Exploring the vacuum in training evaluation: is this a case of mission impossible?

Abstract

Purpose This paper presents research‐based insight on the challenges of evaluating training activities in today's complex organizational settings. Design/methodology/approach The research is taken from three case studies conducted in the New Zealand manufacturing sector, as well as sources of relevant literature. The commentary takes a critical‐realist perspective and challenges learning and development professionals to address the poor reputation of training evaluation. Findings Human resource practitioners recognise the importance of gaining feedback from learning events, but research reports question the thoroughness of evaluation processes, claiming they rarely happen to the satisfaction of management. Consequently, training budgets become an easy target during periods of rationalization. The problem centres on overcoming the complexity of defining a meaningful cause/effect relationship between the training and resultant benefit. This research discovered the presence of an “evaluation vacuum” and nine thematic areas requiring close attention. The paper offers reasons why the evaluation of training is becoming increasingly difficult. Research limitations The findings are contextual and may not fit all settings, but they offer a comparative account of training evaluation in both straightforward and complex learning environments. Practical implications The paper has real and practical implications for human resource professionals. Evaluation of training is not a trivial issue and organizations need to get much better at explaining the beneficial outcomes derived from investments in training. Originality/value This paper will be of value to human resource professionals and managers, assisting them to think differently about evaluating training. Innovative concepts such as the “evaluation vacuum” and the term “learning bleed” clarify priorities and contribute to a new perspective on evaluation.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 4 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.