At the Training Conference today, I presented Ingy Bakir's and my analysis of spending patterns on training between 1982 and 2008. As the title suggests, spending hasn't grown in the past 24 years after adjusting for inflation, although it did during some of the periods of the survey.
To see the original article in Training, visit
http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/nielsen/training_201002/index.php?startid=16#/18
The complete analysis is published in the third quarter 2010 issue of the peer-reviewed journal, Performance Improvement Quaraterly.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
Upcoming Presentations During the First Half of 2011
Following are the presentations that I am scheduled to give in the first half of 2011.
Highlighted presentations have a focus on business and management issues.
Slides for most of these presentations are typically available through the Concordia University repository about 10 working days after a presentation. Slides and papers for older presentations are currently available.
Highlighted presentations have a focus on business and management issues.
Slides for most of these presentations are typically available through the Concordia University repository about 10 working days after a presentation. Slides and papers for older presentations are currently available.
| Presentation | Event | Location | Date |
| Spending on Training Stuck in Neutral | Training 2011 | San Diego, California | February 5-6, 2011 |
| An Integrative Review of Literature on Perceptions of Training Held by Clients (with Colleen Bernard) | Academy of Human Resource Development Research Conference in the Americas | Schaumberg, Illinois | February 23-26, 2011 |
| Bridging Research and Practice: An Interim Report on 5 Pilot Projects | Academy of Human Resource Development Research Conference in the Americas | Schaumberg, Illinois | February 23-26, 2011 |
| Certification and the Branding of HRD | Academy of Human Resource Development Research Conference in the Americas | Schaumberg, Illinois | February 23-26, 2011 |
| Research-Validated Practices for Designing Effective e-Learning | The User Assistance Conference by WritersUA | Long Beach, California | March 13, 2011 |
| Eight Design Lessons We Can Learn from Museums | Learning Solutions Conference of the e-Learning Guild | Orlando, Florida | March 23, 2011 |
| Out of Range or Out of Touch: Verifying that the Development Staff Has Up-to-Date Skills | Learning Solutions Conference of the e-Learning Guild | Orlando, Florida | March 24, 2011 |
| Is Informal Learning Right for You? Ten Issues and Technologies to Consider | Learning Solutions Conference of the e-Learning Guild | Orlando, Florida | March 23, 2011 |
| The Incredible Shrinking e-Learning Program | Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists Annual Conference | Chicago, Illinois | April 12, 2011 |
| Profession Building: What the Peer-Reviewed Literature Tells Us (with Nancy Coppola) | Society for Technical Communication Annual Summit | Sacramento, California | May 15-18, 2011 |
| Narratives Over Numbers: Why Qualitative Research Is Essential (with Jamie Conklin, George Hayhoe, Hillary Hart, and Menno de Jong) | Society for Technical Communication Annual Summit | Sacramento, California | May 15-18, 2011 |
| Informal Learning and You: 10 Issues and Technologies to Consider | American Society for Training and Development International Conference and Exposition | Orlando, Florida | May 21, 2011 |
| Visions of TechComm 2.0 | Metro New York chapter of the Society for Technical Communication | New York, New York | June 16, 2011 |
Friday, February 4, 2011
Do You Really Know How to Give a Performance Review?
In Learning Before Reviewing published in CLO Magazine, Ladan Nikravan emphasizes the importance of training managers in the performance review process before they actually perform them.
But Nikravan notes--as is also noted in my academic and certificate courses--that a once-a-year conversation isn't really the best way to ensure that performance issues are addressed. Year-round conversations are important as well as clear performance metrics, which people can get on their own at any time they want the information.
Check out the article at http://www.clomedia.com/articles/view/4007# .
But Nikravan notes--as is also noted in my academic and certificate courses--that a once-a-year conversation isn't really the best way to ensure that performance issues are addressed. Year-round conversations are important as well as clear performance metrics, which people can get on their own at any time they want the information.
Check out the article at http://www.clomedia.com/articles/view/4007# .
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
The Difficult Conversation about Performance
Most workers abhor poor performance (at least, the poor performance of their co-workers). More significantly, so do most managers.
But tackling poor performance requires having difficult conversations about work standards, and many managers prefer to avoid it.
In How to... address poor performance, published in the UK magazine, People Management, author Kate Russell explains why "Avoiding difficult conversations about work standards can demotivate other staff."
Although many have written about the issue of confronting poor performance, what sets this article apart is that it addresses the issue from the perspective of the other employees.
At the least, these other employees might feel that the poor performer is being appraised against an easier set of performance criteria than they are.
At the most, these other employees depend on their poor-performing co-workers to accomplish their jobs, and the failure of the manager to confront the issue prevents these workers from performing at their best.
Russell offers specific suggestions for preparing for the conversation about performance, conducting it and, most importantly, following up with coaching and feedback.
When a worker starts a job, a lack of ongoing coaching and feedback has the potential to reinforce and solidify poor performance.
And if the manager has effectively raised the concern about performance with the poor-performing worker, that workers needs the coaching and feedback to re-align his or her efforts with the manager's.
Check out the article at: http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2010/11/how-to-address-poor-performance.htm?area=pm.
But tackling poor performance requires having difficult conversations about work standards, and many managers prefer to avoid it.
In How to... address poor performance, published in the UK magazine, People Management, author Kate Russell explains why "Avoiding difficult conversations about work standards can demotivate other staff."
Although many have written about the issue of confronting poor performance, what sets this article apart is that it addresses the issue from the perspective of the other employees.
At the least, these other employees might feel that the poor performer is being appraised against an easier set of performance criteria than they are.
At the most, these other employees depend on their poor-performing co-workers to accomplish their jobs, and the failure of the manager to confront the issue prevents these workers from performing at their best.
Russell offers specific suggestions for preparing for the conversation about performance, conducting it and, most importantly, following up with coaching and feedback.
When a worker starts a job, a lack of ongoing coaching and feedback has the potential to reinforce and solidify poor performance.
And if the manager has effectively raised the concern about performance with the poor-performing worker, that workers needs the coaching and feedback to re-align his or her efforts with the manager's.
Check out the article at: http://www.peoplemanagement.co.uk/pm/articles/2010/11/how-to-address-poor-performance.htm?area=pm.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Some Random Thoughts on the ROI of Training
It's been an interesting period for demonstrating returns on training programs. The Phillipses sent out a call for cases for the latest volume on demonstrating the Return-on-Investment in training.
Not long before that, CLO Magazine published a press release Organizations Fail to Tie Learning to Business Impact from consulting firm ESI International about its "global survey," which reveals that "more than half of organizations (50.7 percent) do not measure the business impact of their learning programs." (Visit http://clomedia.com/articles/view/3965 to see the entire press release.)
The reasons aren't surprising:
But the findings of ESI don't really differ from anyone else's results. In fact,
despite sustained interest in demonstrating a financial benefit to training, researchers repeatedly find that organizations rarely track the impact or return of training. In their 2003 article, Effectiveness of Training in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis of Design and Evaluation Features, researchers Winfred Arthur, Jr. (Texas A&M University), Winston Bennett, Jr, (Air Force Research Laboratory), Pamela S. Edens and Suzanne T. Bell (Texas A&M University) found that fewer than 10 percent of all training programs were evaluated for transfer of behavior or impact.
More recently, in their 2007 meta-analysis of 67 studies, A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes in Human Resource Management Review (volume 17, pages 251-273), researchers Phyllis Tharenou (University of South Australia), Alan Saks (University of Toronto), and Celia Moore (London Business School) found that "training is positively related to human resource outcomes and organizational performance but is only very weakly related to financial outcomes."
The work of researchers Lynnette Gillis and Allan Bailey, in their study of 12 cases for Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, sheds light on why, even organizations that thought their training had a positive return-on-investment, often could not demonstrate it. In some cases, the programs had no clear business objectives. In other cases, the programs went off-track somewhere between request and implementation.
Although I recognize that demonstrating ROI is a cultural practice in business and that, for some projects, doing so makes a good idea, based on my reading and my own research, I'm reaching the conclusion that, for everyday purposes, we probably need a much different way to demonstrate the value of training programs. The measures definitely need to be practical and easily obtained, as well as credible. Most efforts to demonstrate ROI fall short on at least 1 of these criteria.
But perhaps the focus of assessment needs to shift from assessing the course to assessing the function of training. That won't necessarily be easier; for example, many organizations include training expenses into a number of budget categories other than training, including conferences, professional development, even marketing and general operations. As a result, simply finding all of the funds invested in training is an exercise in forensic accounting.
But maybe individual training programs, in isolation, do not have a complete impact on workers. Maybe it's the combined effect of all of the training that does. Furthermore, the mere process of inventorying out all of the training that an organization has invested in might, on its own, provide many sponsors with compelling data that their investment has indeed paid off.
Not long before that, CLO Magazine published a press release Organizations Fail to Tie Learning to Business Impact from consulting firm ESI International about its "global survey," which reveals that "more than half of organizations (50.7 percent) do not measure the business impact of their learning programs." (Visit http://clomedia.com/articles/view/3965 to see the entire press release.)
The reasons aren't surprising:
a lack of resources and people qualified to track impact, as well as the need for a better understanding of measurement methodologies. Also, up to half of survey respondents in charge of learning program initiatives still do not believe measurement is a priority or a requirement.ESI clearly does. And as a third-party provider, they do need to demonstrate that their training programs and services provide value to clients.
But the findings of ESI don't really differ from anyone else's results. In fact,
despite sustained interest in demonstrating a financial benefit to training, researchers repeatedly find that organizations rarely track the impact or return of training. In their 2003 article, Effectiveness of Training in Organizations: A Meta-Analysis of Design and Evaluation Features, researchers Winfred Arthur, Jr. (Texas A&M University), Winston Bennett, Jr, (Air Force Research Laboratory), Pamela S. Edens and Suzanne T. Bell (Texas A&M University) found that fewer than 10 percent of all training programs were evaluated for transfer of behavior or impact.
More recently, in their 2007 meta-analysis of 67 studies, A review and critique of research on training and organizational-level outcomes in Human Resource Management Review (volume 17, pages 251-273), researchers Phyllis Tharenou (University of South Australia), Alan Saks (University of Toronto), and Celia Moore (London Business School) found that "training is positively related to human resource outcomes and organizational performance but is only very weakly related to financial outcomes."
The work of researchers Lynnette Gillis and Allan Bailey, in their study of 12 cases for Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, sheds light on why, even organizations that thought their training had a positive return-on-investment, often could not demonstrate it. In some cases, the programs had no clear business objectives. In other cases, the programs went off-track somewhere between request and implementation.
Although I recognize that demonstrating ROI is a cultural practice in business and that, for some projects, doing so makes a good idea, based on my reading and my own research, I'm reaching the conclusion that, for everyday purposes, we probably need a much different way to demonstrate the value of training programs. The measures definitely need to be practical and easily obtained, as well as credible. Most efforts to demonstrate ROI fall short on at least 1 of these criteria.
But perhaps the focus of assessment needs to shift from assessing the course to assessing the function of training. That won't necessarily be easier; for example, many organizations include training expenses into a number of budget categories other than training, including conferences, professional development, even marketing and general operations. As a result, simply finding all of the funds invested in training is an exercise in forensic accounting.
But maybe individual training programs, in isolation, do not have a complete impact on workers. Maybe it's the combined effect of all of the training that does. Furthermore, the mere process of inventorying out all of the training that an organization has invested in might, on its own, provide many sponsors with compelling data that their investment has indeed paid off.
Saturday, January 29, 2011
Upcoming Workshops
Following are the workshops that I am scheduled to teach in the first half of 2011.
Highlighted workshops have a management or business focus.
Workshops
Highlighted workshops have a management or business focus.
Workshops
| Workshop | Event | Location | Date |
| Advanced Design for e-Learning Certificate Program | Training 2011 | San Diego, California | February 5-6, 2011 |
| Writing Engaging eLearning Exercises and Test Questions | The User Assistance Conference by WritersUA | Long Beach, California | March 13, 2011 |
| The Incredible Shrinking e-Learning Program | Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychologists Annual Conference | Chicago, Illinois | April 12, 2011 |
| Technical Communication Manager Certificate Program | Society for Technical Communication Annual Summit | Sacramento, California | May 14-15, 2011 |
| Developing the Business Case for a Major Project | American Society for Training and Development International Conference and Exposition | Orlando, Florida | May 21, 2011 |
| Following Form: 13 Real-World Insights for Template-Based Writing | Metro New York chapter of the Society for Technical Communication | New York, New York | June 16, 2011 |
| Additional Half-Day Workshop | Metro New York chapter of the Society for Technical Communication | New York, New York | June 16, 2011 |
| Technical Communication Manager Certificate Program | Online Education by the Society for Technical Communication | Online | TBD |
Thursday, January 27, 2011
But Can the Team Be Friends?
Even if the boss manages to find a way to be caring, even close, without being friends, what types of relationships among the staff should the manager nurture? When You Don’t Want Employees to Agree by Katie Loehrke and published in CLO Magazine, suggests that:
Several situations cause this: people choosing not to state their opinions for fear of disrupting group harmony, for lack of better solutions than the one proposed, or for fear of earning a reputation as a troublemaker.
The result is groupthink; although it creates short-term peace, it can disrupt long-term performance because important issues that team members could have raised never made their way into the discussion.
Loehrke suggests a couple of causes for group think:
Preventing group think also involves effective facilitation techniques for meetings, which can bring diverse opinions to the fore in a non-threatening way.
To learn more, check out the article at http://clomedia.com/articles/view/when-you-don-t-want-employees-to-agree/.
Harmony in the workplace is a good thing, but often conflict is needed to keep a team efficient and innovative.Loehrke raises the concern that:
Most leaders are happy when a group reaches a consensus, but if a group arrives at a major decision without much discussion and with few variations in thought, consider what’s really going on. Did the team agree because their solution was truly the best option, or could one of these other sets of circumstances have occurred?In other words, people confuse a seeming consensus because they prefer it to the conflict and delays that might ensue in reaching an actual consensus.
Several situations cause this: people choosing not to state their opinions for fear of disrupting group harmony, for lack of better solutions than the one proposed, or for fear of earning a reputation as a troublemaker.
The result is groupthink; although it creates short-term peace, it can disrupt long-term performance because important issues that team members could have raised never made their way into the discussion.
Loehrke suggests a couple of causes for group think:
- Intimidation by one or a small group of people, which prevents some people from speaking up for fear of consequences. The dominator might be the manager but it might also result from team dynamics. Fixing that dynamic involves exploring how it came to be and how it operates.
- Hiring people who think alike because they have similar backgrounds and experiences. Certainly hiring a more diverse workforce can address some of that, but it's amazing how people from diverse backgrounds can, at the core, think alike. Hiring diversely also means hiring diverse personality types and opinions.
Preventing group think also involves effective facilitation techniques for meetings, which can bring diverse opinions to the fore in a non-threatening way.
To learn more, check out the article at http://clomedia.com/articles/view/when-you-don-t-want-employees-to-agree/.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)