Measuring Benefit of Employee Development Program

Submitted by Leslie Allan on January 14th, 2012

I see a lot of people struggling with how to measure the effectiveness of their training programs. And, of course, there is no “one-size-fits-all” answer as every training program is different. A question that was put to me recently was whether measuring the level of employee retention is a relevant measure of usefulness. To put the question another way, “Is measuring the proportion of employees that stay on with my employer an indicator of the worth of my training program?” This question is usually posed about developmental type programs; that is, programs for which the employer is not expecting to see an immediate boost in work performance.

My first response to this kind of question is that we need to be careful as there are many causes of people staying in their job, other than the developmental program they attended recently. These other influences include factors both external to the organization, such as the current demand for work in the region, and internal factors, such as salary level and group camaraderie. To use this kind of measure effectively, then, you will need to put serious thought into how you will separate out these other non-training influences.

A second aspect you will need to consider is whether you are retaining the right kind of people. The people who are leaving may be the most talented, looking for greener pastures in which to apply their new skills. You may be enticing the people who are the least likely to add value to your organization to stay. So, my advice here is that if you are going to use level of retention as a measuring stick, then only measure the retention of your high performers and those with the most potential.

Think also about whether this should be your primary measure. What, fundamentally, do you want from your programs? If it is to retain employees, then there are other more cost-effective means of getting your people to stay. You may want to improve productivity or efficiency or customer value as your primary goal. In that case, measuring retention may be a worthwhile secondary measure.

Training programs should be primarily targeting improved business results in the longer term. For help with identifying business benefits, I’ve been advocating the Kirkpatrick Four Level model for many years. Looking at the developmental aspects of employee programs, these in particular should be helping your people apply for and win internal promotions or coveted side-ways moves that benefit their career choices. Perhaps measuring the incidence of these moves may be more relevant to measuring retention alone.

In summary, consider what it is you really want to achieve with your development type programs -in concrete terms that will benefit your business. Supplement these measures with one or two specific development type measures that I’ve mentioned here and you are well on your way to rolling out meaningful and useful measures.

Do you need to measure the effectiveness of your training programs and report the results in financial or non-financial terms? Check out Leslie’s comprehensive Training Evaluation Toolkit. Whether you are a novice or experienced professional, this guide and toolkit will walk you through planning your evaluation exercise, collecting all relevant data, isolating non-training factors and then analyzing and reporting the results convincingly to your key stakeholders. The toolkit is packaged with a full set of reusable and customizable Microsoft Word forms and Excel calculation worksheets for all of your measurement and reporting needs. Find out more about Leslie’s Training Evaluation Toolkit and download the free introductory chapter today.

Tags: development, employee, trainer
Posted in Training | Comments (0)

Survey: Organizations Evaluating Coaching Programs Poorly

Submitted by Leslie Allan on November 30th, 2011

Workplace coaching is a powerful and flexible development tool that can be tailored for specific people and positions. It’s a great fit for organizations looking to raise the bar, especially after employee performance has plateaued under traditional management techniques.

As I reported in an earlier post on coaching in organizations, a survey of 250 UK companies by the Institute of Leadership and Management found that coaching practices are taking off. Ninety percent of respondents said coaching is or will be part of their organization’s development toolkits. An even larger number (95%) cited specific benefits to the coached individuals and the organization as a whole. The ILM study was conducted by telephone in February 2011 and covered a broad swath of industries.

There’s agreement on the benefits, which range from improvements in leadership and management skills to greater confidence and better preparation for a new role. However, the survey does raise red flags about how well organizations are measuring the effectiveness of their coaching programs.

Though 93% of the respondents reported that their organizations evaluate the outcomes of coaching, the methods they use are quite inconsistent. Only 40% evaluate specific “coaching interventions”. Less than half (49%) say coaching is measured against key performance indicators or business goals.

So how are companies assessing the worth of these programs? Seventy percent of respondents said evaluation is folded into internal regular employee appraisals. Forty percent say it is part of 360 degree evaluations.

Even if employee performance appraisals are done well (which often is not the case), they’re unlikely to capture the specific impact of coaching. In addition, such evaluations are designed to reveal the performance of an individual, not an initiative or development tool.

I’ve written many times about the need to objectively measure the impact of training programs so that we can confirm their value and implement continuous improvements. Coaching is no different. Goals must be identified and should be connected to business outcomes. Many of the techniques I’ve outlined in previous posts on measuring the effectiveness of training programs could be used.

Without hard numbers, it’s difficult to discern what works and what does not. This is key to the successful evolution of any development initiative. It’s not enough to say that coaching improved an employee’s motivation or attitude. If the goal is to boost the productivity of a sales manager, did the coaching result in an increase in orders generated by the employee?

Targeted evaluations will also demonstrate the value of coaching programs. Accounting departments are very much aware of the cost in terms of time and personnel when managers or other employees are told to coach their direct reports. If proponents of the program are unable to demonstrate a return on that investment, coaching will be viewed as an expendable expense when budgets get tight.

Of course, the budget swings both ways. If hard numbers demonstrate the value of coaching, senior management will be more likely to boost funding and expand the program to cover more employees.

Do you have a story to tell about how your organization measures the effectiveness of your coaching program? What did you learn? Please share your experiences here.

Tags: coach, development, survey
Posted in Research, Talent, Training | Comments (0)

Are Your Internal Coaches Doing More Harm than Good?

Submitted by Leslie Allan on November 22nd, 2011

In this series of blog posts, I’ve been reporting on and drawing lessons from the Institute of Leadership and Management’s (ILM) recent survey on coaching practices within organizations. Workplace coaching has never been more popular, with the survey finding that more than 90% of UK companies have used or plan to use coaches as part of their employee development toolkits. Nearly all respondents (95%) said coaching has been beneficial.

Given that many organizations are still suffering the effects of the GFC, the key question is: “How can businesses afford coaches in these tough times?” It’s simple: they are asking managers and other employees to do the job. In the ILM survey of 250 UK companies, 83% of respondents reported their companies use internal coaches. (Senior executives are still primarily coached by outsiders.)

Internal coaching is a good idea, but there are risks. Coaching can easily turn into therapy or instruction. Neither is conducive to the sort of development that professional coaching can deliver. What’s worse, an ill-trained or inept coach can cause major problems for an organization. Coaches also require continuous development. Their techniques need to be monitored, critiqued and measured for success.

How are companies finding internal coaches? The ILM survey reveals it’s often an informal process. Sometimes, the role comes with the job. A line manager, for instance, is expected to coach his direct reports. Other times, managers are just told to “have a go”, without any specific direction. Some organizations seek volunteers.

The survey also found varying approaches to developing coaching skills. More than a third of the respondents (34%) said their organizations do not offer any support for the development of internal coaches. The remainder cited a mixed bag of initiatives, including in-house training (20%), management development programs (11%) or train-the-trainer support (8%).

Coaching sessions can get highly emotional, and the coach needs to know what to do to prevent it from getting out of control. Properly trained coaches will have the skills, knowledge and attitude to handle any situation without losing sight of the goal of professional development. Ill-trained or inept coaches, on the other hand, will be lucky not to cause major damage.

The good news is that help is available. In May 2011, Standards Australia released the first set of comprehensive national coaching standards anywhere in the world. Coaching in Organizations answers many questions about selecting coaches and implementing and evaluating coaching programs. In addition to this resource, consider contacting your local or national coaching association for guidance on coaching skills and practices.

The ILM study suggests a lot more work is needed on finding, developing and maintaining internal coaches. Does your organization use insiders as coaches? How do you find candidates and train them? Please share your experiences here.

Tags: coach, development, survey
Posted in Research, Talent, Training | Comments (0)