L&D Interventions – Flogging The Snail

L&D Interventions – Flogging The Snail

“What gets measured, gets managed.” - Peter Drucker

It took me a while to make my little one comprehend what I do professionally. None of the standard definitions or corporate mumbo-jumbo gets her eyes to light up. Enlightening a kid about the ways of the world is more about being matter-of-fact.

“Baby, I teach people who work.”

“Oh, you are a teacher! What subject do you teach?”

“How to behave properly at work. How to be a good leader.”

“Seriously? How to behave? What test do you give them?”

“Hmm. I observe if they are doing what is taught in class”

“No written test? How do you give them marks?”

The conversation went on uncomfortably until I used the parents’ trump card:

“Don’t bother too much. You will know better when you grow up.”

Though I skillfully escaped the probing questions of a primary schooler, as adults we often get stumped by simple questions. We have answers about the escape velocity of a rocket but fumble about scoring everyday human behavior.

This seemingly innocuous conversation snippet sufficiently highlights one of the most long-lasting and vexing employee development paradoxes. The challenges associated with empirically and effectively evaluating training intervention. Especially, behavioral – leadership skills. Every organization strategizes and rolls-out regular training calendars, however tracking effectiveness remains one of the biggest opportunity areas. It’s mostly limited to after-session ‘happy sheets’. Follow-up analyses are mostly sketchy. Effective ROI calculations remain the preserve of very few. Tracking behavioral skills is inherently difficult. The challenges are both structural as well as a lack of management enforcement/motivation.

However, today we are better off than a decade earlier to take a studied go at the seemingly impossible. Being agile differentiates today’s organizations vis-a-vis a decade earlier. A combination of mindset change, tweaks in strategy, and leveraging technology could give us a fair grip on tracking and analyzing the effectiveness of behavioral and leadership development interventions. ROIs could be anchored on better quality developmental data.

The encouraging news is that People Analytics Technologies PAT) could help remove many of the inherently foggy scenarios of capturing and analyzing workplace employee behavioral signatures. While few would have invested in PAT, workplace surveys show organizations are short of qualified professionals who could analyze these data from a workplace socio-psychological angle. Enlisting a qualified and skilled third-party vendor is the easy fix. Relying on in-house data analysts alone is akin to entrusting a cab driver to operate an earth mover. A third-party evaluation would ensure sound insights, impartiality, and escape from the inevitable ‘groupthink’. HR and Learning budgets need to incorporate this necessity. Else, we will continue running training sessions on auto-pilot mode and flogging the snail.

I’ve been into adult education/training/coaching for over two decades. On reflection, my resounding learning is: ‘intrinsic motivation’ makes all the difference. However, in reality, intrinsically motivated are a scarce minority. Most of workplace learning is enforced. Whatever is enforced, has to be robustly tracked. It’s mission-critical. Where relevant data isn’t available, sketchy, or biased, a third-party expert confirmation isn’t an option, but essential. This isn’t a question of awareness. We have been ignoring or postponing it all this while for various reasons including budget constraints. Not anymore. Employee surveys are repeatedly warning us about the iceberg ahead. Fog horns won’t work. A course correction alone is the option. Unless of course, one is on a wreck mission.

The time of quick after-session ‘happy sheets’ and sketchy and inconsistent skill application tracking are over. The new learnings/reinforcements, unless practiced repeatedly and applied consistently, seldom become behaviors/habits. Habit formation, the ultimate goal of training interventions, isn’t a quick process. Repeated skill application over a period (6-8 weeks) forms automatic behavior. Automatic behavior over time (8-12 months) forms habits.

Our expectations and success measures need to reflect ground realities and should have a scientific orientation. Quick wins often disappear quickly too.

The intervention effectiveness strategy should focus on regular and extended tracking of employee skill/behavior applications. Passing knowledge checks is a given. A well-strategized and regimented follow-on check of all training interventions is a must. Regular ‘push & check’ is a hard workplace reality. While the push for learning continues, regular checks need to be reinforced, regimented and institutionalized. We have better wherewithal today.

#learninganddevelopment #evaluation #effectiveness #leadershipdevelopment #hr #humanresources #employeeengagement #business #dataanalytics #peopleanalytics  

Author Profile: Writes about life. Consults on human potential and workplace HR. A keen observer of emerging trends and technologies that enhance workplace productivity. People Analytics and its effective and ethical usage at the workplace is the current preoccupation. Over 25 years of broad experience developing Leadership/Human Resources in large global organizations and start-ups. Enjoy analyzing and going beyond the hype. Admire the word ‘holism’.