Week 2 Discussion (Respond to the discussion then respond to 2 peers)

Week 2 Discussion

(Respond to the discussion then respond to 2 peers)

The Kirkpatrick Model of Evaluation has 4 distinct levels.  This week, you read about levels 3 and 4, Behavior and Results.  Obviously, all training and development programs want to reach Level 4 Results.  Do all training programs reach Level 4 and if so, how can you measure the results?  (Kind of a 2 for 1 Question….)

Respond to 2 people

peer 1

All training programs can reach level 4 and attempt to consider what the results look like, but many are not effective in doing so as a result of failing to first recognize level 3. Also, the results found may not be results at all, but a continuation of the same behaviors. If behaviors do not change based on the positive reaction and engagement (level 1) and the learning that does take place in effective training programs (level 2), how could behaviors ever change? If those behaviors do not change, how could results ever be quantified? Kirkpatrick makes it clear that we can all miss the mark if we first evaluate based on results of a training program before first considering the behavioral change. If level 3 is skipped within the four levels, it can be confusing to consider if a change in the results has actually occurred as a result of an investment in training itself. There is a reason the four levels are in the order they exist in, and they truly build upon each other. This statement is exactly what Kirpatrick means when he states the importance of being diligent within levels 1-3, which leads to level 4 being easy to evaluate. Kirkpatrick also speaks of the end in mind, which is a popular Covey principle that I grew up learning about from my parents. Before considering the results of something, you first need to determine what are the results you want? How do you want things to change in a positive direction? Then, create a training program that is based on the change you hope to foster in the participants. 

Regarding measuring the results within level 4, it depends on what is being measured. There are certain categories that can be easily gauged by considering the before and after effects of a training. For example, if the goal of a training is to improve the recruiting function at a company, consider the time it takes to fill open jobs requisitions before the training and then after the training. This will paint a picture of how effective the training was. However, this doesn’t always tell the entire story, as it could take the participants weeks, months or even a year to see if they first change their behaviors based on the training. Finding the data is not always difficult, it is connecting any changes in behavior and learning with the training itself. From reading these chapters so far, it makes me think if I have ever even attended a training session that focused on these four levels, and I am not sure I have!

I understand why this occurs, but I think there is an unfair pressure placed upon HR to provide immediate results from training, as it can take time and even follow up training to get participants to buy in. So, I am confident that all training evaluations can reach level 4, but are they providing results that align with a training program’s learning objectives? That is the question to consider.

Peer 2

This is a question that I sort of go back and fourth because I recognize both answers but I would say that not all training programs reach level 4. Level 4 is a product of level 1, 2, and 3, and according to Kirkpatrick (2007), if those three levels are executed properly, level 4 sort of falls into place. But what happens when one of those levels aren’t complete or done properly, especially level 3?  In the book, Kirkpatrick is very adamant about the importance of level 3. This level takes time to evaluate and is the most difficult and that is the main reason I believe not all programs reach level 4, because of failures during level 3. Level 3 is that turning point, where people will quit because of the amount of time that is required to truly identify if training was successful and knowledge was transferred. And then if they realize few people actually paid attention or retained the information, they could get frustrated and not want to continue. I lack patience sometimes and I’ll own up to it! It’s something I definitely work on but I am able to understand where companies might get frustrated with programs taking too long but if they aren’t willing to take the time then they shouldn’t have started the program in the first place. This is where cracks and inconsistencies start to form that will prevent the program from ever reaching level 4. During the program, while following Kirkpatrick’s model, companies can stop at any time to reevaluate especially if someone finds that something went wrong in levels 1, 2, or 3. Why continue to the next level if a flaw has been identified?

Unfortunately, I have not gone through any formal career training or programs since graduating from my undergrad, nor have I been on the end that creates and conducts training, so it’s hard to backup my answer with personal experience. My current company does not prioritize training programs and I want to say it’s because we are small with less than 100 employees and don’t 100% know how to yet, but it would help a lot. Although, if my company were to start training and development programs following Kirkpatrick’s Model of Evaluation, I don’t believe they would be successful because they have never used it before, and I know when I try something for the first time it doesn’t go exactly as planned. This is another reason why all training programs won’t reach level 4. Companies that are brand new to the model don’t fully understand or comprehend it and will encounter a lot of failures, and that’s not to say failing is a bad thing. In fact it’s the opposite! Failing in certain levels will only help companies to refine the programs where they will eventually get the hang of it and then effectively reach level 4. Honestly, everything in life (not just career) is all about trial and error!

For those training programs that do successfully reach level 4, it is important to first identify the primary goal and what kind of results the organization is wanting to measure before even completing level 1. Without first identifying those, there is no way the program will reach level 4. Do they want to measure some kind of numerical data, such as sales data or employee turnover, or do they want more of a behavioral or performance result, such as employee engagement? I think numbers can be involved either way, but like I said, it would depend on what the organization is wanting. I would say that measuring any sort of numerical data would be the easiest and anything other than numbers would be a little more difficult. Whatever measurement is taken should be planned way ahead.