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· A lot of the courses are out of date.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 on training. Billions of dollars are spent on training and development including but not limited to is company time, expense for the training, and loss production. For HRD professionals to be seen as business partners the training program must be beneficial to the business, solve problems, and open opportunities and they must all be clearly visible and understood by management. The end results for any training program must be articulated before it even begins. Take into consideration the cost per employee should be calculated management must see if their budget will allow it and they must determine if it is needed or what benefits it would have. Data should be provided to managers to help them see a picture that the anticipated outcome has been achieved.
II.THE TRAINING FOR IMPACT APPROACH
A.Training for activity should be avoided due to many disadvantages for the HRD professional as well as the client. In training for activity there are no clear-cut expectations or end results. Rather than waste money and time we should gear more towards the result-oriented training approach. You first consider or find the needs of the business, provide the skills and knowledge needed, assess the environment, pull management in on the entire process, and the end result will be helping the company achieve their goal. B.Training for Impact is applicable to any situation where training's purpose is to help the organization achieve its objective.
FORMULA: TRAINING FOR IMPACT Þ RESULT-ORIENTED TRAINING
LEARNING EXPERIENCE X WORK ENVIRONMENT = BUSINESS RESULTS (HRD training professional) (Client/Manager)
If the work environment doesn't support the learning experience then you will have a "0" percent in terms of on-the-job results. This could also happen vice versa.
In training for Impact approach the HRD professional in the beginning develops a relationship with top managers involved with the training project. This meeting will...