Kirkpatrick’s Level 2 (K2) evaluates Learning. The typical
K2 analysis is a pre and post-test of student knowledge on the subject
matter. The difference between the pre-test students took before exposure to
the training and scores after the training becomes an objective measurement
of learning. Most corporate and educational training programs function at Kirkpatrick’s
Level 2. K2 assessments certify information transmission.
Level 3 is Transfer. Evaluating training at K3 attempts to answer
the question: Did the student acquire skills, knowledge, or attitudes that impact
their daily behavior? Can the information in the head transfer to performance?
Trainers consider this the Holy Grail for which they search, for training that
goes beyond cognition to implementation. However, measuring K3 is very difficult
because:
1. One may not know exactly what or how often to measure;
2. One doesn’t know when the transfer actually happens; and
3. The transfer usually takes place at some distance from the actual training
event.
Companies spend millions on sales training programs that employees
will hopefully like (K1) and in which they learn techniques, aphorisms and concepts
(K2). Most sales training produces a momentary spike in productivity, but after
4-5 weeks salespeople return to their old habits and the benefit of the training
is likely to disappear entirely.
Kirkpatrick’s Level 4 is a rarified event to be sure. K4
builds upon the successful attempt to quantify Level 3 and demonstrates verifiable
Results. These results are the reason the company implemented the training program
in the first place — increased production, improved quality, decreased
costs, reduced frequency of accidents, increased sales, higher profits, return
on investment, and many more outcomes. Indeed, the marketing language of every
training program promises results. However, K4 is very rarely quantified and
is seldom rigorously measured as a routine follow-up to training programs.
The author was part of an experiment to track and measure Transfer
and Results in sales training. Salespeople and sales managers committed to participate
in a classroom experience followed by an eight-week reporting program. Of 810
participants, 98% gave the classroom experience a strongly positive Level 1
evaluation. Pre- and post-training assessments showed that learning had indeed
occurred (K2). Results (K3) improved for about three weeks and then participation
dropped precipitously. Only six participants completed the entire eight week
program. What happened? In most cases, salespeople and managers were unable
to sustain the disciplines of the training program because the organization
had moved on to the next training program sometimes to justify next year’s
training budget and frequently as a result of the turnover of key individuals
in the company.
So, one reason Kirkpatrick’s Levels 3 and 4 are so difficult
to attain is that few companies are able to make long-term strategic commitments
that can survive reorganizations and the departure of key players.
Not only are specific results difficult to link directly to
training (because Level 3 is so elusive), but also the people who have paid
tens of thousands and millions of dollars for training programs want to avoid
the embarrassment of facing up to the fact that the expensive programs they
bought don’t really make much difference in the long run. Training vendors
are learning to leverage this psychological dimension by increasing the cost
of training to increase the cognitive dissonance of those on the hook for results.
Because CIO’s paid so much for the program, they will believe the program
has to work and believing is seeing.
ProficiencyMaster® is inexpensive, easy to use, scalable,
universally available on the internet, and indespensible for any organization
that wants to minimize errors and maximize the ROI of training.
