Focus Magazine - Fall 2017 - 11

GUEST EDITOR
Bill Dewey

Training Effectiveness vs.
Performance Management
Things become
murky when
someone who has
been 'qualified' to
perform fails to
perform.

ike many of you, I have been constantly
asked, how are we measuring the
eﬀectiveness of the training we are
providing? For the most part, I struggled to
provide an easy answer. And then it hit me,
training eﬀectiveness is easy to measure. I was
simply complicating the answer.
Let's say the purpose of training is to
prepare, teach, educate and inform what is
needed to successfully and consistently
complete a process/task. en, training
eﬀectiveness occurs when, upon completing
training, the individual has obtained the
knowledge (as measured through assessment),
and has demonstrated successful completion of
the task, procedure, process or work
instruction (measured through observation).
When both of these occur, the person is
"qualified" to perform and therefore the
training provided was eﬀective. We have to
"assume" the person will transfer or apply what
was learned back on the job.
However, if during training a person cannot
demonstrate knowledge and/or successful
completion, then immediate re-training is
required. If more than one person cannot
demonstrate knowledge and/or successful
completion (of the same process/task), a review
of the training deliverable is required.
Where things become murky is when
someone who has been "qualified" to perform,
fails to successfully perform. Oentimes the
knee-jerk reaction is they need to be re-trained.
e simple fact is re-training may not be the
issue or solution.
Let's go back to the definition of training
eﬀectiveness. If we agree training eﬀectiveness
occurs when someone has successfully
completed the training and has been deemed

"qualified," it would seem logical they don't
need to be re-trained.
Why? Because unless something in the
process changed without communication, this
person has successfully completed the tasks in
the past. is is now a performance
management issue.
So now we can delve deeper and ask the
question: What is the diﬀerence between
training eﬀectiveness and performance
management?
Performance: e accurate, consistent and
acceptable completion of the steps associated
with a process or task.
Performance management (audit): e
determination of whether an individual "is or is
not" performing the process/task in a
consistent and acceptable manner (not a
measure of training eﬀectiveness).
Performance action: Consequences if a
trained person fails to complete a process/task
in a consistent and acceptable manner (retraining may not be viable for someone who
has been trained but has stopped performing).
Ready for the bombshell? e vast majority
of people responsible for managing and/or
coaching others have never been fully trained
on the tasks their direct reports are
expected/required to complete. us the kneejerk reaction of "the training was ineﬀective."
Perhaps it is more of a question of how is
performance being managed.
So there you have it: A very simple view on
the diﬀerence between training eﬀectiveness
and performance management. While some
may not agree, the purpose of this article is to
simply look at things from a diﬀerent lens. Or
perhaps, I need re-training. ■

Bill Dewey is global R&D training director for Indivior. Email Bill at William.Dewey@Indivior.com.

FOCUS | Fall 2017 | www.L-TEN.org

http://www.L-TEN.org

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Focus Magazine - Fall 2017