Addressing resistance when implementing learning evaluation: Part 2

Evaders who don’t want to use training evaluation methods at all

In my last post, I talked about two categories of training evaluation evaders, those who have an aversion to evaluation and those who support the idea of learning evaluation, but want to do it their way. In this post, I’ll address the first group, those with an aversion to training evaluation altogether.

Where do you begin with this group? First, understand what’s driving their aversion to learning evaluation. Upon questioning, this group usually says at least one of three things:

1. “I’ve had to cut my budget and do more with less.”
2. “I’m worried that putting energy into evaluation will divert energy (and funds) from design, development and delivery. I’m barely meeting the business needs now, evaluation will only put me further behind.”
3. “Formal training evaluation processes aren’t necessary. My business partners attest to the value of my programs and that’s sufficient.”

Once you know where they stand, you then need a strategy to address each stated concern.  I’ve found three approaches that keep the dialogue going. They include education, assurance and a reality check.  

1. Education: For people who are evading evaluation due a fear of the cost, I start by talking about the benefits from evaluation and how (like quality), it pays for itself. I point to research from Laurie Bassi who demonstrated that superior and significantly higher financial returns accrue to organizations that consistently measure performance. I also cite case studies from organizations that used measurement data to not only improve their overall impact and effectiveness but also simultaneously drive down costs. Leaders know that during a period of economic pressure, measurement efforts become more, not less critical.
2. Assurances: For those who worry about diverting energy and funds from curriculum development, I say, don’t worry. You don’t have to start with a full-blown evaluation system or implement complex methodologies. Our mantra: crawl first, learn how to walk, then you’re ready for a full out run. To start, I recommend that learning leaders consistently ask their staff measurement oriented questions: “What does success look like for that solution? How will you demonstrate (in quantifiable terms) that your solution achieved your success metrics?” Such simple questions will produce change, and quickly. Your staff will start doing their homework and begin thinking about how to demonstrate the impact of their learning programs. In addition, you can allocate a small budget to measure your strategic, costly and visible programs. These programs are using precious resources; isn’t it important to know if they are yielding sufficient benefits to justify the cost? Once you start demonstrating the power of evaluation, you’ll be able to create more pull and find broader support to go from ‘crawl’ to ‘walk.’
3. A reality check: For those who feel that anecdotal evidence is sufficient, I say, “Don’t put too much stock in it.” Most anecdotal data comes from learners at the end of class still enthused by the learning experience. And sure, it’s great that they liked it. But what really matters is what they do with it. Research shows that learners only apply 30-50% of their learning back in the work place. Your anecdotal evidence will never capture that information. And once people are back on the job, without some method to determine what they are doing with the knowledge or if they are applying the skills, you’ll be hard pressed to show credible data to senior managers when they ask for this information (and they will ask). Get ahead of the curve, you won’t regret it. And then follow my advice for 1 and 2.

 In my next post, I finish up this discussion by providing some thoughts about addressing resistance from evaluation evaders who support evaluation, but want to do it their way.