Stakeholders tend to look upon training with some scepticism, often questioning its effectiveness and return on investment. This cynicism stems from certain misconceptions about training, which this article seeks to dispel.

Myth 1: People learn primarily through training.

The truth is that learning is driven by the 10:20:70 rule, that 10% of learning happens during training, 20% through mentoring and managerial support, and 70% through an individual?s own effort. A training programme at best introduces participants to new concepts, thus raising their level of awareness. The success of the learning process hinges upon a conducive environment at the workplace, in the form of guidance, support and encouragement from a mentor and, more importantly, the individual?s own effort in consciously practising the skill or behaviour learnt during training. For instance, a programme on presentation skills would inform an individual that the success of a presentation depends on meticulous preparation, ample practice and an impactful delivery, along with a roadmap for achieving these. But does this make him an ace presenter? Of course not! The only way he can take his learning forward is by practising the concepts learnt during training, for which he needs to actively seek and seize opportunities. And the manager, in his role as a mentor, needs to not only help him identify such opportunities, but also consolidate his learning by actively providing post presentation feedback.

Myth 2: Training is a fix for under-performance.

Performance is a function of myriad factors like role clarity, goal identification, managerial support, reward and recognition, and a fair, accurate and regular performance feedback. The trick is in identifying the root cause of under-performance, and then implementing an appropriate intervention to address it. Since training can only bridge the gaps in skills and knowledge, it may not constitute a complete solution, but may well be a part of a larger solution, which could be built around other learning interventions and talent management processes. Take, for instance, the case of an individual who has underperformed on his goals and has a dialogue with his manager during his annual performance review. If the root cause of this under-performance is lack of skill or the manager?s lack of awareness or discomfort in giving feedback proactively, then this is a case for a training intervention, else the solution lies in assessing the individual?s motivation level and the robustness of the talent management process.

Myth 3: The responsibility for learning rests with the training department.

Learning hinges on a partnership between the training department, the individual and his manager. The training department is responsible for rolling out training interventions to address gaps in knowledge and skills. The responsibility for taking this learning forward rests with the individual and his manager, given that even the best training programme addresses only 10% of learning. The manager plays a critical role in engaging with the individual before the training to reiterate its importance, identifying opportunities for the individual to practise his learning, and formulating and tracking the action plan post training. The ultimate responsibility for learning, however, rests with the individual, as even the best training programme and an outstanding manager support cannot replace the individual?s own quest, enthusiasm and effort in taking his learning forward.

Myth 4: The role of senior management in the context of training is to provide a budget and give broad direction.

Absolutely! But an extremely critical, and often ignored, aspect of the senior management?s role is in providing visible sponsorship for training, stemming from a genuine belief in the efficacy of training in people development. This could be manifested in the form of an engagement with department heads on training performance, participation in orientation programmes, lending voice to training, reiterating the importance of implementing the learning garnered from training, sharing experiences and teaching certain modules. This would go a long way in enhancing the seriousness of training at all levels.

Myth 5: A positive participant feedback shows training effectiveness.

The participant reaction to training constitutes level 1 of the Kirkpatrick model for training evaluation. It represents how the participants have felt about the training or the learning experience, and is contingent upon its perceived relevance and applicability to work, their level of engagement, and comfort in terms of timings, breaks, seating arrangement and ambience. As a result, the feedback may be excellent even if the learning has not been high! A good measure of training effectiveness is represented by level 2 of the model, which assesses the extent of the participants? learning, and level 3, which assesses the extent of its application on the job. Level 4 measures the return on investment, essentially drawing a correlation between the training outcomes and business results. Measuring training effectiveness becomes difficult from level 1 to 4, as it does not easily lend itself to measurement. According to Daniel McMurrer?s research of the ASTD Benchmarking Forum companies, 95% of the companies measured training effectiveness at level 1, 37% at level 2, 13% at level 3 and only 3% at level 4.

Myth 6: Subject matter experts make successful trainers.

Let?s view this against the 55-38-7 rule of communication, which represents Prof Albert Mehrabian?s 1971 research. According to this, an individual?s ability to get a message across can be attributed 55% to his body language, 38% to his tone of voice, and 7% to the content. The underlying intent is not to undermine the importance of content, but to emphasise that despite subject knowledge, the speaker may not be able to reach out to the audience in the absence of an engaging delivery style. Extending this to training, subject knowledge is necessary but not sufficient for a successful training outcome. A subject matter expert needs to inculcate the intricacies of programme design and delivery, to be a successful trainer.

Myth 7: E-learning will replace classroom training.

The truth is that the two are likely to co-exist. E-learning is appropriate in the context of large and geographically distributed workforces, the need for standardisation and swift deployment of training, and Gen Y?s proclivity for technology, and is often used successfully for compliance and process training. But it is unlikely that e-learning can match the personal interaction with an instructor offered by classroom training, especially in the areas of soft skills and leadership. There are umpteen examples of organisations having subscribed to e-learning portals like SkillSoft, Intuition and Harvard ManagerMentor, only to have these underutilised by employees. The trick may be in blending e-learning with classroom training, leveraging e-learning for the more basic modules, and classroom training for advanced sessions. The trainer, in his new avatar as a facilitator, would then be responsible for looping the threads of the entire learning capsule.

In conclusion, a healthy scepticism around some of the accepted practices and beliefs constitutes the first step towards breaking the status quo, and needs to be an on-going process.

The author is a learning and development professional