This chapter basically begins by giving a description of the impact of training and development, and Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model for investigating impact of training and development. These are followed by motivation theories to impact of training and development, evaluation of training, and overview of the PMO of The Gambia.
Impact of Training and Development
Some studies have been carried out on the impact of training and development on organizations, including public service organizations, and it has been found that the operations of organizations in the business environment are very challenging as they have to struggle with the various changes that unexpectedly take place in the business environment (Tam, 2002). These changes in the external environment are not simple ones as they affect employees’ performance and the nature of services being offered to customers. In this context, it is required for organizations to be innovative as a source of competitive advantage in order to accommodate the rapid changes in the environment and changes embodied in complex products and processes (Panuwatwanich, Stewart, & Sherif, 2008). In addition to innovative technologies, the importance of the human resource can never be underestimated in the organization. Organizations that have well-planned training and development and properly selected and well-trained employees will enjoy positive gains over those whose ineffective selection and training methods have accumulated ineffective workers (Gammie, 1996). Laing (2009) added that the recognition of the importance of training in recent years has been heavily influenced by the intensification of competition and the relative success of organizations where investment in employee development is considerably emphasized.
Technological developments and organizational change have gradually led some organizations to the realization that success relies on the skills and abilities of their staff, and this means considerable and continuous investment in training and development.
The human resource department is the office wherein good decisions are expected to be made for employee and organizational performance. Despite the fact that their planning and other activities may also be affected by changes in the external environment, human resource managers are expected to help members of organizations see a connection between their learning and economic advancement and also help them through training to improve
performance (Zuzeviciute & Tereseviciene, 2010). Training needs assessment has to be conducted to select the right employees to undergo training in addition to making sure that training helps the organization achieve its objectives. Conducting needs assessment is fundamental to the success of a training programme. Organizations will often develop and implement training without first conducting needs assessment. These organizations run the risk of failure or ineffective training (Brown, 2002).
Transfer of training is an important aspect of training and considerable attention should be paid to it. Considerable evidence suggests that a substantial part of organizations’
investment in training is often wasted due to poor learning transfer. If there is no transfer of training on the job, then training is not effective. Experts suggest limited opportunity to apply new skills, insufficient feedback and trainees’ low morale, pressure to resist change, poor organizational climate, and lack of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as common reasons why the transfer process fails. Managers and trainers must take a more active role in supporting efforts to ensure successful transfer of training from classroom to workplace (Cheeseman, 1994).
The global economy in recent years has been very competitive largely due to the impact of globalization, and performance of employees can be negatively affected as a result. In this regard, it is very important for organizations to differentiate themselves by developing and improving the skills, knowledge, abilities, and motivation of their workforces. According to a recent industry report by the American Society for Training and Development (ASTD),that is, the world’s association dedicated to workplace learning and performance professionals, United States (U.S) organizations alone spend more than one hundred and twenty-six (126) billion dollars annually on employee training and development (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009).
Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation Model for Examining Impact of Training and Development
Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model is capable of reducing the risk associated with reaching biased conclusions when evaluating training and development programmes (Galloway, 2005). The model is the most universally known in performance evaluation. The reaction level evaluates trainees’ feelings related to the general arrangement of the training programme. The learning level aims at understanding trainees' comprehension of techniques, principles, and ideas. The behaviour level evaluates the extent of trainees’ behavioural
change as applied in the job context. The final level, being the results level focuses on influence of trainees' behaviours on training outcomes in terms of complaints reduction and quality and quantity of improvements registered (Ford, 2004).
Despite the use of the model for many years now, scholars have criticized it for its over-simplification of assessing training programmes and lack of consideration for the various intervening variables that might affect learning and transfer of training, and even suggesting that entirely different and better models of training and development evaluation are needed (Alliger, Tannenbaum, Bennett, Traver, & Shotland, 1997).They remarked that it focuses only on whether outcomes have been achieved or not. In an attempt to address these limitations, it has been suggested that the model should have been presented by Kirkpatrick (1998) as both planning and evaluating tool and should be reversed to re-organize the steps into a planning tool. Berger and Farber (1992) added that planned training identifies the organization’s potential trainees, what they will be trained to do, and how that training will be evaluated. Still, others claim that the model aims exclusively at training interventions. With a non-training intervention, Kirkpatrick's Level 2 is irrelevant. Some have argued that we can simply drop Level 2 whenever learning is not an intervention, but this presents another problem. Kirkpatrick's model implies a causal link among the four levels. According to his presentation of his model at the 2002 ASTD Convention, that is, the convention of the association dedicated to workplace learning and performance professionals, he argued that if participants react favourably to training, their learning should increase. If their learning increases, their job behaviour should change. If their behaviour changes, the organization should benefit from improved performance. If any of these linkages breaks down, that signifies a problem with the training implementation process (Ford, 2004).
Despite all the criticisms levelled against the model, it has been seen as offering flexibility to users as it allows them to align outcomes of training with other organizational tools such as company reports and greater commitment of employees. Although the model has been used for years in the evaluation of commercial training programmes, yet some scholars have suggested its use for research studies of academic programmes and have used it for the purpose. Others have also suggested a combination of the model with other professional development tools (Aluko, 2009). Taking a thorough analysis of the different levels, one would see that the Kirkpatrick’s model is highly relevant to training and development impact evaluation particularly levels two, three, and four which seek tangible evidence that learning and transfer of training have occurred (Galloway, 2005). This research
found the model to be very relevant in determining the impact of training and development on the administrative cadre of the PMO. In this regard, the research questions and interview questions to the trained administrative officers (trainees), heads of departments in the Ministries, and the training providers of PMO, who are also beneficiaries of the training and development, were adopted from Sahin (2006). The questions were adopted because Sahin (2006) conducted a similar exploratory research to inquire about the impact of an in-service teacher training and development programme at the Middle East Technical University and this study inquiring about the impact of training and development on the administrative cadre of PMO is almost like an extension of the former. To further enhance the validity of the adopted interview questions, they were developed with reference to the Kirkpatrick’s four-level model to examine the impact of training and development based on the outcomes.
Usage of Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Evaluation Model for Training and Development
Technology has not only altered the nature of organizational operations, but it has also changed the way training is delivered and, in turn, the way training and development, which are increasingly based on technology, must be evaluated (Garvey, 2006). Different models have been suggested for evaluating the impact of training programmes. The most distinct ones include the Hamblin’s model. This model entails five levels which are linked to each other by a cause and effect such that reaction leads to learning, learning leads to changes in job behaviour, job behaviour leads to changes in the organization, which eventually leads to the achievement of the ultimate goals (the ultimate value). The Brinkerhoff’s six-staged model entails six stages in a cycle in the formative training evaluation process. These stages are goal setting, which identifies the need for the training programme, programme design, programme implementation, immediate outcomes (focus on participants’ learning), usage outcomes (focus on whether participants are using what they learned from the training on the job), and the impact (the programme’s contributions to the organization). The Phillips’ model involves reaction, learning, behaviour, results, and return on investment. The CIPP’s model, on the other hand, focuses on context (needs analysis), inputs (resources for training), process (for feedback to the implementers) and product (outcomes). Galvin reported survey results indicating that ASTD, the association dedicated to workplace learning and performance
professionals, preferred the CIPP model to Kirkpatrick’s framework (Werner & DeSimone, 2009).
Until recently, Kirkpatrick’s four levels (reaction, learning, behaviour, and results) for evaluating training programmes has been the predominant model for traditional training and development, delivery, and learning evaluation (Galloway, 2005). The rationale for evaluating training programmes, as Kirkpatrick (1998) highlighted, is to:
1. justify the existence of the training provider in the way they endeavour to contribute to the achievement of the organization’s goals and objectives
2. decide whether a particular training programme should be continued or discontinued 3. seek information on how to improve the effectiveness of subsequent training
programmes
Sahin (2006) gave an overview of Kirkpatrick (1998)’s explanation of various evaluation studies of training programmes, which were conducted using the Kirkpatrick’s four-level evaluation model. A case study was summarized involving a study conducted in a hypothetical company called Monac. The article that was presented described the benefits and the importance of each level in the model. Another study he presented focused on the evaluation of results compared with figures for those who were trained and those who were not. The figures were converted into savings. Yet another study evaluates a training course on performance appraisal and coaching. The programme was a pilot programme, which was conducted at the Charlotte, North Carolina branch of the Kemper National Insurance Companies. The evaluation included all levels and the summary of results was provided to executives concerned with the programme. While presenting these and many other studies of evaluations, Kirkpatrick stated that it is important that an evaluator can borrow forms, designs, and techniques and adapt them to their own settings and organizations.
Another study examined the current training evaluation process and its challenges faced by Kuwaiti organizations. The study sample was five UK organizations recognized as best practice organizations in their training and development activities and 77 Kuwaiti organizations (40 government and 37 private organizations). Interviews and questionnaires were used. The study revealed according to responses from the majority of respondents that, both government and private sector organizations, only evaluate their training programmes occasionally. The most popular evaluation tools and technique used by government and
private sector organizations were questionnaires. The most common evaluation model used by Kuwaiti organizations is the Kirkpatrick’s model, while the most common level of evaluation for both government and private sector is reaction type (Al-Athari & Zairi, 2002).
A Meta-analysis study was conducted in which the relationship between training design and evaluation features and the effectiveness of training in organizations were examined. The research involved a study of a wide range of evaluation studies of training programmes to those which measured some aspect of training effectiveness. These studies were taken from published journals, books, conference papers and presentations as well as dissertations and theses from 1960 to 2000. The number of articles and papers that were reviewed and included in the Meta-analysis numbered six hundred and thirty-six (636) from nine computer data bases and a manual search of reference lists. The evaluation criteria used in the study were Reaction, Learning, Behaviour, and Results. The main aim of the study was to examine whether the effectiveness of training varied as a result of the evaluation criteria used. The researchers reported that the results revealed a medium to large effect size for organizational training effectiveness. The researchers also reported that the smallest number of data points occurred in the reaction level, which is surprising since literature shows that reaction level is the most widely, used evaluation type in training evaluation. However, they explained that the literature naturally does not include many studies that only involve reaction levels as a means to evaluate the effectiveness of training. In addition, it is also reported in the article that the training method used, the skill or task characteristic that is trained, and also the choice of evaluation criteria all play a role in the effectiveness of training programmes (Arthur, Bennett, Edens, & Bell, 2003).
Yet still, another study used the Kirkpatrick’s four levels to determine the impact of a management training programme. Hypotheses about the effects of internal and external locus of control and experiential learning styles were tested. Measures gathered at several points of time were compared to measures taken from a control group. Level four results were obtained by 360-degree feedback appraisal. Findings revealed that knowledge improved significantly.
Trained managers also demonstrated improved management behaviours and they scored higher on long-term results. Trained supervisors with an internal locus of control acquired more knowledge than trained supervisors with an external locus of control. However, internals did not differ significantly from externals on actual behaviour measures. The hypothesized relationship between learning style and training effectiveness was not supported.
The four levels method gave detailed insights in results. Attention should be paid to trainees'
locus of control. The study outlined the value of the four-level model of training evaluation and its contribution to the theory-based and evidence-based approach to the development of training and development programmes (Steensm & Groeneveld, 2010). In this regard, this research found the model to be very relevant and useful in assessing the impact of training and development on the administrative cadre of PMO. Therefore, the research questions and interview questions to the trained administrative officers, heads of departments in the Ministries, and the training providers of PMO, who are also beneficiaries of the training and development, were adopted from Sahin (2006). The interview questions were critically examined to ensure they were in line with the research questions, literature review, and research framework with reference to the four levels and further developed to enhance their validity and easy understanding by the participants.
Motivation Theories to Impact of Training and Development
It should be noted that for effective learning and transfer of training on the job to take place, trainees need to be motivated (Franke & Felfe, 2012). In a learning environment, motivation provides the incentive that propels trainees to be devoted to learning activities, and intrinsic motivation is a critical success factor of learning. The self-determination theory proposes that for one to be motivated and to function at optimal level, a set of psychological needs must be met. These needs are relatedness, competence, and autonomy. Relatedness relates to association and sense of belonging with others. This association and belonging provide the required emotional security that individuals need to actively explore and effectively deal with their worlds. The rationale behind the self-determination theory from a learning perspective is that a strong sense of relatedness better positions trainees to take on challenges, set positive goals, and establish high expectations that motivate them.
Furthermore, relatedness needs provide a motivating force for developing social regulations and adapting to interpersonal circumstances (Andrew & Martin, 2009).
The theory of reasoned action argued those trainees’ reactions to technology use tends to affect performance of users. The theory was proposed by Fishbein and Ajzen in 1975. The assumption is based on the rationale that a person’s decision to engage in a specific behaviour is based on his or her own will, which is determined by organized thoughts. The theory highlights that under a great extent an individual’s behaviour can be reasonably assessed
from his or her behavioural intention, which is decided by behavioural attitude and subjective norm. A person's attitude toward behaviour is determined by his or her salient beliefs about consequences of engaging in the behaviour in addition to evaluating those consequences. In the same vein, if trainees wilfully react favourably to training, their learning and transfer of training will likely take place (Chi, 2011).
Kirkpatrick (1998) also mentioned that for the trainees of a training programme to successfully adopt what they learn in a training programme on their jobs, it is vital to provide help, encouragement, and rewards. He mentioned intrinsic (inward feelings of satisfaction, pride and happiness) and extrinsic (coming from the outside such as praise, freedom, and recognition) rewards as being very important for learning and transfer of training to take place. Also, trainees who are ambitious, oriented towards learning, composed, and exuberant are proposed to be more trainable. All these help for training and development to impact positively not only on the trainees, but also on the organization (Kraiger, McLinden, &
Casper, 2004).
Impact of Training and Development for Organizations
It has been reported that less than five percent (5%) of all training and development programmes are assessed in relation to their financial gains to the particular organizations.
This issue changes for organizations that are highly recognized for their commitment to training and development activities. Nonetheless, many organizations recognized by American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), that is, the association dedicated to workplace learning and performance professionals, for their innovative training and development programmes determine the impact of training and development at some level of organizational performance. Productivity improvement, sales or revenue, and overall profitability are the organizational performance gains assessed in such organizations. On the whole, studies related to organizational-level impact of training and development is not as many as those on individual and team gains. It is not only that there has been relatively less empirical studies on organizational level training and development impact, but also all such conducted studies used self-report data and blurred causal link to training and development activities (Aguinis & Kraiger, 2009). However, there are many studies conducted in European countries that have recorded the impact of training and development on
organizational performance. One study was conducted to investigate the relationship between training and development and organizational performance by distributing questionnaires to four hundred and fifty-seven (457) organizations in the United Kingdom, Netherlands, Portugal, Finland, and Spain.
Results revealed that some training and development activities, including on-the-job training, were positively related to most aspects of performance. This study related
Results revealed that some training and development activities, including on-the-job training, were positively related to most aspects of performance. This study related