only a means to an end but not the end itself.
Hope this helps.
Stefan
Stefan, agreed with you. Productivity is not only related to the training attendance. The overall organizational culture has to be positive in order to excel the performance. At organization, when one feel that he /she is not trusted, unfair practices do occur, employees are not treated based on the performance, and so on, employees will not put their best efforts in the organization. Training adds value when the culture is supportive and good. Individual creativeness emerges once they are given responsibility with accountability and some sort of reward and recognition attached to it. You are right in saying the important is that the management must feel that employees are asset for the organization.
I agree with Stefan and Binod. The organizational culture has to nurture employees' initiatives to improve. Therefore, training is a short term exercise and a more long term plan should be in place like the development programs. Having career plans indeed will offer employees opportunities to grow within the organization and at the same time share their experiences with others from within. Appreciating employees and not taking them for granted is a must for a successful organization.
Dear Sir,
The aim of most training is to provide knowledge and expect them to be productive.
There is a clear difference between training for knowledge and competence building to see productive. From the technical perspective, what we need is an ability to do. This is what any training program should impart in the trainees. If this is done, people will become more productive in work.
Dear Ravi, you are right training aims at imparting knowledge. Technical training is more on skills. Our concern is organizational environment, culture, leadership, system and processes play a dominant role in enhancing performance . Training is a small component, and knowledge learned is not implement able if the organizational climate does not support.
Dear Binod,
True. The culture and personal aspects are the main difficulty. These are traints that need to be built from the younger days - Integrity, Reliability, Enterpreunial attitude, and over all, putting the organization above personal preferences.
In this regard, I draw your attention to the recent trends in College education: US in 2000 have introduced Outcome based education, which has been adopted in UK in 2010 and recently in 2013 January, implemented by National Bureau of Accreditation(NA) India., India too has adopted it. All education in colleges must be oriented to answer the question: Now that the student has studied for 4 years in college, what can he do for the employer. Here the focus or the need of the industry has been articulated as needs. These needs are to a large extent personal traits like Integrity, Reliability, Enterprenurial skills, Team Work, Self Motivaiton, ( Ref: World Bank report: Policy Research Working Paper 5640, The World Bank, South Asia Region, Education Team April 2011)( EC2000 of ABET, Accrediting organizaiton in US). When this culture is built in only then we can expect people( particularly in the organized sector) to value knowledge and training.
It is also probably necessary to tag every training with some aspects like - giving them a carrot if they delpoy the training. This happens in audit firms and audit and incometas department in the Government. Only a benefit will drive application and retention. If these aspects can be brought into the processes in organizaitons, they will result in a good application of knowledge from training and as a consequence of this process, gradually people will develop the right attitude- at leat an increased %
Another aspect of this is the Integrated approach to training program design. The Fink's Taxonomy is an excellent model to follow. It integrates all aspects of a human personality and continuous growth in such Curricula design. It broadly covers:
Level1: Knowledge and Understnding of a topic
Level2: Does he know how to use it
Level3: Does he understand how to relate this to the other aspects of the domain
Level4: Team skills
Level 5: Caring for what he learns and developing a passion for what he has learnt in a progrma
Level 6: Learning to Learn
Level4,5 and 6 are traits developed in the person, using the technical knowledge that the training has provided t him.
Trainings designed based on these ideas and models will improve the culture of wanting to share. This may be practially executed if the desire is to retain and internalize training
Great exposition by Ravi
I would like to point out here that the aforementioned practices necessitates well prepared top management who understand and comprehend the strategic value of the practices and having strategic fit.
Training is the key investment in employee and organization development. Training (specially technical / functional) improves the skill set of employees and they are able to contribute more and in new ways. For example when you implement a software project or introduce new production tools, you must train the employees on the new software and production tools, so they can better use the new technology. Training also keeps you abreast of current knowledge. It is a key differentiator between 'Live and Dead' organizations. It also broadens your network and help you resolve issues quickly. It also help improve the organizational culture as new perspectives are introduced. In order to significantly improve productivity, sufficient number of people should be trained sufficiently!
Yes true, training is important. Behavoural training is different than technical training. A process must be adopted by organizations to ensure the lessons learnt implemented . Individual gain is there. Issue is how much the organization tries to get out of training. What organizations are doing to implement changes from training output. Let us share. Cheers
Whether or not training leads to increased effectiveness or productivity of an employee is dependent on many different factors (organizational climate, organizational incentives, etc.), but the most important factor is the internal motivation of the employee. A conscientious employee will look for different (and multiple) opportunities to apply their training in ways that benefit the organization and its internal processes, even in organizational climates that do not encourage it. Some employees will complete training and just use it as something to list on their resume/CV without attempting to use it in their current job. An unmotivated employee will only take training that is compulsory (required), and will never attempt to use it in their job.
Right Eric, the inner drive of employees is very important if the training has to be productive. Therefore, selecting the right people for right training is important. Unfortunately, mostly in public sector, training is also looked as a way for paid holidays, exposure and not directly related to the job involved in.
Not to forget that also in the public sector sometimes training is used to move people away from their jobs and when back they have no jobs! It is unfortunate sometimes to see a good practice is put for the wrong intentions and applications.
Comparatively public sector jobs are more secured than the private sector jobs. Often the case could be shift from present job when one is away from training. If you are deprived from the promotion management also apply peanut by sending abroad training. One thing is certain that the training is more manipulated for other reasons than enhancing productivity .