One of the least talked about performance improvement techniques is the transfer of learning from the learning event to the work environment. Maybe because creating a good course (either online or instructor-led) is intensive and takes up all our mental energy. Or because we have less control over what happens in the workplace. Or simply because of the time pressures to “just get it done”. Experience has taught me that putting a great course out there will not ensure learning takes hold or impacts employee performance.
In a previous role, I created a infrastructure that involved multiple people in the learning transfer process. Employees’ work was primarily administrative in nature with accuracy and speed extremely important business goals. To start, before training programs were developed, I involved managers and supervisors in the selection of SME’s for both content input and validation of materials. This may sound obvious, but the existing training team were also experts in the content, so it was expected that the training folks would just develop the materials in isolation. I developed a validation process of the content that included multiple reviews by SMEs, myself, and ultimate sign off by the manager. Sign off on training materials was required prior to delivery of the class. No sign off – no class. You may think this is just good instructional design (which it is) but it is also setting the stage for the transfer of learning back on the job. It forced the organization to review the content and invest time in its development, hence its investment of learners. These actions ensured the involvement and time commitment in the course by management. They now had a personal investment in the class beyond the business goals.
I created briefings for managers, supervisors, and coaches to discuss their role in the learning process. Along with reviewing the material, we laid out the expectations of management during and after class. These were not just ‘telling’ sessions. I engaged them in the benefits of following up with learners and shared best practices on how to help learners after returning from class. If the course was to be delivered to all within the organization, I drafted communication emails for the senior leader to distribute, announcing the program and setting expectations of employees, such as attendance and performance standards. Supervisors were responsible to select employees appropriate for the training and enroll learners in each course, depending on their skill level and job responsibilities.
During the class, we agreed that learners would not be pulled from class for crises back on the floor. No emailing participants either. We set the expectation that time in the classroom was sacred for learning. An assessment was given to all participants and results shared with the supervisors.
After class, learners were assigned ‘coaches’, who were knowledgeable in the content. Using the end-of-class assessment, coaches were able to address specific areas of concern or confusion. Working on assignments selected by their supervisor, learners began to apply their new skills. Coaches responded to questions and set up specific time to review learner’s progress. Learner’s work was reviewed to ensure accuracy. Managers followed up to make sure everyone was acting as agreed upon. Only after a few months was speed assessed and measured. Again the coaches shared tips on gaining speed. Trainers were available for questions, but with the coach role, it resulted in a reduction of calls to the trainers. To ensure the instructional designers received feedback about the course, specific separate conversations were held to gather feedback on the course from learners, coaches, supervisor, and managers.
And as a way to keep us all honest, I wrote up these procedures, documenting this process and specific performance standards and published on our intranet. So as personnel moved on or someone forgot what they need to do, the process would continue. We also reviewed from time to time to assess if we needed to make changes.
These actions along with many other conversations created a culture of learning and added respect for training in this organization. By including as many people as possible in the process of assessing, creating, delivering and follow on actions, we enjoyed a mutual goal of increasing employee’s skills in a supportive yet serious environment. We reduced the number of re-trainings, learning became a positive experience (prior to a punitive experience), and ultimately increased the quality scores. These actions definitely took additional time and influence. I needed to convince a number of people to add to their already busy schedules and do things they may have thought were my job. But I worked with them every step of the way until it became second nature. The results were clearly justifiable and rewarding.
For additional information, read Transfer of Training by Mary Broad and John Newstorm (1992) or Beyond Transfer of Training by Mary Broad (2005), available through the Mass. ISPI Resource Library for free loan.
