May 2008
They’re Just Not That Into It: Engaging the Disengaged Learner
Here is a classic scenario: You, the trainer or performance consultant, are having a great time. You are excited, motivated, energized, and fully committed to helping your clients learn. But, when the evaluations come back, it is obvious some of the learners just weren’t that into it. This is what Hudson found when they asked 1,674 workers what they thought of their last employer-provided training experience (Leonardi, 2006). Roughly two-thirds said it was a good (34%) or great (26%) use of their time, while the other third said it was only a fair (22%) or total waste (12%) of their time. Even more disconcerting, were the 44% of respondents who did not plan on participating in career-related education or training in the following year. At a time when the economy is faltering and organizations once again seek to trim a bulging employee development budget, such results, although limited in interpretation and usefulness, are troublesome, particularly when applied to the $109 billion spent on workplace learning last year.
The results serve as still another wake-up call for CEOs, chief learning officers, and performance consultants. Although we have embraced just-in-time knowledge delivery, active learning, e-learning, and outcomes-based education, there is still a primary ingredient missing from our equation. It is like forgetting to add baking powder to cookies—you have still got a cookie; but without a leavening agent, it comes up flat. So what is the missing ingredient? Is it accountability, transfer, activity, practice, or assessment? All are important. But there is one component that precludes all others; without it, learning fails every time. The leavening agent for successful learning is engagement. A disengaged learner has limited focus on material, has diminished cognitive focus, lacks goal orientation, and does not have persistence (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Kahn, 1990; Lydon & Zanna, 1990). Critical indicators of training success such as satisfaction, learning, and transfer depend on engagement.
A Definition of Engagement
The construct of self-engagement was derived from the Triangle Model of Responsibility (Schlenker, Britt, Pennington, Murphy, & Doherty, 1994) seen in Figure 1. Engagement is evident when an individual feels a sense of responsibility for and commitment to a performance domain so that performance matters to the individual (Britt, 1999, 2003a, 2003b). The Triangle Model of Responsibility specifies that individuals are most likely to feel personally engaged in an event when there are strong linkages among the three factors:
Figure 1. Triangle Model of Responsibility
Why Engagement Matters
When individuals are personally engaged in an activity, they have more stamina; they try harder when facing an obstacle; and they perform better (Brown & Leigh, 1996; Kahn, 1990; Lydon & Zanna, 1990). Engaged learners are also more likely to apply the learned concepts and transfer them to new situations (Fink, 2002). Engagement has implications for motivation and performance and the emotional consequences following the outcome of performance (Britt, 1999, 2003b). Personal engagement in an activity magnifies the emotional consequences of succeeding versus failing at a task because performance outcomes have greater implications for the individual’s identity. In other words, engagement makes people care about their performance; it makes them want to do their best.
Will You Learn with Me?
Let’s think about engagement in another sense. When we become engaged or betrothed and make a lifetime commitment to someone, first we have to get to know that person, our goals must gel, and we must feel a sense of responsibility. According to the Triangle of Responsibility, if we are to engage our learners, we must accomplish similar goals. Learner engagement will increase when:
Just Ask
Assuming you met the requirements of the Triangle of Responsibility and you think, this time, they’re really into it. How do you find out if you are correct? The answer, of course, is both simple and complex. You ask them. Britt, Thomas, and Dawson (2006) found that engagement could be accurately assessed by asking questions that relate to the Triangle of Responsibility. For example, you might ask trainees to respond to the following statements:
Commitment and responsibility are also important factors to assess (Britt, et al., 2006), so you might also ask:
This survey might be delivered in many ways—a brief poll shortly after training has been introduced, a small or large group discussion, or a paper-and-pencil or electronic survey.
If the results are good, you will know your learners are engaged, but if they are less positive than you had hoped, use the feedback as a starting point to identify gaps and brainstorm solutions either with your learners or with SMEs or colleagues. Remember, you cannot improve performance if your learners are disengaged, and you will not know for sure, unless you ask.
References
Britt, T.W. (1999). Engaging the self in the field: Testing the triangle model of responsibility. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 696-706.
Britt, T.W. (2003a). Aspects of identity predict engagement in work under adverse conditions. Self and Identity, 2, 31-45.
Britt, T.W. (2003b). Motivational and emotional consequences of self engagement: Dynamics in the 2000 presidential election. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 339-358.
Britt, T.W., Thomas, J.L., & Dawson, C.R. (2006). Self-engagement magnifies the relationship between qualitative overload and performance in a training setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 2100-2114.
Brown, S.P., & Leigh, T.W. (1996). A new look at psychological climate and its relationship to job involvement, effort, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81, 358-368.
Fink L.D. (2002). Beyond small groups: Harnessing the extraordinary power of learning teams. In L.K. Michaelsen, A.B. Knight, & L.D. Fink (Eds.), Team-based learning: A transformative use of small groups (pp. 3–25). Praeger: Westport, CT.
Kahn, W.A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at work. Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724.
Leonardi, N. (2006). Workplace training often falls short despite interest and investment. Retrieved February 1, 2008 from http://us.hudson.com/node.asp?kwd=01-18-06-workplace-training
Lydon, J.E., & Zanna, M.P. (1990). Commitment in the face of adversity: A value-affirmation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 1040-1047.
Schlenker, B.R., Britt, T.W., Pennington, J., Murphy, R., & Doherty, K. (1994). The triangle model of responsibility. Psychological Review, 101, 632-652.
Kathleen Iverson, PhD, is an associate professor of training and development at Roosevelt University in Chicago where she teaches graduate level courses in HPT, e-learning, and training evaluation. As president of High Fidelity Learning, Kathleen focuses on designing and delivering work-based learning solutions to organizations. She may be reached at kiverson@roosevelt.edu.
Would you like to advertise in this space? Contact marketing@ispi.org |
|||
TrendSpotters: Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process
Please help us welcome as our guest this month James A. Pershing, CPT, PhD, and the 2008 recipient of ISPI’s Honorary Life Member Award. Jim (pershin@indiana.edu) is a longtime and highly valued contributor to ISPI and to the field of performance improvement. He is a full professor at Indiana University in the School of Education, Department of Instructional Systems Technology, where he directs the graduate program in the special interest area of human performance technology (HPT) research. His students are currently helping Judy Hale, ISPI’s Director of Certification, conduct a survey of the CPT Standards. Jim is a past ISPI Board member, past editor of the Performance Improvement journal, and the editor of The Handbook of Human Performance Technology, 3rd edition. The Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process is Jim’s contribution to the TrendSpotters Open Toolkit.
Genesis of this Model
To place the Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process model in usable context, it is helpful to keep in mind the definition of HPT that Jim developed for use with students and clients: Human performance technology is the study and ethical practice of improving productivity in organizations by designing and developing effective interventions that are results-oriented, comprehensive, and systemic.
Jim developed the Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process model over 20 years of work with large international and U.S.-based companies while at Indiana University; and as his work evolves, he continues to refine the model.
Model Description
Readers familiar with other performance improvement models will recognize many elements of the Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process. It builds upon the work of colleagues as it addresses the familiar:
Figure 1. Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process.
©2005 James A. Pershing
Added attributes are:
We particularly appreciate that Strategic Alignment is shown as a decision point. It signals the performance consultant to stop the project if this vital element is not in evidence, and then to determine if there truly is no strategic value or if some critical information is missing.
In the Performance Analysis stage, showing the organization as a series of systems helps to focus both the performance consultant and the client on all of the functional areas of the organization that are potentially touched by any investigation of a performance improvement opportunity.
How to Use this Model
Jim recommends using the Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process model to show clients how we think and problem-solve to build successful performance improvement initiatives. The model is also useful at project launch to level-set with all team members as you are defining your project, building your plan, and assigning responsibilities. Jim presents and discusses this model in detail in the first chapter of The Handbook of Human Performance Technology, 3rd edition.
Success Story
The food service division of a large organization was converting from a subsidized entity to a cost center. In preparation for this transition, a new executive was brought in to lead and shape the required changes. One of his first acts was a comprehensive review of the group’s safety and absentee records. He found that accidents and sick time, medical expenses, and resulting performance and productivity issues were extensive. He asked for Jim’s help in analyzing for causes and recommending solutions to improve performance and productivity and reduce costs. Jim enlisted his students in the effort and launched a project using the Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process model as a guide.
An example of one significant safety improvement was as simple as analyzing the large number of cuts received by workers who used knives to slice up quantities of tomatoes for many hours every day. When one team member’s wife suggested that the knives be replaced with several $350 slicing/dicing machines, the number of hand cuts dropped to almost none. In addition, the machines sliced so uniformly that waste was reduced, and ultimately 20% fewer tomatoes were required. The cost savings in worker time off and trips to the doctor for hand cuts and a reduction in purchases by several hundreds of pounds of tomatoes per month more than paid for the machines and related training in their use. The ROI ratio was 12:1 in the first year after implementation.
With the many other investigations and improvements this project produced, there was an 80% reduction in overall injuries among all workers within six months. Jim reminds us that in many workplaces, safety as it affects performance is often overlooked as a contributor to performance problems. To this, we add our observation that Jim and his students were acting ethically when they chose the suggested slicing machine intervention as being best for their client.
Advice to Users of the Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process
This is a generic model you can modify to fit the climate and culture you work in. For inspiration about the versatility of models and modifying them for your needs, Jim suggests a past article from Performance Improvement, “Why Doers Do” by David Wile (Feb. 96, Vol. 35, #2, pp. 30-35). Remember, ISPI members have access to this article free of charge. Click here to login to PI.
Links to the Performance Technology Landscape
The Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process model supports these principles of performance technology:
| R | Focus on Results: Strategic alignment is required for a project to proceed |
| S | Take a System view: Analysis and evaluation are two sides of the same coin; analysis drives process |
| V | Add Value: The process of performance improvement adds value to the organization |
| P | Establish Partnerships: The alignment process driven by the model results in partnering |
| + | The Feasibility Analysis step ensures that the proposed solution(s) is best for the client |
Application Exercise
Use the Pershing Performance Analysis Improvement Process model for your next project to determine if you have the critical component of Strategic Alignment. When you arrive at the selection and recommendation of interventions or solutions, conduct a feasibility analysis before you discuss the results with your client.
TrendSpotters Open Toolkit
Visit the TOT to view a valuable array of tools and models that you can download for your use. In addition, you may browse all the past TrendSpotters interviews published since March 2002.
You may contact Carol Haig at carolhaig@earthlink.net or at http://home.mindspring.com/~carolhaig; and you may contact Roger Addison at roger@ispi.org.
Overcoming Why Most HPT Interventions Never Meet Their Promise
My mother used to warn me “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” She was, of course, right. And she would have also been correct if addressing why most of our efforts in strategic planning, needs assessment, evaluation, e-learning, culture change, human performance technology (HPT) competencies, and motivation for change all fall short.
Good intentions are not enough. What is usually missing is a front-loaded definition and justification of what is to be accomplished and how that accomplishment will add value to all stakeholders. For example, our research notes that most needs assessments, regardless of how well intentioned, are really “solutions assessments” that are trying to find out what interventions to use before defining the real gaps between current results and required results. In the same “good-intentions” vein, most strategic planning—defining, justifying, and setting organizational purposes that add value for all internal and external stakeholders—is really about finding the best ways and means to meet existing objectives (tactical planning).
Most adventures into HPT start with “how to do” something before defining and justifying what should be accomplished in the first place. Often initiatives fail to meet expectations simply because the implemented programs had the wrong or incomplete objectives: the solutions did not match the problems. Of course, how-to-do-it is vital, but it will only work if you are pursuing the right achievements.
This is why we wrote The Assessment Book: Applied Strategic Thinking and Performance Improvement Through Self-Assessments (2008, HRD Press). Based on the work and research of the authors, this menu of self-assessments has been developed, used, and revised using the principles of HPT. Each field-validated instrument is related to the ISPI’s 10 Standards of Performance Technology so that users can determine appropriateness to the field.
To set the stage for avoiding the “road to hell,” there are two introductory chapters that provide the rational for the assessment instruments, followed by the seven instruments:
The format of each instrument is based on the needs assessment concept of comparing “what is” with “what could or should be.” There are performance-related statements that describe each assessment area, and these are placed between the twin “what is” and “what should be” rating scales. Each individual using each instrument then ranks his or her perceptions for each performance-anchored statement on a five-point scale of the current situation as well as the preferred one. This format allows clear determination of where one’s organization is in terms of what should be done before selecting how to do it.
For each instrument, there is a discussion of what various patterns of gaps between “what is” and “what should be” signify and the implications for performance improvement suggested based on the pattern of responses.
The instruments are designed to be used by individuals, groups, sections, departments, or entire organizations. Online assessments are available through E-valuate-It (Australia) for three levels of feedback: (1) basic read-outs of the responses, (2) feedback on findings and implications from the instrument’s author, and (3) possible further intervention.
Is this the “road to heaven”? Probably not, but it will likely make you more successful at HPT.
Roger Kaufman, CPT, PhD, is professor emeritus, Florida State University and Director of Roger Kaufman & Associates and Distinguished Research Professor at the Sonora Institute of Technology (Mexico). He consults with public and private organizations in the U.S., Mexico, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Latin America, and Europe. Roger has been awarded ISPI’s top two honors: Member for Life and the Thomas F. Gilbert Award. He is a past ISPI president and a founding member and is the recipient of ASTD’s Distinguished Contribution to Workplace Learning and Performance recognition. Roger may be reached at rkaufman@nettally.com.
Would you like to advertise in this space? Contact marketing@ispi.org |
|||
From the Board
New York Conference from High in the Sky…
I am sitting here at 34,507 feet flying back from The Performance Improvement Conference in New York City, exhausted from four intense days, but too jazzed, by all the new ideas and people I have met, to sleep. Back home I get asked, “Is it worth it?” and for last seven years the answer has been an emphatic, “Yes!” I can catch up on my sleep later, but right now I want to reflect.
In registering for my first ISPI conference, I wondered what I would get from spending the time and money to go. It was during this first conference, I learned there is something you gain by being there that you cannot get from reading or researching on your own. You get to experience the information differently. You hear the latest ideas and real cases that go beyond static text. I found everyone was open to questions and the answers have proven invaluable in my professional practice. I also learned that in the process I developed professional relationships and true friendships that have lasted.
My subjective experiences have been borne out by our Society’s market research (it is in our genes to be data driven) that says first-time conference participants attend primarily for the new knowledge and learning and secondarily for the networking. The data tells us they keep coming back primarily for the networking and secondarily for the knowledge and learning. That has been my experience too.
It is bit like drinking from a fire hose. This year we kicked off with the NYC version of the Cracker Barrel, (“Apple Barrel”), a series of three rounds of rapid-fire 20-minute presentations on 40 topics. It is tough to choose and a great way to get a taste of lots of new ideas. The keynote presentation was a report from the field called “The Future of Learning.” It was a demonstration of how IBM created an electronic performance support system to develop newly hired sales representatives worldwide. They are doing it faster and more comprehensively and with better results. It is inspiring to see human performance technology applied on such a large scale.
Central to the learning side of the experience were the nearly 150 educational sessions. It is always tough to choose from among the 15 to 20 sessions scheduled at any give time. One of my favorites this year was Pier Steel’s session on “Unifying Temporal Motivation Theory.” A wonderful example of research-based content presented engagingly with every practical application to my work.
The Masters Series invites experienced masters in our field to present their latest thinking. This year’s session “Workplace Performance: Where People Meet Processes” by Brian Desautels and Jane Brenneman was a brilliant example of providing great tools that I will be using “back home.”
Over the years, I have been able to meet and befriend a lot of people. There is no better way to get to know someone than sharing the enthusiasm for a new idea. Everyone is so approachable; open to questions at the end of the sessions and willing to chat over coffee in the Community Center. Lest you think it was all so refined, the conference organizers planned a dinner cruise for everyone around Manhattan Island past the Statue of Liberty. As inspirational and high brow as that might be, the highlight for me was dancing the Macarena and forming an impromptu chorus line kick-stepping to Frank Sinatra’s “New York, New York.” The Rockettes have nothing to fear, but it was a lot of fun.
You get drawn in to wanting to participate and there are plenty of people willing to encourage you. It can be nerve wracking to create a session and present in front of our peers, but their encouragement and enthusiasm make it possible. This starts to move you from just a local practitioner to someone who is contributing to the field by sharing what you know. Check out the Invitation to Present for the 2009 Conference in Orlando if you are curious.
You quickly get sense of ownership and a passion to contribute. Fortunately, there are all kinds of volunteer opportunities to write articles, moderate web discussions, and serve on committees and taskforces, so you can contribute at whatever level feels good. Our Society’s Volunteer Committee serves as a clearinghouse to connect your willingness to the needs of our organization. You may reach the Committee Chair Bobbie Allaire at bobbie3ryb@aol.com.
So as tired as I am, I am already planning for our 2009 conference in Orlando, Florida. Mark the dates in your calendar. Plant the seed in the minds of your leaders, staff, and co-workers that you plan to be there. Budget for it. Consider cost-saving options: share a room or take advantage of special promotions. Click here to find out more about THE Performance Improvement Conference 2009.
I will be home soon, but the things I have learned and the friendships I have made will last me a lifetime. I look forward to doing it all again next year. I hope to see you there.
Principles & Practices Rolls into Denver:
Reserve Your Seat Today!
Have you considered attending one of ISPI’s HPT Institutes? Before you answer, consider the following questions:
If you are struggling to answer, you must attend ISPI’s Principles and Practices of Performance Improvement Institute, a three-day educational program that will teach you the human performance technology (HPT) process and the application of performance consulting skills and tools to analyze a workplace performance problem, present solutions, and evaluate your results. From July 22–24, ISPI and our talented faculty will be in Denver, Colorado.
Attending this educational program will help optimize your organization’s investment in human capital. From day one, the knowledge gained is immediately applicable in the workplace and is designed to produce the highest return on investment for participating organizations.
Join us July 22–24, 2008, at the Embassy Suites Hotel in Denver, Colorado. For more information, visit www.ispi.org, or call us at 301.587.8570. Group registration discounts are available. Principles & Practices is also available onsite at your organization.
Embassy Suite Hotel
Denver–Aurora
4444 North Havana Street
Denver, CO 80239
303.375.0400
A special group rate of $143.00, plus tax for a king suite is available to ISPI guests until July 7, 2008. You must call the hotel directly to make your reservation. Group Code: ISPI.
Earn Graduate and Re-certification Credit!
 |
 |
 |
Three Opportunities to Support Your Profession and Participate in Building the Future
Improving Business Value Within IT
Fellow HPT leaders serving end users supporting IT business applications, I (Lory Lanese, Intel Corporation) invite you to be a member of a sub-team. I am currently the senior leader responsible for IT’s End User Training Organization and deliverables in support of their business application software. I am lead for a sub-team of industry in an international consortium of companies (Innovation Value Institute) working on improving business value within IT. My sub-team will be focused on creating an innovative maturity matrix framework for end user training. It is an opportunity for five to seven senior practitioners-leaders and ISPI members, working in business and industry, to participate and be involved with an industry effort. It is also a great opportunity to reach across disciplines and increase our network.
What IVI is developing is an industry standard for managing IT for business value and the IT capability maturity framework. The framework covers 36+ critical processes to run an IT organization. This includes maturity curves, assessment tools, practices, outcomes, and metrics to increase the maturity level of organizations along with illustrations of best practices. This contributed to industry thought leadership and shared experience with other leading companies. End user performance (learning) is one of those processes. The desired outcome will be to define the value proposition for end user performance through the learning process and to define the key practices and process from maturity evolution in levels:
Level |
Practice Evolution Status |
5 |
State-of-the-Art Breakthrough Practice |
4 |
Emerging Practice |
3 |
Industry Average |
2 |
Behind Industry Average |
1 |
Beginning |
For each level, the sub-team will define characteristics, key practices, outcomes, and metrics and then create an assessment to help companies assess what level they are at. These outcomes will be based on industry case studies, current research, and so forth.
If you are a senior leader in a corporation and interested in participating in this sub-team, please email me at lory.d.lanese@intel.com.
Entry-Level Instructional Designer Skills Survey
Members of Boise State University’s Department of Instructional and Performance Technology invite you to participate in a short survey. The purpose of this survey is to collect data from the training and development community to answer four important questions about expectations for entry-level instructional designers and developers:
The researchers expect your participation will benefit you in that universities may use the data arising from this survey to better tailor their instructional design programs to better serve the needs of similar organizations. You will also have the ability to ask the researchers for a report describing the findings and implications of this study. To participate in this important effort, please click here. Please submit your completed survey no later than Sunday, May 18.
Strategic Analysis of Global HPT Intervention Usage Survey
The Performance Improvement SiG at
Arizona
State
University
is conducting a strategic analysis of global HPT intervention usage and invites Management, Training, and Human Resource professionals to participate in this study by completing a brief, 35-item survey. Click here to access the survey which will take you approximately 15 minutes to complete. Your responses will be kept confidential and analyzed in the aggregate.
If you have any questions, you may contact Ram Vadivelu at vadivelu@asu.edu or Dr. James Klein and james.klein@asu.edu.
THE Performance Improvement Conference:
It Will Be Magic!
The experience of the gorgeous conference in New York still lingers (thank you so much, Ireta and team!), but even now preparations for the next annual conference are in full swing. We just hugged and said good-bye, yet in a blink of an eye we will see each other again. Do not be fooled into thinking that Orlando is light years away—it really is not.
The conference in Orlando will take place April 19-22, on the grounds of Walt Disney World and already it seems to have a magical spirit. New and imaginative plans are taking shape!
The 2009 Conference Committee (that started its work back in 2007, by the way) is designing this conference as a networking event with many chances to connect and learn.
Evaluations of past conferences have shown attendees want to develop new business opportunities. It is also evident high performers not only need top-class knowledge, but also mentoring and the opportunity to learn by sharing ideas with other experts. The conference will address these needs by:
The conference will focus on building relationships among the members of our international society, university programs, and corporate and government workplaces. All attendees will find the Community Center a place to connect with old friends and colleagues and make new friends. Those who are new to ISPI conferences or who speak languages other than English will find advice about the program and translation services. In addition, presenters will make themselves available in the Community Center during the late afternoons so attendees can meet them and engage in discussions about the presentations of the day. If you would like to submit a proposal to be a presenter, you may click here to access the Invitation to Present.
So, as you can see, we have some imaginative ideas that will increase interactivity, and we are planning an interesting variety of new presentation formats for 2009.
The days of the conference pass so quickly and to enable us all to say good-bye in the most relaxed atmosphere ever, we will end the 2009 conference in the real world of Orlando at a wrap-up party with a big bang. Stay tuned!
SkillCast: Learning Without Leaving Your Desk
Are you finding it a challenge to keep up, professionally? Got a stack of books and articles you keep meaning to get to? Let ISPI provide that vital professional boost with our new SkillCast series. Designed to enhance the skills and knowledge of the performance improvement professional, each month ISPI will feature the latest thinking from the experts you rely on for your continued professional development. In just an hour a month, you’ll come away with new ideas, perspectives, and tools that you can put to work immediately. Put your focus on your own results, for a change, and join us online!
2008 Schedule of Events
For more information, or to register, visit www.ispi.org/webcasts.
Ending the Blame Game: Rethinking
“Transfer of Training”
Our mad dash to workplace performance, competence, and relevance requires the utilization of a comprehensive set of tools, including rapid instructional design, prototyping, blended learning, and levels of evaluation. We are walking examples of best practices! So why then is our old nemesis “transfer of training” still proffered as a blanket explanation when the results of a performance initiative are less than spectacular? The implication being that the training was inadequate. How should we respond to such challenges?
Consider the following scenario. An organization has implemented a new project management system. A considerable amount of time and money have been spent on both training (classroom-based, self-paced, and synchronous demonstrations) and knowledge management. Electronic evaluations were done on Levels 1 through 3 through the LMS. The Level 1 (Reaction) evaluations indicate that the learners were extremely satisfied. The Level 2 (Learning) evaluations indicate that the learners did extremely well on authentic assessment tasks built into the classroom-based and self-paced e-learning. They were able to complete all of the required performance tasks, under the proper conditions, at the right level of performance and within an agreed-upon amount of time. Unfortunately, the Level 3 (Behavior) evaluations show that many of the learners cannot use their newly acquired knowledge and skills on the job. There are multiple potential causes for this performance dilemma. Though it would be difficult to argue that there is not a transfer-of-training problem at play here, it is the adequacy of the explanation that must be challenged. Identifying a situation such as this as a “transfer-of-training problem” is a bit like stating that a broken-down truck, stuck in traffic, has a “mobility problem.” Referring to a transfer-of-training problem is descriptive, not explanative. The deeper questions to consider are: “Why is there a transfer problem?” “What are we going to do about it?” and “What is the story behind the numbers?” Let’s explore this problem further, focusing on the training component of the performance initiative.
A review of the learning plan demonstrates it is inadequate. There are two principal areas of concern: the evaluation section and the implementation/rollout section. The evaluation section did not clearly document which levels would be evaluated and how those levels would be evaluated. For there to be a positive Level 3 evaluation, plans must be set in place to ensure that learners have realistic and timely on-the-job, post-training assignments. There must not be too long a time between training and on-the-job assignments. Further, there needs to be a requirement that learners use their new skills on the job. The use of the new skills must be documented. The implementation/rollout section did not clearly document all communication requirements with stakeholders, which includes reciprocal communication between workplace learning professionals (WLPs) and the learners’ managers at the appropriate times. The expectation must be set that managers will actively participate in performance improvement initiatives. Both WLPs and managers are responsible for the success of the initiative. For our scenario, let’s assume we found there was no clear expectation set for managers to be involved following the training.
Now that we know the genesis of the Level 3 problems, how do we proceed? It is time for some performance triage. A brief set of workplace assignments can be quickly created that serve as a model for all managers. Managers can then modify the assignments as need be. Because we never start from scratch, these assignments can potentially come from managers who have actively participated in the rollout of the project management system, especially those who have participated in the creation or review of the training. Granted, there is a larger problem looming here: how did the learning plan get approved with such glaring errors? This larger problem has to do with process and procedure; it must be fixed, but fixing it will not immediately help solve the problem with the implementation of the new project management system.
My caution is that we not let “transfer-of-training problems” become another knee-jerk, blame-the-training cry. Junior instructional designers and trainers are especially vulnerable when confronted by this line of thinking. If the training has been designed well and the learners have done well in Level 2, perhaps scoring perfectly, then the training cannot get any better. Learners cannot score 110% on performance assessments! It is up to us as WLPs to communicate clearly and strongly during both the planning and implementation phases of learning initiatives. Doing so can help stop the blame game and allow us to focus on productively and collaboratively improving workplace performance.
Vince Cyboran, EdD, teaches full-time in the graduate program in training and development of Roosevelt University in Chicago. He has more than 20 years of experience in performance development work. As president of Higher Fidelity Learning, he continues to consult with for-profit and nonprofit organizations. Vince may be reached at vcyboran@roosevelt.edu.
An Organization IS its People:
7th ISPI Europe Conference
Join ISPI Europe in Galway, Ireland, October 30–November 1, 2008, to share your ideas, theories, observations, insights, case studies, testimonials, models, and approaches to supporting performance improvement efforts that really work and truly address both processes and people.
Due June 1, 2008, the Conference committee invites you to submit a proposal for its upcoming program focused on “An Organization IS its people: Balancing Structure and Process with Organization Culture. Ignore Either at Your Client's Risk.” For more information, visit: www.ispi.org/Euro2008.
CPT News from Around the World
ISPI’s 2008 Practice and Job Analysis
The data are in. Jim Pershing, CPT, PhD, and his students from Indiana University gave an overview of the findings at the CPT clinic held at our annual conference in New York City. Christopher David Brunclik and Douglas Craft, both with the U.S. Coast Guard, helped develop the survey. Serdar Abaci and Simone Symonette had the onerous task of putting the survey into Survey Monkey.
The online survey was sent to CPTs and non-CPTs in the U.S. and internationally. Table 1 shows how many received the survey and Table 2 shows the response rate.
| Totals | |
| CPTs USA | 726 |
| Non-CPTs USA | 2,856 |
| International CPTs | 60 |
| International non-CPTs | 428 |
| Total | 4,070 |
Table 1: Population Size
| Population Total = N |
Sample Total = N |
Response Rate | |
| Certified | 765 | 254 | 32.3% |
| Non-Certified | 3,284 | 305 | 9.0% |
Table 2: Response Rate
This month’s PerformanceXpress will focus on the questions related to who we are and where we work. Table 3 compares CPTs with non-CPTs in terms of gender and education.
| Gender | CPT | Non-CPT |
| Male (n=278) | 56.5% | 43.5% |
| Female (n=277) | 53.1% | 46.9% |
| Education | n=303 | n=254 |
| High school | 2.3% | 8% |
| Two-year Associate | 4.6% | 4.3% |
| Bachelor’s | 15.5% | 20.1% |
| Master’s | 56.1% | 58.7% |
| Doctorate | 21.5% | 16.1% |
Table 3: Gender and Education
Salary
U.S. members were asked about their salary. The median salary of the CPTs who completed the survey ranges between $101-$120K, and the median salary of non-CPTs ranges between $81-$100K.
Experience in the Field
Overall CPTs have a little more experience than non-CPTs as shown in Table 4.
| Years in Performance Improvement | CPT (n=304) |
Non-CPT (n=254) |
| Less than 5 | 2.3% | 11.4% |
| Between 5 and 10 | 10.9% | 24.4% |
| Between 11 and 15 | 22.6% | 21.7% |
| Between 16 and 20 | 20.7% | 14.6% |
| Between 21 and 25 | 16.1% | 10.2% |
| More than 25 | 28.0% | 17.7% |
Table 4: Time in the Field
Training
When asked where they had learned about human performance technology, 91.1% of the CPTs and 79.5% of the non-CPTs said from professional society conferences and workshops. Over 61% of both groups mentioned graduate course work. Also 52.8% of the CPTs and 46.5% of non-CPTs mentioned workshops sponsored by consulting firms.
Where We Work
Table 5 compares the employment situation of CPTs with non-CPTs.
| Current Employment Situation | CPT (n=304) |
Non-CPT (n=254) |
| Academic (full-time professor or teacher) | 2.0% | 3.5% |
| Consultant within a consulting firm | 8.2% | 8.7% |
| Independent consultant | 15.5% | 8.3% |
| Owner or principal of a consulting firm | 16.8% | 8.3% |
| Employee of a non-consulting firm | 20.1% | 26.4% |
| Manager with a non-consulting firm | 12.8% | 16.5% |
| Director of learning and performance function | 12.2% | 16.9% |
| Between positions | 0.3% | 1.6% |
| Retired | 2.0% | 0.8% |
| Others | 10.2% | 9.1% |
Table 5: Employment Situation
Next month’s issue will describe how frequently we apply the standards, and how important we think they are.
Special Work by a Future CPT
Prior to the presentation on the data from the 2008 Practice Analysis Study, Sven Blomberg, senior instructional designer with the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) and a candidate for the CPT designation, gave a talk about how his organization is applying the standards. He was introduced by Deborah Stone, CPT, of DLS, whose firm did the cognitive task analysis. The session ended with a presentation by Allison Rossett, CPT, PhD, who performed the feasibility analysis for POST that identified the barriers to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of training peace officers.
Your Story
If you have a story to tell that you think others would value, send it to judy@ispi.org.
New ISPI Career Center
The International Society for Performance Improvement’s new Career Center will revolutionize how you search for jobs and source candidates! Our new job board, powered by career services leader JobTarget, makes it easier than ever for ISPI members to enhance their careers and stay connected within the performance improvement community.
ISPI’s employment marketplace distinguishes itself from generalist job boards in a number of ways:
Below you will find the most recent job postings added to ISPI’s Career Center:
Resource Associates Corporation
Consultant/Trainer
Job Location: Nationwide, United States
Job Type: Contract
McCarthy Building Companies Inc.
Manager of Online Learning
Job Location: Saint Louis,
Missouri
Job Type: Full-Time
T-Mobile
Sr. Manager, Organization Development
Job Location: Bellevue,
Washington
Job Type: Full Time
T-Mobile
Sr. OD Consultant
Job Location: Bellevue,
Washington
Job Type: Full Time
e-Learning Staffing
Director of Analysis & Design
Job Location: Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania
Job Type: Full-Time
Access the ISPI Career Center to begin your search TODAY! Once there, you can immediately post your resume or a job opening. For additional information, please contact Francis George at ISPI at 301.587.8570, ext. 110.
Achieving Business Results Through Performance Improvement: Connecting People, Processes, and the Organization
ISPI is bringing our Fall Conference to Albuquerque, New Mexico, September 24–27, 2008. As you know, organizations exist to deliver value to stakeholders, and value is tied to productivity driven by efficient business processes and practices that contribute to overall results. Register today for our upcoming educational program and learn more about Achieving Business Results through Performance Improvement.
Walking on the Wild (Practical) Side: Connecting HPT Tools to Results!
Rodger Stotz, CPT, VP, Managing Consultant, Maritz Inc.
Learning the basics of HPT is foundational and important. However, it is their application and the organizational results achieved that are critical for each of us in the performance improvement profession. This presentation will walk you through a journey of discovery on applying HPT tools and models to real-life situations and their impact on organizational performance. So grab your backpack, and let's see where this trail takes us!
Who Attends
The Fall Conference is limited to 150 attendees who are typically seasoned performance professionals looking for skill-building sessions that highlight the transfer of knowledge to results. Attendees work in an assortment of industry sectors and job functions:
Visit our website for a complete schedule of the educational sessions and workshops being offered: www.ispi.org/fall2008.
Performance Marketplace
Performance Marketplace is a convenient way to exchange information of interest to the performance improvement community. Take a few moments each month to scan the listings for important new events, publications, services, and employment opportunities. To post information for our readers, contact ISPI Director of Marketing, Keith Pew at keithp@ispi.org or 301.587.8570.
Books Career Resources Conferences,
Seminars, and Workshops Learn the Principles & Practices of Performance Improvement, July 22-24, in Denver, CO. Take your organization to the next level. Register today! |
Learning/Training Tools Magazines,
Newsletters, and Journals Performance Improvement Quarterly is a peer-reviewed journal created to stimulate professional discussion in the field and to advance the discipline of HPT through literature reviews, experimental studies with a scholarly base, and case studies. Discounted to ISPI members. |
ISPI Membership: Join or Renew Today!
Are you working to improve workplace performance?
Then ISPI membership is your key to professional development through
education, certification, networking, and professional affinity programs.
If you are already a member, we thank you for your support. If you have
been considering membership or are about to renew, there is no better
time to join ISPI. To apply for membership or renew, simply click here.
Newsletter Submission Guidelines
ISPI is looking for Human Performance Technology (HPT) articles (approximately 500 words and not previously published) for PerformanceXpress that bridge the gap from research to practice (please, no product or service promotion is permitted). Below are a few examples of the article formats that can be used:
In addition to the article, please include a short bio (2–3 lines) and a contact email address. All submissions should be sent to april@ispi.org. Each article will be reviewed by one of ISPI’s on-staff HPT experts, and the author will be contacted if it is accepted for publication. If you have any further questions, please contact april@ispi.org.
About PerformanceXpress
Feel free to forward ISPI’s PerformanceXpress newsletter to your colleagues or anyone you think may benefit from the information. If you are reading someone else’s PerformanceXpress, send your complete contact information to april@ispi.org, and you will be added to the PerformanceXpress emailing list.
PerformanceXpress is an ISPI member benefit designed to build community, stimulate discussion, and keep you informed of the Society’s activities and events. This newsletter is published monthly and will be emailed to you at the beginning of each month.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact April Davis at april@ispi.org.
ISPI
1400 Spring Street, Suite 260
Silver Spring, MD 20910 USA
Phone: 301.587.8570
Fax: 301.587.8573
info@ispi.org
www.ispi.org
