Measuring the T&D Function: theoretical considerations and practical tips
“HRD Programs do not always work. And when they do work, they sometimes do not work as well as they should. A major tool for making HRD work better is evaluation.” Brinkerhoff R. Achieving Results from Training 1987 p3
“Think of organizational data as a wave, moving through space developing more and more potential explanations. If this wave meets up with another observer, it will collapse into one interpretation. All other potentialities are lost in that act of observation. An organization swimming in many interpretations can discuss, combine and build on them. The outcome has to be a much richer sense of what needs to be done. The more participants engage in this participative universe, the wiser we become.” (Margaret Wheatley in Weisbord M.R. and Jaroff S. Future Search 1995 p113) So valuing diversity + perspectivism + wisdom
“In any structured (organized) collectivity the ruling position belongs to such units as make their own situation opaque and their actions impenetrable for the outsiders while keeping them clear to themselves… most power is exercised by such units as manage to remain the sources of other units’ uncertainty.” (Michael Crozier in Baumann Z. Globalization the Human Consequences ch 2 1998) In other words, might we be able to see the fact that HRD is hard to measure as a strength / source of power?
Brinkerhoff’s Cycle (pp 15-16 Achieving Results from Training)
Goals for HRD worthwhile to the organization are established
Workable Program Design is Created
A program design is implemented and made to work
Recipients exit with SKA (Skills / Knowledge / Attitude) ; ‘enough’ HRD has taken place
Recipients use new SKA on job / in personal life & reactions to HRD are sustained
Usage of SKA benefits the org., organizational HRD needs are sufficiently diminished
A More Sophisticated model? Easterby-Smith M. Evaluating Management Development 2nd. Edition 1986 Evaluation as: Proving, Improving, Learning, Controlling [Ritual]
5 Key questions in Evaluation: Harrison Employee Development 1998 ch. 16
Why? As
above (Easterby-Smith’s foursome)
What? CIRO
(Context, Inputs, Reactions, Outcomes)
Who? Think: Objectivity, expertise, interpersonal skills, credibility, cost
When? Most
obv. Before + After also During +
After also Short term vs. Long Term
How? CIRO,
and depends on the first four
So, some advice:
Have answers to the 5 key questions above.
Have at least two types of measures. But remember Harrison p220 “‘Measure everything that matters’ is not a natural law, it is a dangerous obsession.”
Examples of the former:
1. People you can trust / people in the know
2. Informal Networks
3. Feedback sheets (maybe)
4.
Benchmark Have an idea of what ‘best practice’ is. Are you there? Do you need to be? More importantly, what do
others benchmark you against?
5. On the whole, I’d suggest (soft) qualitative data will probably be far more useful, after all people talk to each other, they don’t do sums.
6. Maybe do an HRD audit (described in Harrison ch. 12.)
Example of the latter:
1. Training days and trainer days, As in Rosemary Harrison pp 189-195
2. Total annual running cost (know how you arrived at it) AND have a figure showing how you recover that cost.
3. Training £ (TW$) per employee; days per employee; % of salary bill / % of turnover
4. KEEP A RECORD OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE AND WHEN – the more detailed and accurate this will be, the easier it will be for you to:
Justify a budget (and ask for more); Repeat successes; Learn from things which didn’t go so well; Establish HRD relevance to the organization; Build (nicely) a power base (by remembering who, what and where etc.); This must respect confidentiality and comply with the Data Protection Act and EU Data Protection Directive 1995.