The Bell Curve Effect on Work Based Training.

How many training courses have you been on in your career that didn’t stick? And, by ‘stick’ I mean that you subsequently embedded and used the information or knowledge that you learnt. And, it made a difference to your working life over an extended period of time.

Research indicates that roughly 10 to 20% of work based training actually results in sustained changes to job performance. The Bell Curve Effect is one of the reasons why the results are so poor.

The model below describes three phases that describe how the Bell Curve Effect takes place.

The Knowledge Acquisition Phase

We should engage with any form of workplace training and development to learn. The Cambridge Dictionary simply describes learning as: The activity of obtaining knowledge. That knowledge might include new skills, it might be developing existing skills, either way training and development is about learning.

How we are trained has a direct correlation with what knowledge, and how much of it we leave with. E-learning, for example, is great at ticking the box of getting large volumes of people conveniently through mandatory training, but many people hate it. However, it’s advantages are that people can learn at their own pace and they can learn at times which suit them and the delivery is consistent.

E-learning does, however, require individual motivation. And it lacks the opportunity for participants to share experiences with others and explore concepts and ideas in more detail. Also it does not enable group activities and networking conversations in breaks, for example. I am not a fan of E-learning! To me it is homogeneous and impersonal. It does account for different learning styles very well, and for neurodivergent people, it can be like rowing a lead boat through a sea of Mars bars.

Classroom learning, or face to face learning, can be difficult for some people to access, due to work commitments, their personal circumstances or even their levels of social confidence. Neurodivergent people may also find classroom environments difficult to manage for a whole host of reasons.

Accounting for the subject matter and how the audience will learn best is a fundamental tenant of good course design. The skill and knowledge of the trainer is also a key factor in how much, and what knowledge people may walk away with.

I remember doing a first aid course years ago delivered by a super knowledgeable trainer, who unfortunately had a very unengaging style of delivery. It made it very hard to retain the information he was giving me, and I struggled to stay focussed during the sessions, even though they were face to face.

Initial Knowledge Application Phase

Once we are armed with our new knowledge we can do one of two things with it. We can either apply it, or we can simply ignore it and continue doing what we were doing before we gained it.

This maybe an oversimplified view, but in my experience of many years of delivering training, designing courses, evaluating courses and being trained by others, it often comes down to this binary choice.

Let’s assume that those in question decide to apply their knowledge. People are often full of enthusiasm; new knowledge can be exiting. It’s like a new car; you can’t wait to try it. If they have been trained well, they will have insights into how to apply the new knowledge to their work and their context. And given that learning starts to be applied, and that surely, was the whole point of the training in the first place.

The Real World Phase

This phase is where learning and the attempt to apply new knowledge meets the real world. Unfortunately new knowledge and the application of it can become a casualty of our daily work pressures. Workload, emails and the needs of the team and managers often come crashing in after a while and suppress the efforts that are being made to do things better, or differently. Knowledge application falls away as a result. It is entirely understandable that people will, when under pressure, default back to old behaviours, forget to do the new thing and, at best, make only small improvements.

How do we mitigate the Bell Curve Effect?

One may argue that it is impossible to fully eradicate the effect. That is in part due to the multiple factors involved in the learning process and how that learning is applied, or ‘the transfer of learning.’ However the points below give an outline of what can be done.

·       There must be a solid needs analysis to fully understand the requirements, outcomes and the learners before programme design starts.

·       Programme design must consider the application of learning as well as how the knowledge will be learned and imparted. For example, an end of course assessment only tells you that someone knows the topic. It doesn’t tell you if, when or how they might use it.

·       There needs to be a plan in place to enable people on the programme to stay current with their knowledge. How do they practice it? Where do they support from? and how do they know they are doing it right? Should all be considered.

Post training plans take time, require resources and can feel like a lot of work. However, the benefit that organisations gain from helping their people sustain knowledge, improve practice, stay current and actually apply what they have learnt is immeasurable to both the organisation and the individual.

Tools such as action learning sets, coaching, mentoring and opportunities for further training create sustainability and improve impact, creating better outcomes for all involved. Any training programme should involve some level of action planning to enable the consistent application of knowledge and provide support for further development. It can be an organisational plan, or a personal or team one. Either way it is not wasted time or effort and if you want to start to fully realise the return on investment from work based training, this is the place to start.

If you would like to discuss making your workplace training more effective get in touch with me at NHpeople@outlook.com