Activity and Impact Training
I. ACTIVITY TRAINING TO IMPACT TRAINING
A. Training for Activity
1. The HRD dept. is held accountable for its activity, not for its results
· There is no formal output of results so managers are left to decide weather it is beneficial or not.
2. The HRD staff is held accountable for design and delivery of training programs.
· In training for activity, trainers are held accountable for the number of programs they deliver or design.
· 80% of their time is activity so there's little time left to do needs assessment or research.
· Organizations that operate with the training for activity approach are looked at being non-productive or not working if not present in the classroom.
3. Skill Transfer from the classroom to the job is unknown or absent.
· With an evaluation the skills and knowledge regarding the job cannot be determined.
· HRD professionals using this method rarely consider strategies that would guarantee a high degree of skill transfer.
· On-the-job application is viewed as the responsibility for providing the participant and his or her boss. The HRD dept. is responsible for providing the participants with skills and knowledge. (where little to no transfer occurs)
4. There is a lack of clear alignment with business needs. · A lot of the courses are out of date. · Without a clear business need managers are sometimes reluctant and against training programs.
5. There is a lack of identified management responsibility for results. · No one person or group of people has accepted accountability for ensuring that the skills taught will be used on the job.
BUSINESS NEEDS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TRAINING APPORACH
One of the criticisms most commonly leveled and HRD professionals today is that they lack business savvy and do not speak the language of business. Business language requires HRD professionals to consider the return to the organization for dollars spend
A. Training for Activity
1. The HRD dept. is held accountable for its activity, not for its results
· There is no formal output of results so managers are left to decide weather it is beneficial or not.
2. The HRD staff is held accountable for design and delivery of training programs.
· In training for activity, trainers are held accountable for the number of programs they deliver or design.
· 80% of their time is activity so there's little time left to do needs assessment or research.
· Organizations that operate with the training for activity approach are looked at being non-productive or not working if not present in the classroom.
3. Skill Transfer from the classroom to the job is unknown or absent.
· With an evaluation the skills and knowledge regarding the job cannot be determined.
· HRD professionals using this method rarely consider strategies that would guarantee a high degree of skill transfer.
· On-the-job application is viewed as the responsibility for providing the participant and his or her boss. The HRD dept. is responsible for providing the participants with skills and knowledge. (where little to no transfer occurs)
4. There is a lack of clear alignment with business needs. · A lot of the courses are out of date. · Without a clear business need managers are sometimes reluctant and against training programs.
5. There is a lack of identified management responsibility for results. · No one person or group of people has accepted accountability for ensuring that the skills taught will be used on the job.
BUSINESS NEEDS FOR AN ALTERNATIVE TRAINING APPORACH
One of the criticisms most commonly leveled and HRD professionals today is that they lack business savvy and do not speak the language of business. Business language requires HRD professionals to consider the return to the organization for dollars spend