LEVERS FOR THE ORGANIZATION
The workplace can untrain people far more efficiently
than even the best training department can train people
(Brinkerhoff & Gill, 1994)
Lever 8
Opportunities for Application
Lever 9
Personal Transfer Capacity
Lever 10
Support from Supervisors
Lever 11
Support from Peers
Lever 12
Transfer Expectations in the Organization
In this section, you will learn
ā¢ Why immediate applications are crucial and how you can provide occasions for immediate application even in programs for high-potentials,
ā¢ How to best deal with transfer excuse number one: āWe didnāt have the timeā
ā¢ How you win over supervisors as transfer supporters,
ā¢ What Alcoholics Anonymous can teach us about transfer promotion,
ā¢ Whether your organization (unintentionally) signals that your transfer is completely irrelevant, and
ā¢ What you can do to set the levers of the organization to ātransfer effective.ā
LEVER 8 ā OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPLICATION
TWO PRACTICAL EXAMPLES
Six months ago, Manuel and Katharina attended a training entitled āPersuasive Presentations.ā Read what they have to say.
Manuel, 29, bank clerk
The āPersuasive Presentationsā training has made an incredible difference for me. During the training, I had lots of ideas for surprising intros, for devising a dramaturgy with turning points, highlights, and just the right touch of emotion. The theory and the groupās real-life experiences really fueled my creative powers. And the exercises and video analyses helped me to stop shifting my weight from one leg to the other during presentations, so I now make a much more confident impression. I really am comfortable with my presentations now and enjoy sharing my expertise with clients.
Katharina, 28, bank clerk
The āPersuasive Presentationsā training was really great. I can still remember that it is very important to convey not only convincing facts but also emotions. I had great ideas for surprising introductions, and I also practiced developing a presentation dramaturgy using a concrete example. We gave several presentations at the training and received feedback. In the end, I really managed to speak more slowly, which made me appear more confident and knowledgeable. Unfortunately, I havenāt done any more presentations since the training. Thatās still Manuelās job, and Iām a bit jealous of that ā but, oh well. I know weāve practiced really great stuff, but of course Iāve forgotten a lot. If I had to give a presentation now, Iād probably wind up talking too fast, like before. But if I ever get to be responsible for presentations at the bank, Iād definitely attend such a training again.
What do you think of the responses? Is there anything you find absurd?
Both Manuel and Katharina have succeeded in learning new things at the presentation training. Both acquired new skills but, six months later, only one of them still has a mastery of those skills. In Manuelās daily work, there is a regular need and plenty of opportunities for him to apply what he has learned. For Katharina, there are no such opportunities; so, after not having practiced her new skills for six months, she feels sheās forgotten a lot.
If we want transfer success ā if we want trainees to apply their newly learned skills at work ā they need to have opportunities for application. Trivial as this may sound, several studies have shown a lack of application opportunities to be the number-one transfer barrier.1 Trainees report things like, āThe training was awesome, but I wasnāt able to put things into practice because Iām not the person in charge of those things / because we donāt have the equipment / the money / the technology required / because Iād need tools that arenāt available at our company / because I canāt get sufficient information of the type I need / because the situations where I actually need to use what Iāve learned at the training are an exception rather than the rule.ā In short, a variety of obstacles prevents people from applying what they have learned and practiced and, whatās more, leads to demotivation among previously highly committed trainees.
So, to make transfer possible it is essential to provide the necessary resources (such as the budget, material, technology, tools, information, responsibility, application settings, and so on). Executives play a key role here. Granted, creating application opportunities is not easy, sometimes even impossible. But if that is the case, it calls for critical scrutiny. Does the given training really make sense for these people at this particular time? The question is necessary not only for the sake of transfer effectiveness, but also and in particular because trainees deserve to have their learning commitment rewarded with success experiences gained in practical application.
OPPORTUNITIES FOR APPLICATION ā EVERYDAY WORK IS FULL OF POSSIBILITIES
| Opportunities for application in a nutshell |
Trainees say | āItās possible for me to apply what Iāve learned to situations in my day-to-day work.ā |
Definition | Opportunities for application is the extent to which the necessary situations and resources for application are available in the workplace. |
Guiding question | How can you ensure that participants have the opportunity, permission, or assignment and the necessary resources to apply what they have learned? |
Thank goodness, no transfer
No possibility to apply new skills ā no transfer. Sounds logical, almost trivial, doesnāt it? Actually, itās not that simple in practice, as itās seldom a matter of opportunities being either āavailableā or ānot available.ā One example is junior leadership programs, where application opportunities are likely to exist but are not available immediately. Or think of pilots training for emergency situations ā those are application scenarios we all hope will never materialize. Or consider a comprehensive training for new employees. Often, they will be introduced to lots of business processes they will never need in their daily work, or at least not in depth ā which means that application opportunities exist, but not at the level of complexity people have learned and practiced in training. As these examples show, the possibilities for applying training content in practice have different dimensions: (1) time (ranging from immediately to much later), (2) frequency (ranging from constantly to very rarely or never), and (3) complexity (from superficial to full applicability of the content).2
The opportunities to apply new skills have three dimensions: time, frequency, and complexity.
The reasoning behind providing training even when the application possibilities are limited is fairly obvious: It is a matter of security, of being āreadyā for the (potential) challenges of the future. We create a pool of skills and abilities, which we can access immediately as needed (such as capable young leaders ready to take the helm, or airline pilots who can manage an emergency landing). Transfer success comes with the situation ā thatās the idea. But does it really work that way?
A pocket compendium of catchwords for HR developers and trainers
āYour HR development measures are merely reactive. All you do is fill qualification gaps.ā Thatās a kick in the gut for any HR developer. What everyone wants, of course, is (pro)active, strategic, future-oriented HR development. Not just overcoming past shortcomings but also preparing and equipping the organization to be more competitive in meeting future challenges. So far, so good. On the other hand, we hear and read disdainful comments about how inefficient it is to āstockpile knowledgeā and how important to ensure that staff training programs are ādemand-orientedā ā also referred to as ālearning on demandā or ājust-in-time learning.ā Having people learn exactly what they need right there and then in the workplace ā it certainly sounds logical. But somehow, a faint sense of contradiction sets in. OK, off-the-shelf and reactive are no-nos. Instead, development work is supposedly all about being just-in-time, strategic, future-oriented, and on-demand. The truth is, there are too many nice-sounding buzzwords (empty phrases?) out there, each of them making its particular perspective or school of thought seem superior. So, what are we really talking about here? Letās get more specific and take a closer look at some of the phenomena and facts.
You never forget how to ride a bike
Forgetting is a phenomenon we are all familiar with. Even if weāve acquired and actually mastered a skill, itās possible we somehow āloseā it. What exactly happens in our brain when we forget has yet to be fully investigated.3 One attempt at an explanation is that āmemory trailsā gradually fade and eventually disappear when not in use (the ātrace decayā theory) ā almost like a hiking trail that becomes overgrown over the years when nobody uses it. Another approach assumes that we forget because new or more recent impressions overlay the old ones (the āinterferenceā theory). However, there are some other empirically well-substantiated facts about forgetting that I donāt want to keep from you. Initially, forgetting happens very fast. Harry Bahrick, a professor at Ohio Wesleyan University, looked into the subject: He studied studentsā Spanish language skills and constructed a āforgetting curveā that spanned 50 years. As it turned out, those who had attended the course three years before remembered much less (40%) than those who had finished the course just recently. After three years, however, the c...