TMGTraining
HotThe transfer gapSupervisor effectPractice fidelitySpacingVolunteers and conscriptsStructural problems
Latest Training is judged at the moment people feel best about it, and rarely after.
The quiet question

Everyone measures the room, almost nobody measures the return to work

The training industry has built an elaborate apparatus around the delivery of learning and a very thin one around whether any of it survives contact with a Tuesday morning. That imbalance is not accidental.

There is a moment at the end of a well run training session when the room feels different from how it felt at nine in the morning. People are talking to each other. Somebody has had an idea they want to try. The facilitator is being thanked. It is a genuinely pleasant moment, and it is also the moment at which the overwhelming majority of training evaluation takes place. A form is handed out, or a link is sent, and the participants record how they feel while they are still feeling it. The data collected at that point is real data about something, but the something is not whether the training will change any behaviour at work. It is a measure of the experience of being trained.

Three weeks later the picture is different and nobody is looking at it. The participant has returned to a workload that did not pause while they were away. The new approach they were shown requires a form that does not exist yet, or a conversation with a colleague who was not in the room, or simply more time on a first attempt than the old way takes on the hundredth. Under those conditions the old way wins, not because the person is lazy or the training was bad, but because the old way is available and the new one is not. The skill has not been lost. It has been shelved.

Continue reading

The Transfer Problem

Why measurement stops at the moment of highest optimism

The most common point of evaluation is chosen for convenience, and it happens to be the point where the answer is most flattering.

The thing everyone half knows and rarely says

A significant proportion of training produces no change at work, and the people involved usually sense it well before anybody writes it down.

What Predicts Transfer

Whether the new way is actually possible where they work

A great deal of what looks like resistance is simply a practice that cannot be performed in the environment people return to.

The strongest single factor sits outside the training room

What the person's supervisor does in the weeks afterwards shapes the outcome more than most decisions a designer can make.

Designing for the Return

Deliberate similarity between the room and the job

The closer the training environment resembles the working one, the less translation the learner has to do alone.

Plan the first use before anybody leaves the room

Spacing and a named first attempt do more for retention than a single immersive day, and both are usually the first things cut.

The Organisation's Part

The manager who never asks about it again

Absent follow up is not neutral. It is an active signal that the new practice is optional.

A workplace that cannot absorb a change should not have bought one

If there is no occasion to use a new skill, the failure was in the purchase, not in the learner.

About TMG Training

TMG Training is a publication about one question: whether training changes what people do after it finishes. That question is narrower than it sounds and considerably harder than the industry usually admits. Most of what is written about training concerns the hours themselves, the design of activities, the skill of the facilitator, the quality of the materials. Those things matter, but they matter instrumentally. The only outcome that justifies the expense is a difference in practice at work, weeks later, when nobody is watching and the original conditions have gone. We write about that interval, and about the arrangements that determine what happens in it.

The position taken here is deliberately unsentimental and deliberately not contemptuous. The people who commission, design and deliver training are, in our experience, conscientious and working inside constraints they did not set. The waste in this field is mostly structural: requests that were never diagnosed, audiences assembled by availability, methods that cannot be executed in the setting they were taught for, and supervisors who were told a date and nothing else. Blaming individuals for those outcomes is both unfair and useless. Describing them accurately is the only route to spending better, and accuracy sometimes requires saying that a particular piece of training was never going to work.

What we will not do is offer a formula, quote contested figures about waste, or pretend that the interval after training can be engineered into reliability. It cannot. What can be done is a set of small, cheap and largely unglamorous things: make practice resemble the real task, reduce the distance between the room and the job, name the first application before people leave, space the sessions, tell the supervisor, and ask a proper question a month later. None of that is novel and most of it is skipped. Our interest is in why it is skipped, and in what changes when it is not.